极限编程(Extreme Programming)—实践

转载 2004年10月30日 13:42:00

极限编程(Extreme Programming)—实践

march-bird lucian yjf taopin wl jazz韩伟 nullgate Simon[AKA](转载自cutter.com)    2003年09月15日



  One thing to keep in mind is that XP practices are intended for use with small, co-located teams. They therefore tend toward minimalism, at least as far as artifacts other than code and test cases are concerned. The presentation of XP's practices have both positive and negative aspects. At one level, they sound like rules -- do this, don't do that. Beck explains that the practices are more like guidelines than rules, guidelines that are pliable depending on the situation. However, some, like the "40-hour week," can come off as a little preachy. Jeffries makes the point that the practices also interact, counterbalance, and reinforce each other, such that picking and choosing which to use and which to discard can be tricky.

  应记住的一件事情就是我们应倾向于在小型的, 局部的团队中运用XP。除了代码与测试用例外, 尽量减少有些的影响。XP的实践既有正面的表现,也有负面的。在某些方面看来,他们听起来就像一堆规则,要做这个,不要做那个。对此Beck解释道, 与规则相比, XP更像是指导方针,一个灵活的依赖于具体环境的开发方针。但是诸?quot;每周工作40小时"等看起来可能会感觉续续道道。Jeffries使得实践也会互相作用的,平衡,互相加强。以至于挑选使用的同丢弃的都是棘手的事情。
  The planning game. XP's planning approach mirrors that of most iterative RAD approaches to projects. Short, three-week cycles, frequent updates, splitting business and technical priorities, and assigning "stories" (a story defines a particular feature requirement and is displayed in a simple card format) all define XP's approach to planning.

  计划的制定:XP中关于制定计划的实现方法中可以反映出大多数迭代式RAD项目的特点。短期的,每三周为一个循环,频繁地更新,按优先级划分任务与技术, 分配stories(一个story定义了一个特殊的功能需求并以一种简单的方式记录在卡片上),所有的这些就是构成了XP中的计划。

  Small releases. "Every release should be as small as possible, containing the most valuable business requirements," states Beck. This mirrors two of Tom Gilb's principles of evolutionary delivery from his book Principles of Software Engineering Management: "All large projects are capable of being divided into many useful partial result steps," and "Evolutionary steps should be delivered on the principle of the juiciest one next."

  小版本:"每个版本应该尽可能的小,而且包含最有商业价值的需求",Beck如是说。这也反映了Tom Gilb在他的<软件工程管理原则>书中提到的关于渐进式发布的两点:"所有的大的项目都可以被分为局部的, 有用的小的步骤"以及"进化的步骤会传递到下一级。"

  Small releases provide the sense of accomplishment that is often missing in long projects as well as more frequent (and more relevant) feedback. However, a development team needs to also consider the difference between "release" and "releasable." The cost of each release -- installation, training, conversions -- needs to be factored into whether or not the product produced at the end of a cycle is actually released to the end user or is simply declared to be in a releasable state.

  小型版本的发布意味着具有在大型项目中经常缺少的频繁的反馈的实现.。 然而,一个开发小组当然需要考虑到"发布"同"可发布"的不同。无论是否是最终的版本发布还是一个简单的可发行版本的发布, 都需要付出安装,培训,转化等代价。

  Metaphor. XP's use of the terms "metaphor" and "story" take a little wearing in to become comfortable. However, both terms help make the technology more understandable in human terms, especially to clients. At one level, metaphor and architecture are synonyms -- they are both intended to provide a broad view of the project's goal. But architectures often get bogged down in symbols and connections. XP uses "metaphor" in an attempt to define an overall coherent theme to which both developers and business clients can relate. The metaphor describes the broad sweep of the project, while stories are used to describe individual features.


  Simple design. Simple design has two parts. One, design for the functionality that has been defined, not for potential future functionality. Two, create the best design that can deliver that functionality. In other words, don't guess about the future: create the best (simple) design you can today. "If you believe that the future is uncertain, and you believe that you can cheaply change your mind, then putting in functionality on speculation is crazy," writes Beck. "Put in what you need when you need it."

  In the early 1980s, I published an article in Datamation magazine titled "Synchronizing Data with Reality." The gist of the article was that data quality is a function of use, not capture and storage. Furthermore, I said that data that was not systematically used would rapidly go bad. Data quality is a function of systematic usage, not anticipatory design. Trying to anticipate what data we will need in the future only leads us to design for data that we will probably never use; even the data we did guess correctly on won't be correct anyway. XP's simple design approach mirrors the same concepts. As described later in this article, this doesn't mean that no anticipatory design ever happens; it does mean that the economics of anticipatory design changes dramatically.


  Refactoring. If I had to pick one thing that sets XP apart from other approaches, it would be refactoring -- the ongoing redesign of software to improve its responsiveness to change. RAD approaches have often been associated with little or no design; XP should be thought of as continuous design. In times of rapid, constant change, much more attention needs to be focused on refactoring. See the sections "Refactoring" and "Data Refactoring," below.


  Testing. XP is full of interesting twists that encourage one to think -- for example, how about "Test and then code"? I've worked with software companies and a few IT organizations in which programmer performance was measured on lines of code delivered and testing was measured on defects found -- neither side was motivated to reduce the number of defects prior to testing. XP uses two types of testing: unit and functional. However, the practice for unit testing involves developing the test for the feature prior to writing the code and further states that the tests should be automated. Once the code is written, it is immediately subjected to the test suite instant feedback.


  The most active discussion group on XP remains the Wiki exchange (XP is a piece of the overall discussion about patterns). One of the discussions centers around a lifecycle of Listen (requirements) Test Code Design. Listen closely to customers while gathering their requirements. Develop test cases. Code the objects (using pair programming). Design (or refactor) as more objects are added to the system. This seemingly convoluted lifecycle begins to make sense only in an environment in which change dominates.

  最活跃的XP讨论组仍然是Wiki exchange(XP是关于pattern总体讨论的一部分),其中的一个讨论围绕听取(需求)-> 测试 -> 代码 -> 设计的生命周期。贴近客户聆听并收集他们的需求。开发测试用例(test cases)。完成对象编码(使用配对编程)。当更多对象被加入系统时进行设计(或重构)。这个看起来混乱不堪的生命周期仅仅在经常变化的环境下才有意义。

  Pair programming. One of the few software engineering practices that enjoys near-universal acceptance (at least in theory) and has been well measured is software inspections (also referred to as reviews or walkthroughs). At their best, inspections are collaborative interactions that speed learning as much as they uncover defects. One of the lesser-known statistics about inspections is that although they are very cost effective in uncovering defects, they are even more effective at preventing defects in the first place through the team's ongoing learning and incorporation of better programming practices.


  One software company client I worked with cited an internal study that showed that the amount of time to isolate defects was 15 hours per defect with testing, 2-3 hours per defect using inspections, and 15 minutes per defect by finding the defect before it got to the inspection. The latter figure arises from the ongoing team learning engendered by regular inspections. Pair programming takes this to the next step -- rather than the incremental learning using inspections, why not continuous learning using pair programming?


  "Pair programming is a dialog between two people trying to simultaneously program and understand how to program better," writes Beck. Having two people sitting in front of the same terminal (one entering code or test cases, one reviewing and thinking) creates a continuous, dynamic interchange. Research conducted by Laurie Williams for her doctoral dissertation at the University of Utah confirm that pair programming's benefits aren't just wishful thinking (see Resources and References).


  Collective ownership. XP defines collective ownership as the practice that anyone on the project team can change any of the code at any time. For many programmers, and certainly for many managers, the prospect of communal code raises concerns, ranging from "I don't want those bozos changing my code" to "Who do I blame when problems arise?" Collective ownership provides another level to the collaboration begun by pair programming.


  Pair programming encourages two people to work closely together: each drives the other a little harder to excel. Collective ownership encourages the entire team to work more closely together: each individual and each pair strives a little harder to produce high-quality designs, code, and test cases. Granted, all this forced "togetherness" may not work for every project team.


  Continuous integration. Daily builds have become the norm in many software companies -- mimicking the published material on the "Microsoft" process (see, for example, Michael A. Cusumano and Richard Selby's Microsoft Secrets). Whereas many companies set daily builds as a minimum, XP practitioners set the daily integration as the maximum - opting for frequent builds every couple of hours. XP's feedback cycles are quick: develop the test case, code, integrate (build), and test.
  经常集成:每日构造(build)在许多公司已经成为规范,模仿有关"微软"流程的出版物上的东西。(参见,例如,Michael A. Cusumano和Richard Selby的Microsoft Secrets)许多公司将每日编链作为最小要求,XP实践者将每日集成作为最大要求,选择每两个小时一次的频繁编链。XP的反馈周期迅速:开发测试集、编码、集成(编链)和测试。

  The perils of integration defects have been understood for many years, but we haven't always had the tools and practices to put that knowledge to good use. XP not only reminds us of the potential for serious integration errors, but provides a revised perspective on practices and tools.


  40-hour week. Some of XP's 12 practices are principles, while others, such as the 40-hour practice, sound more like rules. I agree with XP's sentiments here; I just don't think work hours define the issue. I would prefer a statement like, "Don't burn out the troops," rather than a 40-hour rule. There are situations in which working 40 hours is pure drudgery and others in which the team has to be pried away from a 60-hour work week.


  Jeffries provided additional thoughts on overtime. "What we say is that overtime is defined as time in the office when you don't want to be there. And that you should work no more than one week of overtime. If you go beyond that, there's something wrong -- and you're tiring out and probably doing worse than if you were on a normal schedule. I agree with you on the sentiment about the 60- hour work week. When we were young and eager, they were probably okay. It's the dragging weeks to watch for."


  I don't think the number of hours makes much difference. What defines the difference is volunteered commitment. Do people want to come to work? Do they anticipate each day with great relish? People have to come to work, but they perform great feats by being committed to the project, and commitment only arises from a sense of purpose.


  On-site customer. This practice corresponds to one of the oldest cries in software development -- user involvement. XP, as with every other rapid development approach, calls for ongoing, on-site user involvement with the project team.


Coding standards. XP practices are supportive of each other. For example, if you do pair programming and let anyone modify the communal code, then coding standards would seem to be a necessity.



Differences Between Scrum and Extreme Programming Scrum与XP极限编程的不同之处Scrum and Extreme Programming (X...
  • seagal890
  • seagal890
  • 2016年01月02日 21:33
  • 849

极限编程(eXtreme Programming)简介

极限编程(eXtreme Programming)是近几年才时兴起来的开发模型,极限编程(eXtreme Programming)主要是针对中小型开发团队在开发时间要求紧、需求不稳定的中小项目(大多数...
  • brucelee0224
  • brucelee0224
  • 2009年03月23日 10:31
  • 915

Extreme Programming介绍

Extreme Programming介绍计划 User stories的编写 开发计划的制定 经常构造版本 Load Factor因子的确定 将项目分解为各个迭代期 每个迭代期开始时制定计划 人员集...
  • cngkqy
  • cngkqy
  • 2008年01月17日 11:13
  • 3579

极限编程 Extreme Programming (中英文对照)图形解释

 极限编程 Extreme Programming 作者 不详 来源 审校 BigMac[AKA]译者 march-bird lucian yjf taopin wl jazz韩伟 nullgate ...
  • SafeF8
  • SafeF8
  • 2005年01月03日 22:07
  • 4405

极限编程(Extreme Programming, XP)

注:本文节选自Kent Beck和Cynthia Andres所著的《解析极限编程--拥抱变化(原书第2版)》(原书名Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Ch...
  • hzbooks
  • hzbooks
  • 2011年09月09日 11:34
  • 806

谈谈“极限编程(Extreme Programming)”

极限编程Extreme Programming审校 BigMac[AKA]译者 march-bird lucian yjf taopin wl jazz韩伟 nullgate Simon[AKA]As...
  • Friecin
  • Friecin
  • 2004年10月22日 15:19
  • 2015

极限编程(XP,eXtreme Programming)

 极限编程(XP,eXtreme Programming)是一种软件工程方法学,是敏捷软件开发中最富有成效的几种方法学之一。如同其他敏捷方法学,极限编程和传统方法学的本质不同在于它更强调可适应性而不是...
  • henryhappier
  • henryhappier
  • 2009年11月09日 12:49
  • 260

极限编程(Extreme Programming)

 极限编程(Extreme Programming)作者 不详 来源 http://www.cutter.com/ 译者 march-bird lucian yjf taopin wl jazz韩伟 ...
  • zerray
  • zerray
  • 2005年06月11日 20:37
  • 1092

极限编程(Extreme Programming)简介

 极限编程1.       什么是极限编程2.       极限编程的12大实践3.       极限编程过程4.       极限编程策略5.       极限编程vsCMMI 1.       极...
  • migrant_0_0
  • migrant_0_0
  • 2006年11月23日 22:42
  • 742

极限编程(Extreme Programming)—重构

极限编程(Extreme Programming)—重构march-bird lucian yjf taopin wl jazz韩伟 nullgate Simon[AKA](转载自cutter.com...
  • silures
  • silures
  • 2004年10月30日 13:34
  • 833
您举报文章:极限编程(Extreme Programming)—实践