oodt-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bruce Barkstrom <brbarkst...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: A Note on Software Design to Make Maintenance Easier
Date Wed, 05 Nov 2014 22:51:11 GMT
Finally got around to the Sept. issue of IEEE Computer.
Noticed your editing work.  Nice job.

Bruce B.

On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) <
chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:

> Thanks Bruce, this is great.
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> Chief Architect
> Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398)
> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527
> Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
> WWW:  http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department
> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Barkstrom <brbarkstrom@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: "dev@oodt.apache.org" <dev@oodt.apache.org>
> Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2014 at 6:12 AM
> To: "dev@oodt.apache.org" <dev@oodt.apache.org>
> Subject: A Note on Software Design to Make Maintenance Easier
>
> >I was working through some intricate programming yesterday and
> >observed that I should put in some input consistency checking
> >before turning a workflow over to the production
> >system.  My guess is that in complex workflows, that kind of
> >automated checking would cut down on errors enough to be very
> >worthwhile.
> >
> >Don't know how much of the OODT software does that kind of
> >checking, but it might be interesting to see if it would help.
> >Even better would be documentation of cases where it did.
> >
> >This kind of work is like the help my Ada compiler provides
> >in detecting errors such as type inconsistencies and violations
> >of interface consistency.  That kind of error checking really improves
> >my coding productivity.  I've even gotten in the habit of building
> >exception handling right into my standard code construction and
> >testing work.  Each module (i.e. subroutine) returns a Boolean
> >variable labelled 'OK' and a string called 'Err_Msg'.  That makes it
> >easy to figure out where things have gone wrong, including diagnostic
> >notes on values of key parameters (sort of like "Err detected when x = 0
> >in routine `check input'.  It seems like a bother sometimes during code
> >writing, but it saves a lot of time after development moves on and some
> >new error crops up in the previous code after you've forgotten the
> >details.
> >
> >Bruce B.
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message