Lyle, I like that terminology. I've used "layering" before as in "build your new functionality as a layer on top of the OOB" for the exact reasons you mentioned. Nicely done.
I might start using "bolt-on" instead. --- J.T. Shyman _____ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of Lyle Taylor Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 4:28 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Remedy Development Best Practices I'll point out one guiding principle that I try to follow that I haven't seen anyone else point out yet: Prefer bolt-on customizations over built-in ones. That is, wherever possible, add desired functionality without changing existing forms/workflow. For example, if you want to make a field required on an OOB form, rather than changing the form to make the field required, you could add active links to make it look required and verify that it is filled in before allowing a user to save the form. That way, you don't break anything that's existing, and your risk of being affected by future patches is minimized. Obviously this can't always be done, but if you put a little effort into really thinking things through you can often find a way to accomplish what you need without having to modify BMC's code. It also doesn't always provide the simplest solution, but my argument is that a little extra effort and cost up front pays off probably the first time you need to patch the system, or when you leave and someone else has to maintain what you've done. Lyle From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of Steven Iocco Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 3:10 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Remedy Development Best Practices ** Hi folks. Just wondering what practices some developers are using for custom code and enhancing ootb workflow. IE, field ID's in a non reserved range, New workflow easily identified perhpaps by the company name etc. My real big dillemma is modifying existing workflow. Does anyone have some best practices for modifying existing workflow so that in the event of an upgrade pitfalls can be avoided or at least anticipated? Thanks Steve NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. __Platinum Sponsor: RMI Solutions ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" html___ _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: RMI Solutions ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
