Small UML Guide

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Small UML Guide APPENDIX A Small UML Guide The OMG Unified Modeling Language™ (OMG UML) is a standardized graphical language to create models of software and other systems. Its main purpose is to enable developers, software architects, and other stakeholders to design, specify, visualize, construct, and document artifacts of a software system. UML models support the discussion between different stakeholders, serve as an aid for a clarification of requirements and other issues related to the system of interest, and can capture design decisions. This appendix provides a brief overview of that subset of UML notations that are used in this book. Each UML element is illustrated (syntax) and briefly explained (semantic). The short definition for an element is based on the current UML specification [OMG15] that can be downloaded for free from OMG’s website. An in-depth introduction to the Unified Modeling Language should be made with the help of appropriate literature, or by taking a course at a training provider. Class Diagrams Among varied other applications, class diagrams are usually used to depict structures of an object-oriented software design. Class The central element in class diagrams is the class. CLASS A class describes a set of objects that share the same specifications of features, constraints, and semantics. An instance of a class is commonly referred to as an object. Therefore, classes can be considered as blueprints for objects. The UML symbol for a class is a rectangle, as depicted in Figure A-1. © Stephan Roth 2017 273 S. Roth, Clean C++, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4842-2793-0 APPENDIX a ■ SMaLL UML Guide Figure A-1. A class named Customer A class has a name (in this case “Customer”), which is shown centered in the first compartment of the rectangled symbol. If a class is abstract, that is, it cannot be instantiated, its name is typically shown in italicized letters. Classes can have attributes (data, structure) and operations (behavior), which are shown in the second, respective, and third compartments. The type of an attribute is noted separated by a colon after the attribute’s name. The same applies to the type of the return value of an operation. Operations can have parameters that are specified within the parentheses (round brackets). Static attributes or operations are underlined. Classes have a mechanism to regulate the access to attributes and operations. In UML they are called visibilities. The visibility kind is put in front of the attribute’s or operation’s name and may be one of the characters that are described in Table A-1. Table A-1. Visibilities Character Visibility kind + public: This attribute or operation is visible to all elements that can access the class. # protected: This attribute or operation is not only visible inside the class itself, but also visible to elements that are derived from the class that owns it (see Generalization Relationship). ~ package: This attribute or operation is visible to elements that are in the same package as its owning class. This kind of visibility doesn’t have an appropriate representation in C++ and is not used in this book. - private: This attribute or operation is only visible inside the class, nowhere else. A C++ class definition corresponding to the UML class shown in the above Figure A-1 may look like this: Listing A-1. The Customer class in C++ #include <string> #include "DateTime.h" #include "CustomerIdentifier.h" class Customer { public: Customer(); virtual ~Customer(); 274 APPENDIX a ■ SMaLL UML Guide std::string getFullName() const; DateTime getBirthday() const; std::string getPrintableIdentifier() const; private: std::string forename; std::string surname; CustomerIdentifier id; }; The graphical representation of instances is rarely necessary, so the so-called object diagrams of the UML play only a minor role. The UML symbol to depict a created instance (that is, an object) of a class, a so-called Instance Specification, is very similar to that of a class. The main difference is that the caption in the first compartment is underlined. It shows the name of the specified instance, separated by a colon from its type, for example, the class (see Figure A-2). The name may also be missing (anonymous instance). Figure A-2. The Instance Specification on the right represents a possible or actual existence of an instance of class Customer Interface An interface defines a kind of a contract: a class that realizes the interface must fulfill that contract. INTERFACE An interface is a declaration of a set of coherent public obligations. Interfaces are always abstract, that is, they cannot be instantiated by default. The UML symbol for an interface is very similar to a class, with the keyword «interface» (surrounded by French quotation marks that are called “guillemets”) preceding the name, as depicted in Figure A-3. 275 APPENDIX a ■ SMaLL UML Guide Figure A-3. Class Customer implements operations that are declared in interface Person The dashed arrow with the closed but not filled arrowhead is the interface realization relationship. This relationship expresses that the class conforms to the contract specified by the interface, that is, the class implements those operations that are declared by the interface. It is, of course, allowed that a class implements multiple interfaces. Unlike some other object-oriented languages, such as Java or C#, there is no interface keyword in C++. Interfaces are therefore usually emulated with the help of abstract classes that solely consist of pure virtual member functions as shown in the following code examples. Listing A-2. The Person interface in C++ #include <string> #include "DateTime.h" class Person { public: virtual ~Person() { } virtual std::string getFullName() const = 0; virtual DateTime getBirthday() const = 0; }; 276 APPENDIX a ■ SMaLL UML Guide Listing A-3. The Customer class realizing the Person interface #include "Person.h" #include "CustomerIdentifier.h" class Customer : public Person { public: Customer(); virtual ~Customer(); virtual std::string getFullName() const override; virtual DateTime getBirthday() const override; std::string getPrintableIdentifier() const; private: std::string forename; std::string surname; CustomerIdentifier id; }; To show that a class or component (see section Components below) provides or requires interfaces, you can use the so-called ball-and-socket notation. A provided interface is depicted using a ball (a.k.a. “lollipop”), a required interface is depicted with a socket. Strictly speaking, this is an alternative notation, as Figure A-4 clarifies. Figure A-4. The ball-and-socket notation for provided and required interfaces The arrow between class Customer and interface Account is a navigable association, which is explained in the following section about UML associations. 277 APPENDIX a ■ SMaLL UML Guide Association Classes usually have static relationships to other classes. The UML association specifies such a kind of relationship. ASSOCIATION An association relationship allows one instance of a classifier (e.g., a class or a component) to access another. In its simplest form, the UML syntax for an association is a solid line between two classes as depicted in Figure A-5. Figure A-5. A simple association relationship between two classes This simple association is often not sufficient to properly specify the relationship between both classes. For instance, the navigation direction across such a simple association, that is, who is able to access whom, is undefined by default. However, navigability in this case is often interpreted as bidirectional by convention, that is, Customer has an attribute to access ShoppingCart and vice versa. Therefore, more information can be provided to an association. Figure A-6 illustrates a few of the possibilities. 278 APPENDIX a ■ SMaLL UML Guide Figure A-6. Some examples of associations between classes 1. This example shows an association with one end navigable (depicted by an arrowhead) and the other having unspecified navigability. The semantic is: class A is able to navigate to class B. In the other direction it is unspecified, that is, class B might be able to navigate to class A. ■■Note It is strongly recommended to define the interpretation of the navigability of such an unspecified association end in your project. My recommendation is to consider them as non-navigable. This interpretation is also used in this book. 2. This navigable association has a name (“has”). The solid triangle indicates the direction of reading. Apart from that, the semantics of this association is fully identical to example 1. 3. In this example, both association ends have labels (names) and multiplicities. The labels are typically used to specify the roles of the classes in an association. A multiplicity specifies the allowed quantity of instances of the classes that are involved in an association. It is an inclusive interval of non-negative integers beginning with a lower bound and ending with a (possibly infinite) upper bound. In this case, any A has zero to any number of B’s, whereas any B has exactly one A. Table A-2 shows some examples of valid multiplicities. 4. This is a special association called aggregation. It represents a whole-part- relationship, that is, the one class (the part) is hierarchically subordinated to the other class (the whole). The shallow diamond is just a marker in this kind of association and identifies the whole. Otherwise everything that applies to associations applies to an aggregation too. 279 APPENDIX a ■ SMaLL UML Guide 5. This is a composite aggregation, which is a strong form of aggregation. It expresses that the whole is the owner of the parts, and thus also responsible for the parts. If an instance of the whole is deleted, all of its part instances are normally deleted with it. ■■Note Please note that a part can (where allowed) be removed from a composite before the whole is deleted, and thus not be deleted as part of the whole.
Recommended publications
  • Rugby - a Process Model for Continuous Software Engineering
    INSTITUT FUR¨ INFORMATIK DER TECHNISCHEN UNIVERSITAT¨ MUNCHEN¨ Forschungs- und Lehreinheit I Angewandte Softwaretechnik Rugby - A Process Model for Continuous Software Engineering Stephan Tobias Krusche Vollstandiger¨ Abdruck der von der Fakultat¨ fur¨ Informatik der Technischen Universitat¨ Munchen¨ zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines Doktors der Naturwissenschaften (Dr. rer. nat.) genehmigten Dissertation. Vorsitzender: Univ.-Prof. Dr. Helmut Seidl Prufer¨ der Dissertation: 1. Univ.-Prof. Bernd Brugge,¨ Ph.D. 2. Prof. Dr. Jurgen¨ Borstler,¨ Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona, Schweden Die Dissertation wurde am 28.01.2016 bei der Technischen Universitat¨ Munchen¨ eingereicht und durch die Fakultat¨ fur¨ Informatik am 29.02.2016 angenommen. Abstract Software is developed in increasingly dynamic environments. Organizations need the capability to deal with uncertainty and to react to unexpected changes in require- ments and technologies. Agile methods already improve the flexibility towards changes and with the emergence of continuous delivery, regular feedback loops have become possible. The abilities to maintain high code quality through reviews, to regularly re- lease software, and to collect and prioritize user feedback, are necessary for con- tinuous software engineering. However, there exists no uniform process model that handles the increasing number of reviews, releases and feedback reports. In this dissertation, we describe Rugby, a process model for continuous software en- gineering that is based on a meta model, which treats development activities as parallel workflows and which allows tailoring, customization and extension. Rugby includes a change model and treats changes as events that activate workflows. It integrates re- view management, release management, and feedback management as workflows. As a consequence, Rugby handles the increasing number of reviews, releases and feedback and at the same time decreases their size and effort.
    [Show full text]
  • Building Great Interfaces with OOABL
    Building great Interfaces with OOABL Mike Fechner Director Übersicht © 2018 Consultingwerk Ltd. All rights reserved. 2 Übersicht © 2018 Consultingwerk Ltd. All rights reserved. 3 Übersicht Consultingwerk Software Services Ltd. ▪ Independent IT consulting organization ▪ Focusing on OpenEdge and related technology ▪ Located in Cologne, Germany, subsidiaries in UK and Romania ▪ Customers in Europe, North America, Australia and South Africa ▪ Vendor of developer tools and consulting services ▪ Specialized in GUI for .NET, Angular, OO, Software Architecture, Application Integration ▪ Experts in OpenEdge Application Modernization © 2018 Consultingwerk Ltd. All rights reserved. 4 Übersicht Mike Fechner ▪ Director, Lead Modernization Architect and Product Manager of the SmartComponent Library and WinKit ▪ Specialized on object oriented design, software architecture, desktop user interfaces and web technologies ▪ 28 years of Progress experience (V5 … OE11) ▪ Active member of the OpenEdge community ▪ Frequent speaker at OpenEdge related conferences around the world © 2018 Consultingwerk Ltd. All rights reserved. 5 Übersicht Agenda ▪ Introduction ▪ Interface vs. Implementation ▪ Enums ▪ Value or Parameter Objects ▪ Fluent Interfaces ▪ Builders ▪ Strong Typed Dynamic Query Interfaces ▪ Factories ▪ Facades and Decorators © 2018 Consultingwerk Ltd. All rights reserved. 6 Übersicht Introduction ▪ Object oriented (ABL) programming is more than just a bunch of new syntax elements ▪ It’s easy to continue producing procedural spaghetti code in classes ▪
    [Show full text]
  • Functional Javascript
    www.it-ebooks.info www.it-ebooks.info Functional JavaScript Michael Fogus www.it-ebooks.info Functional JavaScript by Michael Fogus Copyright © 2013 Michael Fogus. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Published by O’Reilly Media, Inc., 1005 Gravenstein Highway North, Sebastopol, CA 95472. O’Reilly books may be purchased for educational, business, or sales promotional use. Online editions are also available for most titles (http://my.safaribooksonline.com). For more information, contact our corporate/ institutional sales department: 800-998-9938 or [email protected]. Editor: Mary Treseler Indexer: Judith McConville Production Editor: Melanie Yarbrough Cover Designer: Karen Montgomery Copyeditor: Jasmine Kwityn Interior Designer: David Futato Proofreader: Jilly Gagnon Illustrator: Robert Romano May 2013: First Edition Revision History for the First Edition: 2013-05-24: First release See http://oreilly.com/catalog/errata.csp?isbn=9781449360726 for release details. Nutshell Handbook, the Nutshell Handbook logo, and the O’Reilly logo are registered trademarks of O’Reilly Media, Inc. Functional JavaScript, the image of an eider duck, and related trade dress are trademarks of O’Reilly Media, Inc. Many of the designations used by manufacturers and sellers to distinguish their products are claimed as trademarks. Where those designations appear in this book, and O’Reilly Media, Inc., was aware of a trade‐ mark claim, the designations have been printed in caps or initial caps. While every precaution has been taken in the preparation of this book, the publisher and author assume no responsibility for errors or omissions, or for damages resulting from the use of the information contained herein.
    [Show full text]
  • Software Architecture: the Next Step for Object Technology (PANEL)
    Software Architecture: The Next Step for Object Technology (PANEL) Bruce Anderson, University of ESSPX (moderator) Mary Shaw, Carnegie-Mellon University Larry Best, American Management Systems Kent Beck, First Class Software What is the next step for you? Progress comes Abstract from taking aware steps, but what steps are those? Architectures are the structuring paradigms, styles They could be in attempting to discover and and patterns that make up our software systems. catalogue architectures; creating awareness of this They are important in many ways: they allow us to level of product envisioning; doing design more talk usefully about systems without talking about consciously; finding ways of describing systems; their detail; a knowledge of them gives us design consolidating legacy code; abandoning legacy code; choices; attention to this level can make systems and making new software lifecycles. families of systems have the non-functional What is the next step for the community? Are there properties we want, especially changeability. ways to work that go beyond projects and Each panelist will address the following issues: companies? Will there be focus on the community, l What is architecture? which suggests cooperation, learning, divergence l What is the value you have had so far from and empowerment; or on the marketplace, which this concept? suggests competition, confidentiality, convergence l What is the next step for you? and dependence? l What is the next step for the community? 2 Mary Shaw 1 Background Software architecture is concerned with the What is architecture? We all have experience of organization of software systems: the selection of systems of great conceptual clarity and integrity.
    [Show full text]
  • Automating Testing with Autofixture, Xunit.Net & Specflow
    Design Patterns Michael Heitland Oct 2015 Creational Patterns • Abstract Factory • Builder • Factory Method • Object Pool* • Prototype • Simple Factory* • Singleton (* this pattern got added later by others) Structural Patterns ● Adapter ● Bridge ● Composite ● Decorator ● Facade ● Flyweight ● Proxy Behavioural Patterns 1 ● Chain of Responsibility ● Command ● Interpreter ● Iterator ● Mediator ● Memento Behavioural Patterns 2 ● Null Object * ● Observer ● State ● Strategy ● Template Method ● Visitor Initial Acronym Concept Single responsibility principle: A class should have only a single responsibility (i.e. only one potential change in the S SRP software's specification should be able to affect the specification of the class) Open/closed principle: “Software entities … should be open O OCP for extension, but closed for modification.” Liskov substitution principle: “Objects in a program should be L LSP replaceable with instances of their subtypes without altering the correctness of that program.” See also design by contract. Interface segregation principle: “Many client-specific I ISP interfaces are better than one general-purpose interface.”[8] Dependency inversion principle: One should “Depend upon D DIP Abstractions. Do not depend upon concretions.”[8] Creational Patterns Simple Factory* Encapsulating object creation. Clients will use object interfaces. Abstract Factory Provide an interface for creating families of related or dependent objects without specifying their concrete classes. Inject the factory into the object. Dependency Inversion Principle Depend upon abstractions. Do not depend upon concrete classes. Our high-level components should not depend on our low-level components; rather, they should both depend on abstractions. Builder Separate the construction of a complex object from its implementation so that the two can vary independently. The same construction process can create different representations.
    [Show full text]
  • The Great Methodologies Debate: Part 1
    ACCESS TO THE EXPERTS The Journal of Information Technology Management December 2001 Vol. 14, No. 12 The Great Methodologies Debate: Part 1 Resolved “Today, a new debate rages: agile software Traditional methodologists development versus rigorous software are a bunch of process- development.” dependent stick-in-the-muds who’d rather produce flawless Jim Highsmith, Guest Editor documentation than a working system that meets business needs. Opening Statement Jim Highsmith 2 Rebuttal Lightweight, er, “agile” Agile Can Scale: Inventing and Reinventing methodologists are a bunch of SCRUM in Five Companies glorified hackers who are going to be in for a heck of a surprise Jeff Sutherland 5 when they try to scale up their “toys” into enterprise-level software. Agile Versus Traditional: Make Love, Not War! Robert L. Glass 12 Business Intelligence Methodologies: Agile with Rigor? Larissa T. Moss 19 Agility with the RUP Philippe Kruchten 27 Extreme Requirements Engineering Larry Wagner 34 Exclusion, Assumptions, and Misinterpretation: Foes of Collaboration Lou Russell 39 Opening Statement by Jim Highsmith In the early 1980s, I participated in rigorous software development. others be able to understand the one round of methodology debate. Agile approaches (Extreme similarities and differences and be Structured analysis and design Programming, Crystal Methods, able to apply the right mix to their champions such as Tom DeMarco, Lean Development, Feature-Driven own organization. Both the SEI and Ed Yourdon, and Tim Lister were Development, Adaptive Software Rational have made wonderful on one side of the debate, while Development, SCRUM, and contributions to software develop- data-driven design aficionados like Dynamic Systems Development ment, but it is important to Ken Orr, Jean-Dominique Warnier, Methodology) populate one camp.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards a Discipline for Agile Requirements
    Forging High-Quality User Stories: Towards a Discipline for Agile Requirements Garm Lucassen, Fabiano Dalpiaz, Jan Martijn E.M. van der Werf and Sjaak Brinkkemper Department of Information and Computing Sciences Utrecht University Email: g.lucassen, f.dalpiaz, j.m.e.m.vanderwerf, s.brinkkemper @uu.nl { } Abstract—User stories are a widely used notation for formulat- which will remain impossible to achieve in the foreseeable ing requirements in agile development. Despite their popularity in future [11]. industry, little to no academic work is available on determining Instead, tools that want to harness NLP are effective only their quality. The few existing approaches are too generic or employ highly qualitative metrics. We propose the Quality User when they focus on the clerical part of RE that a tool can Story Framework, consisting of 14 quality criteria that user perform with 100% recall and high precision, leaving thinking- stories should strive to conform to. Additionally, we introduce required work to human requirements engineers [6]. Addition- the conceptual model of a user story, which we rely on to ally, they should conform to what practitioners actually do, subsequently design the AQUSA tool. This conceptual piece of instead of what the published methods and processes advise software aids requirements engineers in turning raw user stories into higher quality ones by exposing defects and deviations from them to do [12]. User stories’ popularity among practitioners good practice in user stories. We evaluate our work by applying and simple yet strict structure make them ideal candidates. the framework and a prototype implementation to multiple case Throughout the remainder of this paper we make five studies.
    [Show full text]
  • Agile Testing Practices
    Agile Testing Practices Megan S. Sumrell Director of Transformation Services Valtech Introductions About us… Now about you… Your name Your company Your role Your experience with Agile or Scrum? Personal Expectations Agenda Introductions Agile Overview Traditional QA Teams Traditional Automation Approaches Role of an Agile Tester Testing Activities Refine Acceptance Criteria TDD Manual / Exploratory Testing Defect Management Documentation Performance Testing Regression Testing Agenda Continued Test Automation on Agile Teams Testing on a Greenfield Project Testing on a Legacy Application Estimation Sessions Sprint Planning Meetings Retrospectives Infrastructure Skills and Titles Closing Agile Overview Agile Manifesto "We are uncovering better ways of developing software by doing it and helping others do it. Through this work we have come to value: Individuals and interactions over processes and tools Working software over comprehensive documentation Customer collaboration over contract negotiation Responding to change over following a plan That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more." Scrum Terms and Definitions User Story: high level requirements Product Backlog: list of prioritized user stories Sprint : one cycle or iteration (usually 2 or 4 weeks in length) Daily Stand-up: 15 minute meeting every day to review status Scrum Master: owns the Scrum process and removes impediments Product Owner: focused on ROI and owns priorities on the backlog Pigs and Chickens Traditional QA Teams How are you organized? When do you get involved in the project? What does your “test phase” look like? What testing challenges do you have? Traditional Test Automation Automation Challenges Cost of tools Hard to learn Can’t find time Maintenance UI dependent Only a few people can run them Traditional Test Pyramid UNIT TESTS Business Rules GUI TESTS Will these strategies work in an Agile environment? Food for Thought…….
    [Show full text]
  • Designpatternsphp Documentation Release 1.0
    DesignPatternsPHP Documentation Release 1.0 Dominik Liebler and contributors Jul 18, 2021 Contents 1 Patterns 3 1.1 Creational................................................3 1.1.1 Abstract Factory........................................3 1.1.2 Builder.............................................8 1.1.3 Factory Method......................................... 13 1.1.4 Pool............................................... 18 1.1.5 Prototype............................................ 21 1.1.6 Simple Factory......................................... 24 1.1.7 Singleton............................................ 26 1.1.8 Static Factory.......................................... 28 1.2 Structural................................................. 30 1.2.1 Adapter / Wrapper....................................... 31 1.2.2 Bridge.............................................. 35 1.2.3 Composite............................................ 39 1.2.4 Data Mapper.......................................... 42 1.2.5 Decorator............................................ 46 1.2.6 Dependency Injection...................................... 50 1.2.7 Facade.............................................. 53 1.2.8 Fluent Interface......................................... 56 1.2.9 Flyweight............................................ 59 1.2.10 Proxy.............................................. 62 1.2.11 Registry............................................. 66 1.3 Behavioral................................................ 69 1.3.1 Chain Of Responsibilities...................................
    [Show full text]
  • User Stories.Book
    User Stories Applied for Agile Software Development Mike Cohn Boston • San Francisco • New York • Toronto • Montreal London • Munich • Paris • Madrid Capetown • Sydney • Tokyo • Singapore • Mexico City Chapter 2 Writing Stories In this chapter we turn our attention to writing the stories. To create good sto- ries we focus on six attributes. A good story is: • Independent • Negotiable • Valuable to users or customers •Estimatable •Small •Testable Bill Wake, author of Extreme Programming Explored and Refactoring Workbook, has suggested the acronym INVEST for these six attributes (Wake 2003a). Independent As much as possible, care should be taken to avoid introducing dependencies between stories. Dependencies between stories lead to prioritization and plan- ning problems. For example, suppose the customer has selected as high priority a story that is dependent on a story that is low priority. Dependencies between stories can also make estimation much harder than it needs to be. For example, suppose we are working on the BigMoneyJobs website and need to write stories for how companies can pay for the job openings they post to our site. We could write these stories: 1. A company can pay for a job posting with a Visa card. 2. A company can pay for a job posting with a MasterCard. 17 18 WRITING STORIES 3. A company can pay for a job posting with an American Express card. Suppose the developers estimate that it will take three days to support the first credit card type (regardless of which it is) and then one day each for the second and third.
    [Show full text]
  • User-Stories-Applied-Mike-Cohn.Pdf
    ptg User Stories Applied ptg From the Library of www.wowebook.com The Addison-Wesley Signature Series The Addison-Wesley Signature Series provides readers with practical and authoritative information on the latest trends in modern technology for computer professionals. The series is based on one simple premise: great books come from great authors. Books in the series are personally chosen by expert advi- sors, world-class authors in their own right. These experts are proud to put their signatures on the cov- ers, and their signatures ensure that these thought leaders have worked closely with authors to define topic coverage, book scope, critical content, and overall uniqueness. The expert signatures also symbol- ize a promise to our readers: you are reading a future classic. The Addison-Wesley Signature Series Signers: Kent Beck and Martin Fowler Kent Beck has pioneered people-oriented technologies like JUnit, Extreme Programming, and patterns for software development. Kent is interested in helping teams do well by doing good — finding a style of software development that simultaneously satisfies economic, aesthetic, emotional, and practical con- straints. His books focus on touching the lives of the creators and users of software. Martin Fowler has been a pioneer of object technology in enterprise applications. His central concern is how to design software well. He focuses on getting to the heart of how to build enterprise software that will last well into the future. He is interested in looking behind the specifics of technologies to the patterns, ptg practices, and principles that last for many years; these books should be usable a decade from now.
    [Show full text]
  • Extreme Programming from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
    Create account Log in Article Talk Read Edit View history Search Extreme programming From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Main page Extreme programming (XP) is a software development methodology which is Contents intended to improve software quality and responsiveness to changing customer Featured content requirements. As a type of agile software development,[1][2][3] it advocates frequent Current events "releases" in short development cycles, which is intended to improve productivity Random article and introduce checkpoints at which new customer requirements can be adopted. Donate to Wikipedia Wikipedia store Other elements of extreme programming include: programming in pairs or doing Interaction extensive code review, unit testing of all code, avoiding programming of features Help until they are actually needed, a flat management structure, simplicity and clarity in About Wikipedia code, expecting changes in the customer's requirements as time passes and the Community portal problem is better understood, and frequent communication with the customer and Recent changes among programmers.[2][3][4] The methodology takes its name from the idea that the Contact page Planning and feedback loops in beneficial elements of traditional software engineering practices are taken to extreme programming. Tools "extreme" levels. As an example, code reviews are considered a beneficial What links here practice; taken to the extreme, code can be reviewed continuously, i.e. the practice Related changes Software development of pair programming. Upload file process Special pages Critics have noted several potential drawbacks,[5] including problems with Core activities Permanent link unstable requirements, no documented compromises of user conflicts, and a Requirements · Design · Construction · Testing · Debugging · Deployment · Page information lack of an overall design specification or document.
    [Show full text]