Hi Rae, Thanks for the reference for PMBok. I'll definitely check it out!
Best Wishes, Peter On Jun 25, 2008, at 5:00 AM, Rae Buerckner wrote: > Hi Peter, > > It was basically because there was always a core set of > functionality required, usually driven by standards and best > practices, additional functionality was added as needed. They > always had to provide a business case to us, which ultimately > defined their requirements after meetings/discussions/prototypes. > Please remember I am talking about a single federal government > department and not the other world which exists. > > The core functionality is a template if you like to call it that on > which to expand, some did expand, some did not, and some removed > functionality, like this for example www.ap6.gov.au > > We tried Agile and it didn't work, in fact it was a disaster, but I > think that may have been the assigned developer and not the client, > although the client was a challenge as well. > > Needs are different depending on the entity you are dealing with, > the one I am describing is an enterprise entity with many small > portfolios under it. So this model worked well. > > Please do have a look at PMBok, it does save pain, but does still > allow for Agile, the last 7 projects I produced for the department > were Agile. > > Cheers, > > R > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 6:49 PM, Peter Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > Because your clients always know upfront what they need before you > build it? There's a reason why Agile and lean have become much more > popular. I believe our goal as professional software engineers is to > lower the cost of change so we can explore the solution space with > our clients to provide the best possible solution within the time > available. That is almost never what is put in the specs - even with > details UI testing and prototyping. > > FWIW, I typically build and deploy 50-80 projects a year personally > using our in house software product line - even with plenty of > tweaking to help clients to go from what they asked for to what they > need. > > Best Wishes, > Peter > > On Jun 25, 2008, at 4:43 AM, Rae Buerckner wrote: > >> Hi Peter, >> >> Where's the project management, your first cut shouldn't be done >> until specifications are signed off, anything else is a change >> request and has a $ value. >> >> Save yourself time and your company $'s by at least exploring PMBok >> project management framework, otherwise you will always have a pain >> point. >> >> I worked in Fed Gov for a number of years, starting back in 04, we >> went from CF5 to MX, adopted the Mach-II framework, had a custom >> built (by us) totally awesome CMS, we pushed something like 13 >> websites fully functional fully dynamic out the door in 18 months. >> By the time I left there I had the ability to receive a CSS skin >> from a designer and have a fully dynamic, full functionality >> website ready for system test, UAT and deployment in 2 hours. >> >> OO... in particular MVC is the way to go with CF IMHO. >> >> Example website built in 2 hours is >> http://www.energyefficiencyopportunities.gov.au >> >> Because the sites were all built on a vanilla spec, it was plug and >> play, to get it through test quick I would highlight any changed >> functionality and that is all they would test, never had a fail. >> >> Cheers, >> >> R >> >> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 6:23 PM, Peter Bell >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I get there is a use case for passive code gen, but for me it's >> pretty limited. Assume only 20% of effort is building site >> (compared to maintenance) and 20% is building the first cut with >> 80% being making changes to original version, the most it can do is >> speed up 4% of the app. It isn't that much harder to do active code >> gen with rich metadata and allows you to be way more productive >> over the entire lifecycle. Just a matter of learning the principles >> and implementing the tooling. I usually find it's worth a day or >> two to create usable tooling for active, full lifecycle code gen >> rather than just using the wizards. >> >> Best Wishes, >> Peter >> >> On Jun 25, 2008, at 3:47 AM, Rae Buerckner wrote: >> >>> Scenario > You're building an enterprise application for an >>> existing database > You have Flex 3 front ends > ColdFusion 8 >>> backend! >>> >>> Install the ColdFusion extensions (free) for Flex Builder > Create >>> a new Flex project > Setup your CF setting in the Flex project > >>> enable RDS >>> >>> You can now browse to any database CF can see, right click on a >>> table > select generate CFC's! >>> >>> Seconds later you have all your getters & setters, all your CRUD >>> and all your actionscript. >>> >>> 20 or so lines of MXML later you have your GUI >>> >>> Time to market is always the winner! >>> >>> R >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Peter Bell >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> Personally I think the tooling in .net is the worst thing to >>> happen to >>> a good language. I like many of the language features in c#, but the >>> patterns that the tooling supports (code behind, page controllers) >>> just aren't as good as some of the best practice patterns in the >>> Java >>> world. Also, tooling will tend to generate code and the best code is >>> the code that NOBODY writes and that doesn't exist. That is where >>> frameworks come in by raising the level of abstraction. Right now >>> I'm >>> at a code gen conference with some of the Microsoft DSL tools team >>> including Steve Cook and I'll see how it has improved since last >>> year, >>> but I don't feel that on balance the Microsoft tooling does more >>> good >>> than harm for building large, scalable enterprise apps. >>> >>> Best Wishes, >>> Peter >>> >>> On Jun 25, 2008, at 2:37 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> >>> > >>> > I see you point that they (tools and frameworks) fill many of >>> the same >>> > needs. That is probably true of every language. >>> > >>> > But I disagree with the implication that a good tool is inherently >>> > better than a good framework. The choice is much more pragmatic >>> than >>> > that: which option offers the best features, smoothest learning >>> curve, >>> > etc. >>> > >>> > Visual Studio is the clear winner in the .NET space and >>> frameworks are >>> > big in ColdFusion. >>> > >>> > Personally I'm happy to get my hands dirty with plumbing - I'm >>> sure my >>> > understanding of application design and development is the >>> better for >>> > it. >>> > >>> > Blair >>> > >>> > On 6/25/08, Scott Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >> I'm sure that convo will yield a lot and provide little :) After >>> >> spending >>> >> some time look around for the past 5 years I've come to one sad >>> >> conclusion >>> >> and I'm sure it's not popular thinking.. Frameworks in coldfusion >>> >> exist to >>> >> compensate for lack of tooling, as if you have nothing to >>> automate >>> >> the >>> >> plumbing you now have to write the automation to then keep the >>> pieces >>> >> manageable to connect. >>> >> >>> >> to answer this riddle, Imagine for a moment if everyone >>> wrote .NET >>> >> with >>> >> notepad? as of today - where would it be tomorrow? >>> >> >>> >> ** >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 9:31 PM, Barry Beattie <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >> > >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> Barnes' thoughts (or similar) are being echoed over on the CFC >>> Dev >>> >>> list at the moment with people like Peter Bell, Sean Corfield, >>> Brian >>> >>> Kotek and our very own Mark Mandel, amongst others. >>> >>> >>> >>> http://groups.google.com/group/cfcdev/browse_thread/thread/2e90c0dbfecf5a59 >>> >>> " Doubts about Best Practices" >>> >>> >>> >>> why was fusebox invented in the firstplace? to push people into >>> >>> doing >>> >>> something more than writing spaghetti code. but you gotta have >>> an >>> >>> idea >>> >>> of how to fix it before you can fully appreciate the problem. >>> Hence >>> >>> the value of learning about design patterns. See the Donald >>> Rumsfeld >>> >>> quote at the bottom >>> >>> >>> >>> let me leave you with some quotes: >>> >>> >>> >>> ... two from Albert Einstein >>> >>> >>> >>> "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, >>> and more >>> >>> violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- >>> to >>> >>> move >>> >>> in the opposite direction." >>> >>> - and - >>> >>> "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not >>> simpler." >>> >>> >>> >>> ... one I got reminded from by (of all people) Gary Menzel >>> >>> >>> >>> "Code for maintainance" >>> >>> >>> >>> ... and Donald Rumsfeld really sums it up >>> >>> >>> >>> "As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we >>> >>> know. >>> >>> We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know >>> there >>> >>> are some things we do not know. >>> >>> But there are also unknown unknowns, The ones we don't know we >>> don't >>> >>> know." >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> Regards, >>> >> Scott Barnes >>> >> http://www.mossyblog.com >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> > >>> > > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
