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.mattm...@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.mattm...@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 <brbarkst...@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. > >
