ATL ALT.NET: Modernizing Legacy ASP* Systems in Value-Add, Risk-Averse Phases
Details
As usual, we'll have ample time for open discussion and networking over dinner and beer at Manuel's at 7:30 until 9:30
Topic Update
I invite everyone to bring their own experience with incrementally migrating large web systems. Bring lessons learned, horror stories, tips on tools, metrics gathering, strategies etc.
I'll present a short demo on using features of MVC routing and wildcard mapping to slowly modernize older ASP* technologies in small, value-adding, risk-averse "in place upgrades". This effectively enables "The Stangler Pattern (http://agilefromthegroundup.blogspot.com/2011/03/strangulation-pattern-of-choice-for.html)" of application reengineering.
Background Reading:
We have known for, at minimum, 42 years that "Big Bang" or "sequential, one-pass Waterfall" is not a recommended practice. See Winston Royce's original paper (http://pascal.gugenberger.net/thoughts/waterfall-accident.html) to learn more.
As Craig Larman pointed out in his paper "Iterative and Incremental Development: A Brief History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iterative_and_incremental_development)", even though Royce advocated iterative, incremental, evolutionary practices, many people (millions?) came to believe he advocated a strict, sequential, stage-gated process which dictated that all business requirements and design artifacts be created before any code is developed. Royce's son, Walker Royce (http://www-01.ibm.com/software/rational/leadership/thought/walkerroyce.html), is now vice president at IBM Rational Lab Services and has had to defend his father's honor by pointing out that he should not be blamed for the persistence of waterfall. Walker himself has written books on iterative development, and also one on the English language (http://www.walkerroyce.com/) (his most highly rated work on Amazon).
Yet, still too many companies and organizations feel like they must "big bang" upgrades. Why is this? What are you thoughts?
How can we as an industry better communicate and serve the needs of our customers and clients to get results more quickly for them, while also mitigating risks and not causing undue service disruption to end-users?
Another author who focuses heavily on spoken and written language, not just code, is Eric Evans. To paraphrase him: "Our industry likes violent water metaphors to describe our development processes, so I thought I'd give them one that might actually work better: Whirlpool!"
Additional Links:
Object-Oriented Reengineering Patterns (excellent FREE book on the subject or reengineering) : http://scg.unibe.ch/download/oorp/
Eric Evans' Whirlpool Methodology: http://domainlanguage.com/ddd/whirlpool/
Waterfall vs. Whirlpool: (older paper)
http://www.puffinonline.com/Tecademy/003%20Waterfall%20vs%20Whirlpool.pdf
Article I wrote about the Stangle Pattern: http://agilefromthegroundup.blogspot.com/2011/03/strangulation-pattern-of-choice-for.html