Skip to main content

You Cannot Iterate upon Architecture

This is the first part of a series of posts as to why gradual iteration, doing the simplest thing that can possibly work over a software project fails in many cases. This series will explain why this is the case, and provide solutions.

Spotify has gave a talk on how it builds products and manages teams internally. This provides some great insights and advice. As part of this an incredibly effective image is used. This shows the production of a form of transport to travel from A to B.

In the first half of the image, the product is built in iterations. Each step adds to the next. It is not until the fourth step that the product is able to take passengers from A to B. Agile development aims to solves the issues around this.

The second half of the image is built iteratively. The goal is still the same. A product to travel from A to B. From the first version this goal is complete. However the team would be embarrassed to release in this state. Further iterations are carried out as the team learns more.

From my experience building software in this manner only works half of the time. Any software projects from my first line of code up until present day fall into one of two categories.

Known Projects or Unknown Projects

A known project would be where the destination is clear and well defined. Internal development projects, refactoring, or replacement would fall into this category. Easily half of my professional time has been spent on projects where we know what we are building and when it must be complete by.

The second type of projects is where the destination is unknown. You are working for an external customer directly. On a regular basis you regroup with the client. You gather feedback and iterate. Over the course of this process your destination may very well surprise you, along with the route you use to get there.

Refactoring is Class or Method Level Only

You could claim the image works for unknown projects. At any point the client (internal or external) could put a halt on development after their vision is complete. For known projects, the area this image fails is simple - if a car is required, build a car. If this is demonstrating a known project, building only then to start recycling, refactoring and forming the code into another shape is costly. Sticking with the vehicle analogy - building a car is complex. In one iteration it would not be possible to gather feedback until it was too late. Much time and resources would be wasted.

Translating to a software example, this would be the same as building a complex web application. The goal is known, yet the first stab is a HTML page. This is followed by some simple sever side logic. On top of this we add an ORM. Further iterations thrash and push the code around. Early simple decisions start to come back to haunt us. This technical debt is either repaid or ignored. As further iterations follow the architecture of the application suffers. Through sheer force of determination the web application is complete. Usually there are many compromises along the way. Further enhancements or changes could be costly.


For unknown projects there are two solutions. First and foremost build a walking skeleton. Using the vehicle example, the first iteration of a known project should produce the frame of the car. Other than wheels there would be very little else here. However this is still a car, though limited in functionality and features. Using the software example this would be the core flow of the web app. Either hardcoded in places or built using scaffolding. You would still be embarrassed to release this. Architecturally you have all the core parts you need. The benefit of this is that future iterations simply build upon the good, known framework. The foundations of the project are stable. There is no fear that after several iterations you stumble upon a technical implementation issue.

The second solution is turn an unknown project into a known project. This sounds difficult but there is a remarkable easy way to achieve this - the subject of the next post.


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 …