Slashdot Mirror
Java Tools For Extreme Programming
In recent years there has been a increased emphasis on Agile Software Development. The most prominent of these methodologies is probably Extreme Programming.
What sets Extreme Programming apart from most other Agile Technologies, in my opinion at least, is that it has provided practical, easy-to-use tools to support its way of working. Most of these tools (Ant, JUnit etc) are Open Source and freely available. However popular these tools have been with the Open Source and Extreme Programming communities, it has arguably been difficult to introduce them to traditional IT development environments. This has been primarily due to the problems of justifying spending time on 'playing' with something and the difficulties of retro-fitting new tools to an existing development environment (think projects of 150+ people which have been releasing for 5-10 years for some idea of the potential problems).
It's worth noting that when embarking on a new, large-scale project it's very difficult to find a book discussing the issues of controlled builds, integration and deployment in practical terms. The most valuable aspect of Java Tools for eXteme Programming is that it's alone in its market niche.
The book is mainly useful as (a) an introduction to the various building and continuous testing tools out there and (b) a tutorial to getting them setup and working on your computer. As the authors note, there's a critical period where the user must get some result after playing with the tool for a short period of time or just give it up as 'too difficult.'
From a technical standpoint the book is very readable, but it doesn't tackle any one subject in great depth. It certainly provides enough information to get you up and running, and also, perhaps more valuably, illustrates how to integrate the tools together. It's an excellent primer for those who want to use the tools but are unsure of how exactly to start.
What's covered? Here are the chapter headings:
- Introduction and Key Concepts
- Introduction to Extreme Programming
- J2EE Deployment Concepts
- Example applications
- Mastering the Tools
- Continuous integration with Ant
- Building Java Applications with Ant
- Building J2EE applications with Ant
- Unit testing with JUnit
- Testing Container Services with Cactus
- Functional Testing with HttpUnit
- Measuring Application Performance with JMeter
- Load Testing with JUnitPerf
- API and Tag Reference
- Ant Tag Reference
- Ant API Reference
- JUnit API Reference
- Cactus API Reference
- HttpUnit API Reference
If you use some of these tools already will you learn anything? Probably -- I personally have been using JUnit to test EJBs for almost nine months now but didn't know about JUnitPerf or Cactus.
Should you buy it? If you're new to the tools, then Yes. If you work in a professional but traditional IT shop, I'd buy one for the group (I have). It'd be particularly useful when dealing with management and proposing changes to working processes, or when trying to bring co-workers up to speed and sell them the benefits of agile ways of working.
You can visit the book's website at Wiley. You can purchase the Jave Tools For Extreme Programming from bn.com. Want to see your own review here? Just read the book review guidelines, then use Slashdot's handy submission form.
"Build early and often" is one of the continuous integration mantras, and CruiseControl helps out with that. By having a coninuous build cycle, you can catch errors literally within minutes of when they're committed to the source repository. CruiseControl will email you if builds don't work, and also has a nifty servlet to let you track builds on the web. It's definitely worth a look.
Personally, I learn programming concepts well when I have a real book instead of web research. Either I missed this book or it's new, because learning JUnit, Cactus, and Ant all at once on a single project from only web research is rather challenging.
This is going on my shopping list.
Last year, I actually had the opportunity to ask Kent Beck if he had any suggestions for adopting XP to large projects (200+ people across multiple geographic locations), and unfortunately, he wasn't too optimistic. He indicated that the largest projects he's tried XP on were 20 people or so.
Other issues we've had when considering adopting XP in our organization are that XP tends to assume that you will be developing for a single customer with a set of evolving - but consistent - requirements. In our reality, we have multiple customers, who want different things.
Finally, XP doesn't seem to offer any solution for testing GUIs, which make up a large part of our product.
So while I'm very excited by the promises of XP (and will likely buy this book), I think it is important to temper your enthusiasm with a healthy dose of reality, and consider that XP relies on some subtle preconditions in order to deliver on the promise of a smooth and successful development cycle.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
What does Ant (an extremely useful buildtool for Java) have to do with Extreme programming? Nothing! I can't really imagine why anyone would need a book on Ant (can't say much for the others) -- there's pretty self explanatory documentation here. Since extreme programming strikes me as a load of crap to begin with, this is all probably a good thing.
YOur right about the amazon reviews. What is it with these "reviews" that get posted here -- the table of contents for christ sakes? It seems like book reviews are just an excuse to post a affiliate link to a book store. For shame slashdot. For shame...
I am not a number! I am a man! And don't you
I am a development manager with a large (20+) team; I am gradually introducing some aspects of extreme programming into the organisation, and so far, it's working pretty well.
The concept of user stories is great for getting our multiple customers to get to grips with their requirements; the tactile nature of the cards allows the planning sessions to be participatory and inclusive, the customers understand the trade-offs and the developers get to understand what they're _really_ being asked to deliver.
Pair programming and continuous testing have produced decent results; the main problems we have are accomodating sickness and holidays into the project plan.
On the other hand, our organisation does insist on some of the more traditional aspects of development management - a formal "Project Manager" role, regular progress reports to the executive team, functional and technical specifications etc.
I don't see how you could realistically hope to convert an entire team to XP overnight. The gradual introduction of some of the basic concepts - esp. those which can be explained as "quality oriented" - is a lot more likely to succeed.
I've read the book, and it's okay; the editing could have been a lot tighter (there's page after page of code printed out which outlines the application to be tested, not the tests themselves, there is a huge chunk devoted to the documentation for the tools which is available online etc.), and it kinda drifts away from the point now and then. If you want to get up to speed with Ant, jUnit etc. it's worthwhile, but don't expect to become an XP xpert.
It's all very well in practice, but it will never work in theory.
Why should Software be any different ?
Because it is !
Lets see:
Houses, Bridges, planes = Tangible, concrete
Software = Intagible, computations
I'm just sick and tired of people thinking that only way to do Software is to try to fit it in models that are meant for something totally different.
Lets face it, Software Engineering is not (in most cases) like bridge engineering. Trying to build software like you build bridges just doesn't work.
Software is something totally unique.
please proff read !
Java did live up to the hype, but no on the desktop 'though. Java is very much alive on the server side. Client side java pretty much never existed on the big scale ('though there are some very good client side java programms). Applets were killed by old and incompatible implementations of the JVM (not only Microsofts, but others as well). The Problem is/was that most Browsers shipped with a Version 1.1 JDK, which is just plain old and outdated. Microsoft never even shipped anything more up to date. You can use plugins to use more up-to-date versions of Java, but that's quite some trouble. And most Applets are just used as a flash-replacement and for this it really isn't worth to download the Plugin.
The biggest reason for different source code for IE/Netscape is (IMHO) that IE's native Java support is frozen at V1.1.x. Most applets that I see on the web are coded for this level of Java and, generally speaking, run under Netscape....but since Netscape provides (I think) V1.3.x of Java you could definitely write a different version for V1.3 that has more features/whatever than the V1.1.x that you have to maintain for IE. Of course Sun released a Java plug in for IE to give it more up-to-date Java support....but you can't assume your customers all have it.
Having said all that, I think applets are the worst representative of Java usage. I write server-side Java and really like it. The server-side specs (JSP's, Servlets, J2EE) seem to be port across platforms quite well. When we deploy code on WebSphere (IBM's J2EE platform) it runs across Windows, Linux, AIX, Solaris,etc with no problems. I haven't tried porting EJB's between J2EE platforms but I have written Servlets & JSP's on one platform and moved them to another with no changes, although the deployment details (what goes where) may differ.
Extreme Programming has been discussed at /. before, and the links provided at the beginning of this review were useful, but the review itself falls short of mentioning how the authors integrate these tools with the extreme programming philosophy.
;P ).
Check me if I'm wrong, but from my initial readings, XP relies heavily on customer feedback, and short-term iterations serving to adjust the project plan "on-the-run" so to speak, which minimizes time loss incurred by the difficulty of making accurate long-term estimates in programming, and compensation made for fickle end users. While testing is a large part of XP, is only a part of XP. What does this book say about implementing XP on the whole? Anything? Is this just a book about tools you may use to test your software? Can I test my software if I don't use XP?
The most valuable aspect of Java Tools for eXt[r]eme Programming is that it's alone in its market niche.
Excuse me for being picky, but what is useful about that? Are you saying that this is good if you want generic text that has XP written on the cover, or what?
The links describing XP give it a nice once-over on how you can think about the process of getting release versions out the door [which users and managers like]. I haven't seen anything that deals with the aspects of applications design that span beyond iterative releases, namely, systems that are proven to assist in the overall application architecture, and systems that are proven effective for creating flexible and useable GUIs. If you have a crack team of programmers, XP will cushion the unavoidables [ software is hard to estimate, and users change their minds frequently ]. Of course, you still need competent minds at work on the overall architecture of your code, and that planning seems to be an afterthought in XP ( features first, architecture second, perhaps this is why managers like it
Also, for any large project, you are going to have developers who display special skill in certain areas, and some who display ineptitude in certain areas. Before you start saying, "well, just fire the inept", remember that firing and finding replacement talent isn't all its cracked up to be, and "failure to exhibit genius" isn't cause to send somebody packing (nor is it always wise). XP takes the stance that everybody should do everything, but oftentimes you'll find that some on your team just don't have it like the top dogs do. In many cases, you want an expert to code a critical segment and, while it'd be nice if they could teach the whole team their skills, in reality, that is not always possible. I believe in peer learning, but everybody do everything, well... excuse the pun but that sounds a little "extreme"
XP has good guidelines, but I have many questions about how to interpret those guidelines, and a text that puts XP on the cover should say something about them, IMHO. So you say this book is about tools for XP, not XP itself. Ok, then what tools does it discuss other than those used to test code? Are there any other tools? Are these tools only for use with XP?
I guess what I can take home with me is that if the buzzwords "Java" and "XP" are on your cover, than somebody will publish your book.
Yes. I have ex-coworkers who are in a very XP environment. Things they have learned include:
- XP is very tactical. You need someone at the strategic level guiding and leading.
- Productivity drops significantly after about 40 hours per week (they collect detailed statistics about defect rates showing this).
- Individual productivity appears to suffer, but the result of pair programming and short (two-week for them) iterations results in code that is easy to work on (read: good design) and very low on bugs (read: well written).
They've put a lot of support around their XP team to make XP effective, in the form of tools, processes, and people (roles). Without that, I suspect they would be disorganized and chaotic.
There's a time and a place for just about every methodology out there. XP is an effective approach to development as long as it's done in the right environment by people who understand (or can learn) how to make it work for them.
Lets face it, Software Engineering is not (in most cases) like bridge engineering. Trying to build software like you build bridges just doesn't work.
I think you're only right if you look at a special subset of software: those software projects where failure and loss are acceptable.
Read this article from the December '96 issue of Fast Company. It's about the the team that writes the software for the space shuttle's on-board computer systems.
Interesting stats: at the time the article was written, the previous 11 releases of the software had had a total of 17 bugs. Not each; total. In 400,000+ lines of code.
Great quote, from one of the team members: "If the software isn't perfect, some of the people we go to meetings with might die."
There's a big difference between computer programming and software engineering. Techniques like extreme programming may work well in a pure programming environment, in which the results of your work just don't matter all that much. So you software crashed; nobody got hurt, right? Just re-launch it, and remember to save often!
At the opposite end of the spectrum, though, software engineering is just like civil engineering, or mechanical engineering, or aerospace engineering. If you f*ck up, somebody may die.
Commercial software development is somewhere in between. If you don't have any discipline or oversight, your software will be so bad that your company will go out of business. On the other hand, if you institute military-grade processes, you'll never deliver a product in a reasonable time. So you have to compromise.
But people who say that software is totally different are just fooling themselves. In software, like everything else, there's good work and there's shoddy work. Putting a label on shoddy work and calling it a "technique" doesn't make it less shoddy; it's just gilding the lily.
Since this thread is turning into a discussion about Extreme Programming I thought I would throw in my experiences with it. I work on a web application which when I first joined the project was run very much "by the seat of its pants". The project was in its infancy and we were in constant contact with customers who had wildly verying ideas of what the finished product should be. At that time we were testing/building constantly with no documentation other than code comments. We were also taking requests right until the release. For these reasons I say we were doing Extreme Programming. Our customers loved us and we quickly made the project one of the top projects in a very large company. On a side note I have often wondered if Extreme Programming is a simply a justification for what programmers tend to do when left on their own. Well then our success bit us in the butt. The big wigs took notice and labled us "Mission Critical". Now we spend more time documenting the application then writting code. Any requirement a customer wants has to go through several levels of review, and they are never accepted just before a release. Management now "measures" quality by number of defects openned on a release. (Yes I too reject the whole notion of measuring a quality by the counting of ANYTHING). Releases now take longer, frustrate customers more, and have lowered the moral of the developers who now feel they are simply documentation monkeys. Yet Management insists the project is better than before. The moral of the story I have taken away from this experience is that even if extreme programming is the better method for a given project management will regect it. It results in more defects being found, more change which scares the hell out of management types, and finally code which isn't well documented so that management can't replace skilled help with code monkeys at a moments notice. You don't have to count beans to make coffee. However, management won't let you make coffee at all without knowing how many beans are in each cup.
XP is about realising what you are doing, and how. There are too many projects that claim to use a one step design-build-test, overall, but end up having version 1,2,3,4 ...
...
XP realises that
a) there will be feature creep,
b) you must test, retest, and test again,
c) it's really how most developers work
If you had to change a bridge because the river got wider, would you insist on using the same parts as before - regardless of how long the bridge needs to be now?
This isn't a flame, it's a standard old fashioned rebuttal.
Your point about pair programming is completely groundless.
Scenario 1 - no pair programming
Two bad programmers, bad code
One good programmer, one bad programmer, some bad code, some good code.
Scenario 2 - pair programming
Two bad programmers, bad code but any mistake either of them see will be removed, improving the quality of the code.
One good programmer, one bad programmer, code up to the standard of the good programmer, and the bad programmer learns, hopefully becoming better.
XP does not say 'don't design the overall system' - you are misrepresenting it. A look at this talks about the plan for each release. Sure, bad developers = bad unit tests, but bad developers = bad product, nothing will guard you against that. Nobody said 'Extreme Programming will mean you have no bad developers.'
thenerd.
The camels are coming. I'm in love.