Skip to main content

Use cases and robustness analysis

Use cases or user stories? Use cases are bigger and require more work. User stories are quicker and easier, more agile. That may be ok if you have other agile practices in place. If you have a customer or functional expert available to the team at all times, user stories may work quite well. But if you don't, you may need something heavier, like use cases.

It also depends on the complexity of the requirements. If the requirements are simple, use cases are not necessary. But for complex requirements, I think use cases are better suited than user stories. They help the customer to think through the requirements earlier, and they give the developers better understanding of what the system is supposed to do.

But use cases are not agile! Yes, they may be. Agile doesn't mean lightweight, it means rightweight. It means you adapt the process to the project. A large, complex project needs a heavier process than small and simple ones.

RUP had an activity called robustness analysis to analyze model, view and controller objects from use cases. I never really understood the purpose of this, until recently I read a book called Use Case Driven Object Modeling with UML. I strongly recommend this book for everyone using use cases and/or object oriented analysis. It argues against many popular opinions about use cases that they should be abstract and not deal with the user interface. These kind of abstract use cases don't give the developers the information they need, leaving them to make their own assumptions about how the system should work.

This doesn't mean that the use cases should include user interface design, but some specification of the user interface is necessary. Not only is this necessary to keep the developers on track, it also helps to make the use cases better.

The book explains how drive the object design from the use cases, resulting in a good object model that is consistent with the requirements.


Popular posts from this blog

Database dump with Java

I need to update a database that is created by PHP. The problem is that I am not a PHP coder, but a Java coder, and I need to use some other Java libraries to get the job done. So how can find out exactly which tables to update and how? It would take me weeks to search the PHP code, and I still wouldn't be sure if I got it right.

The first step is to install a clean application on my computer. There is no user data in the database, so if I perform commands like creating a user etc in the web application, I can look at what changed in the database. I'm sure that could be done in MySQL, but I'm not an expert on that either. When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. So, I'll use Java for that to.

So, I wrote a small Java application that produces exactly the output that I need. It reads metadata from the database to find all tables and columns, lists that metadata and the content of all the rows.

Here it is:import;

The Future of Programming

The problem with abstractions Programmers are experts in abstract thinking. To program is to generalize: A method is a general specification of different execution paths. A class is a general specification of objects. A superclass is a generalization of several classes.

Although our minds are capable of abstract thinking, concrete thinking is more natural, and concrete examples are the foundation for abstractions. For instance, how do you teach children what a car is? You don't give a definition like: 'A car is a wheeled motor vehicle used for transporting passengers.' Instead, you point at a car and say: 'Look, a car!' After seeing a few cars, the child understands what a car is.

Notice what I just did! I started with a general principle and then gave an example. Which part of the paragraph above is easier to understand, the first sentence (general) or the rest (example)?

Einstein said that examples is not another way to teach, it is the only way to teach. It is…

The Pessimistic Programmer

I decided to change the title of this blog to "The Pessimistic Programmer". Why? Am I a depressed person that thinks nothing will work? No, I am an optimist in life. Something good is going to happen today :-) But in programming, something will surely go wrong.

I don't actually view this as pessimism, but as realism. I want to be prepared for the worst that can possibly happen. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. But my wife explained to me that pessimists always say that they are just being realistic. So, I might as well face it: I am a pessimist.

I think a good programmer needs to be pessimistic; always thinking about what can go wrong and how to prevent it. I don't say that I am a good programmer myself. No, I make far too many mistakes for that. But I have learnt how to manage my mistakes with testing and double checking.

Über-programmers can manage well without being pessimistic. They have total overview of the code and all consequences of changes. But I'…