You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@oodt.apache.org by Bruce Barkstrom <br...@gmail.com> on 2014/11/04 14:12:36 UTC
A Note on Software Design to Make Maintenance Easier
I was working through some intricate programming yesterday and
observed that I should put in some input consistency checking
before turning a workflow over to the production
system. My guess is that in complex workflows, that kind of
automated checking would cut down on errors enough to be very
worthwhile.
Don't know how much of the OODT software does that kind of
checking, but it might be interesting to see if it would help.
Even better would be documentation of cases where it did.
This kind of work is like the help my Ada compiler provides
in detecting errors such as type inconsistencies and violations
of interface consistency. That kind of error checking really improves
my coding productivity. I've even gotten in the habit of building
exception handling right into my standard code construction and
testing work. Each module (i.e. subroutine) returns a Boolean
variable labelled 'OK' and a string called 'Err_Msg'. That makes it
easy to figure out where things have gone wrong, including diagnostic
notes on values of key parameters (sort of like "Err detected when x = 0
in routine `check input'. It seems like a bother sometimes during code
writing, but it saves a lot of time after development moves on and some
new error crops up in the previous code after you've forgotten the details.
Bruce B.
Re: A Note on Software Design to Make Maintenance Easier
Posted by Chris Mattmann <ch...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Mucho! :) Astronomy FTW!
------------------------
Chris Mattmann
chris.mattmann@gmail.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Barkstrom <br...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: <de...@oodt.apache.org>
Date: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 at 3:51 PM
To: <de...@oodt.apache.org>
Subject: Re: A Note on Software Design to Make Maintenance Easier
>Finally got around to the Sept. issue of IEEE Computer.
>Noticed your editing work. Nice job.
>
>Bruce B.
>
>On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) <
>chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Bruce, this is great.
>>
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
>> Chief Architect
>> Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398)
>> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
>> Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527
>> Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
>> WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department
>> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bruce Barkstrom <br...@gmail.com>
>> Reply-To: "dev@oodt.apache.org" <de...@oodt.apache.org>
>> Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2014 at 6:12 AM
>> To: "dev@oodt.apache.org" <de...@oodt.apache.org>
>> Subject: A Note on Software Design to Make Maintenance Easier
>>
>> >I was working through some intricate programming yesterday and
>> >observed that I should put in some input consistency checking
>> >before turning a workflow over to the production
>> >system. My guess is that in complex workflows, that kind of
>> >automated checking would cut down on errors enough to be very
>> >worthwhile.
>> >
>> >Don't know how much of the OODT software does that kind of
>> >checking, but it might be interesting to see if it would help.
>> >Even better would be documentation of cases where it did.
>> >
>> >This kind of work is like the help my Ada compiler provides
>> >in detecting errors such as type inconsistencies and violations
>> >of interface consistency. That kind of error checking really improves
>> >my coding productivity. I've even gotten in the habit of building
>> >exception handling right into my standard code construction and
>> >testing work. Each module (i.e. subroutine) returns a Boolean
>> >variable labelled 'OK' and a string called 'Err_Msg'. That makes it
>> >easy to figure out where things have gone wrong, including diagnostic
>> >notes on values of key parameters (sort of like "Err detected when x =
>>0
>> >in routine `check input'. It seems like a bother sometimes during code
>> >writing, but it saves a lot of time after development moves on and some
>> >new error crops up in the previous code after you've forgotten the
>> >details.
>> >
>> >Bruce B.
>>
>>
Re: A Note on Software Design to Make Maintenance Easier
Posted by Bruce Barkstrom <br...@gmail.com>.
Finally got around to the Sept. issue of IEEE Computer.
Noticed your editing work. Nice job.
Bruce B.
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) <
chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> Thanks Bruce, this is great.
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> Chief Architect
> Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398)
> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527
> Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
> WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department
> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Barkstrom <br...@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: "dev@oodt.apache.org" <de...@oodt.apache.org>
> Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2014 at 6:12 AM
> To: "dev@oodt.apache.org" <de...@oodt.apache.org>
> Subject: A Note on Software Design to Make Maintenance Easier
>
> >I was working through some intricate programming yesterday and
> >observed that I should put in some input consistency checking
> >before turning a workflow over to the production
> >system. My guess is that in complex workflows, that kind of
> >automated checking would cut down on errors enough to be very
> >worthwhile.
> >
> >Don't know how much of the OODT software does that kind of
> >checking, but it might be interesting to see if it would help.
> >Even better would be documentation of cases where it did.
> >
> >This kind of work is like the help my Ada compiler provides
> >in detecting errors such as type inconsistencies and violations
> >of interface consistency. That kind of error checking really improves
> >my coding productivity. I've even gotten in the habit of building
> >exception handling right into my standard code construction and
> >testing work. Each module (i.e. subroutine) returns a Boolean
> >variable labelled 'OK' and a string called 'Err_Msg'. That makes it
> >easy to figure out where things have gone wrong, including diagnostic
> >notes on values of key parameters (sort of like "Err detected when x = 0
> >in routine `check input'. It seems like a bother sometimes during code
> >writing, but it saves a lot of time after development moves on and some
> >new error crops up in the previous code after you've forgotten the
> >details.
> >
> >Bruce B.
>
>
Re: A Note on Software Design to Make Maintenance Easier
Posted by "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
Thanks Bruce, this is great.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Chief Architect
Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398)
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527
Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Barkstrom <br...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: "dev@oodt.apache.org" <de...@oodt.apache.org>
Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2014 at 6:12 AM
To: "dev@oodt.apache.org" <de...@oodt.apache.org>
Subject: A Note on Software Design to Make Maintenance Easier
>I was working through some intricate programming yesterday and
>observed that I should put in some input consistency checking
>before turning a workflow over to the production
>system. My guess is that in complex workflows, that kind of
>automated checking would cut down on errors enough to be very
>worthwhile.
>
>Don't know how much of the OODT software does that kind of
>checking, but it might be interesting to see if it would help.
>Even better would be documentation of cases where it did.
>
>This kind of work is like the help my Ada compiler provides
>in detecting errors such as type inconsistencies and violations
>of interface consistency. That kind of error checking really improves
>my coding productivity. I've even gotten in the habit of building
>exception handling right into my standard code construction and
>testing work. Each module (i.e. subroutine) returns a Boolean
>variable labelled 'OK' and a string called 'Err_Msg'. That makes it
>easy to figure out where things have gone wrong, including diagnostic
>notes on values of key parameters (sort of like "Err detected when x = 0
>in routine `check input'. It seems like a bother sometimes during code
>writing, but it saves a lot of time after development moves on and some
>new error crops up in the previous code after you've forgotten the
>details.
>
>Bruce B.