From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public From: paul.johnson@gecm.com (Paul Johnson) Subject: Re: Interface/Implementation (was Re: Design by Contract) Date: 1997/09/09 Message-ID: <5v32se$l7u$1@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 270933120 References: <340F20A0.49B5@ac3i.dseg.ti.com> <340F39E3.4B71@pseserv3.fw.hac.com> Organization: GEC-Marconi Research Centre Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-09-09T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu says... >Note how significant it is that I make a simple request for anyone to >report in on how Eiffel would work together with a typical CM tool >like Continuus or Clearcase to achieve this kind of separation. This is a reasonable request. I, too, find the lack of response interesting. There are a number of possible reasons: 1: It can't be done, and the people who have tried it are lying low. 2: Its not actually necessary. 3: It can be done, but the people who are doing it are lying low. 4: It is necessary, but nobody is actually doing it. I think we can discount (1). It looks like a pretty simple problem, and if people here had tried it and failed then I think they would have spoken up pretty quickly. (2) is an interesting possibility. Most organisations with configuration control have some kind of test or inspection procedure before release. Either of these would be sufficient to enforce the existing interface. Tests would fail with changed interfaces, and inspectors would reject changed interfaces precisely because they will break existing software. (3) is also unlikely, for much the same reasons as (1). Anyone with such a system would have spoken up by now, and probably offered copies of the scripts. (4) is also possible. If an organisation using Eiffel has sufficiently chaotic CM processes then it will keep breaking existing software, and generally fail to make progress. They would also have a good motive to keep quiet. But I doubt that any language feature can rescue such an organisation. So in summary, I doubt that separate CM of interface and implementation is that important. The only requirement is that they can be examined separately. If I were running a multi-person Eiffel project I would put in CM procedures, including test and inspection, which would check for changes in interfaces. If I were running a project with dozens of developers then I might want something a little more formal. CM of short forms plus manual inspection of diffs before internal release would seem to be perfectly adequate. Paul. -- Paul Johnson | GEC-Marconi Ltd is not responsible for my opinions. | +44 1245 242244 +-----------+-----------------------------------------+ Work: | You are lost in a twisty maze of little Home: | standards, all different.