Skip to main content

Don't Build a Thing

Part two of my agile architecture series.

Here is a real life example of where I treated a unknown project incorrectly. Why I handled this is badly and how I should have handled it if I could rewind time.


An external client had a proposal for a web service which would power part their new web application. This service sounded very simple. Data import and some basic querying. There were plans to add additional bells and whistles at a later date. After an initial meeting development began.

A week later a second meeting was placed. A good few hours of development had been invested by this point. The meeting was useful, however some changes had cropped up. The data format had been modified, my solution could not handle the new format. Also the querying needed various modifications.

A week later, after several more hours of changes, the second meeting landed. There were more changes. This time technical adjustments based on the feedback from the clients' developers.

The third meeting introduced scope creep. Could this service handle any potential customer going forwards? It certainly could not at present.

You should see where this is heading. Eventually the requirements stabilized. Not until several days of my time had been taken up building something that was not needed, only to have to tear it down and salvage what I could.

The end result was a project I was not proud of. Due to my heavily invested time I wanted to save as much work as I could. It would be hard to tell my superiors we've wasted X amount of money. The project also lacked long term stability. Each iteration built upon the next. The feature to handle generic customers was tacked on. Had this been known from day one, things would have looked much better both in terms of code quality and architecture.


There is an easy way to transform a unknown project into a known project - build as little as you possibly can. Do this in the shortest amount of time to gather feedback, learn and defer decisions. After this process you will be in the best possible shape to tackle the project. These principles are the key to the processes within a lean start up.

How I Should Have Handled It

Starting with a minimal project in order to demo and deploy this would do nothing other than returned a hardcoded JSON literal. Enough to demonstrate and spark conversations.

During week two the discovery that a new data format had been chosen would not matter. The feature to load data had not been written after all. At this point the hardcoded data would be tweaked to match the new content. Easy.

Week three would pose no threat. Technical changes around best practices or technology are easily handled because very little code exists.

The newly required functionality discovered in week four would prototyped, estimated and agreed. As no real work has been done, adding this feature in would not only be achievable, it would be architecturally sound rather than bolted on as an after thought.


Deferring decisions such as the above is so useful that this can be applied to any project from my experience. Knowing how long a decision can be deferred is dependent on the scenario, but you will be pleasantly surprised in many cases at just how long decisions can and should be deferred. Even for known projects the power that deferral brings is so beneficial I tend to favour this style whenever possible. Build just enough to gather feedback and go from there.

The key point is that very little time and energy has been invested. In the second example of how I should have handled the client I invested hours of my time. In reality I invested days. I was invested in the first solution. The second solution however could be chopped, changed or thrown away with no protest. The act of throwing code away is so important, yet so rarely practised it will be the subject of the third part of this series.


Popular posts from this blog

Three Steps to Code Quality via TDD

Common complaints and problems that I've both encountered and hear other developers raise when it comes to the practice of Test Driven Development are: Impossible to refactor without all the tests breakingMinor changes require hours of changes to test codeTest setup is huge, slow to write and difficult to understandThe use of test doubles (mocks, stubs and fakes is confusing)Over the next three posts I will demonstrate three easy steps that can resolve the problems above. In turn this will allow developers to gain one of the benefits that TDD promises - the ability to refactor your code mercifully in order to improve code quality.StepsStop Making Everything PublicLimit the Amount of Dependencies you Use A Unit is Not Always a Method or ClassCode quality is a tricky subject and highly subjective, however if you follow the three guidelines above you should have the ability to radically change implementation details and therefore improve code quality when needed.

DRY vs DAMP in Tests

In the previous post I mentioned that duplication in tests is not always bad. Sometimes duplication becomes a problem. Tests can become large or virtually identically excluding a few lines. Changes to these tests can take a while and increase the maintenance overhead. At this point, DRY violations need to be resolved.SolutionsTest HelpersA common solution is to extract common functionality into setup methods or other helper utilities. While this will remove and reduce duplication this can make tests a bit harder to read as the test is now split amongst unrelated components. There is a limit to how useful such extractions can help as each test may need to do something slightly differently.DAMP - Descriptive and Meaningful PhrasesDescriptive and Meaningful Phrases is the alter ego of DRY. DAMP tests often use the builder pattern to construct the System Under Test. This allows calls to be chained in a fluent API style, similar to the Page Object Pattern. Internally the implementation wil…

Coding In the Real World

As a student when confronted with a problem, I would end up coding it and thinking - how do the professionals do this?For some reason I had the impression that once I entered the industry I would find enlightenment. Discovering the one true way to write high quality, professional code.It turns out that code in industry is not too far removed from the code I was writing back when I knew very little.Code in the real world can be:messy or cleanhard or easy to understandsimple or complexeasy or hard to changeor any combination of the aboveVery rarely will you be confronted with a problem that is difficult. Most challenges typically are formed around individuals and processes, rather than day to day coding. Years later I finally have the answer. Code in the real world is not that much different to code we were all writing when we first started out.If I could offer myself some advice back in those early days it would be to follow KISS, YAGNI and DRY religiously. The rest will fall into plac…

Feature Toggles

I'm a fan of regular releasing. My background and experience leads me to release as regularly as possible. There are numerous benefits to regular releases; limited risk, slicker release processes and the ability to change as requirements evolve.The problem with this concept is how can you release when features are not functionally complete?SolutionIf there is still work in progress, one solution to allow frequent releases is to use feature toggles. Feature toggles are simple conditional statements that are either enabled or disabled based on some condition.This simple example shows a feature toggle for an "Edit User" feature. If the boolean condition is false, then we only show the "New User" feature and the "Admin" feature. This boolean value will be provided by various means, usually a configuration file. This means at certain points we can change this value in order to demonstrate the "Edit User" functionality. Our demo environment could …

Reused Abstraction Principle

This is the second part of my series on abstractions.Part 1 - AbstractionsPart 3 - Dependency Elimination PrincipleThe Reused Abstraction Principle is a simple in concept in practice, but oddly rarely followed in typical enterprise development. I myself have been incredibly guilty of this in the past.Most code bases have a 1:1 mapping of interfaces to implementations. Usually this is the sign of TDD or automated testing being applied badly. The majority of these interfaces are wrong. 1:1 mappings between interfaces and implementations is a code smell.Such situations are usually the result of extracting an interface from an implementation, rather than having the client drive behaviour.These interfaces are also often bad abstractions, known as "leaky abstractions". As I've discussed previously, these abstractions tend to offer nothing more than simple indirection.ExampleApply the "rule of three". If there is only ever one implementation, then you don't need …