Re: Refactoring process model,

I get what you are saying. I suppose there are a number of non-functional
aspects that can be improved through refactoring: comprehensibility,
modularity, maintainability, etc. The simple design model still works best
for me.

On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Amir Kolsky <[email protected]> wrote:

> **
>
>
> The point is that you don't refactor to improve the design. You refactor to
> improve the maintainability of your product. This is a behavioral aspect of
> the product -- an ility, not functional.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of Adam Sroka
> Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 10:03 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [refactoring] Refactoring process model,
>
> The only one that matters.
>
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Amir Kolsky <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > **
>
> >
> >
> > And the name we give this ility is?
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> > On Behalf Of Adam Sroka
> > Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 2:51 PM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [refactoring] Refactoring process model,
> >
> > To make the design simpler -- so it has less duplication, is clearer,
> > and has no unneeded parts. Thus it should be easier to maintain.
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Amir Kolsky <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > You do not refactor, that is change the design, just for the sake of
> it.
> > > You
> > > set out with the goal of improving SOME ility -- why else would you
> > > change your design? The same hold for process refactoring. So,
> > > here's a question to the original poster -- what are you trying to
> > > accomplish?
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [email protected]
> > > [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > On Behalf Of Adam Sroka
> > > Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 12:27 PM
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > Subject: Re: [refactoring] Refactoring process model,
> > >
> > > We refactor to improve the design. We optimize to improve "ilities."
> > > These are separate activities. The end goal is to have the best
> > > design that meets the customers needs.
> > >
> > > It is true that a given refactoring may preserve behavior but not
> > > performance (or other qualities.) That's why we write tests for
> > > these and when they fall outside an acceptable threshold we optimize
> > > them aggressively.
> > >
> > > On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Amir Kolsky <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well... Refactoring a system means changing its internal structure
> > > > without changing its behavior. I would guess that for a process
> > > > with a specified input and output, you can change the internal
> > > > steps without changing the outcome.
> > > >
> > > > The problem with the definition of refactoring is that what is
> > > > construed to be the 'behavior of the system' really means the
> > > > 'functional behavior of the system'. This leaves 'ilities' in an
> > > > unknown state. Should the performance be the same? The flexibility?
> > > > The maintainability?
> > > >
> > > > If you would keep the full behavior of the system intact, you
> > > > can't really do any refactoring. So my guess is that by 'process'
> > > > refactoring we mean making sure that the outcome is the same but
> > > > we get better performance, visibility, quality, etc.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: [email protected]
> > > > [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > > On Behalf Of Steven Gordon
> > > > Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 10:15 AM
> > > > To: [email protected]
> > > > Subject: Re: [refactoring] Refactoring process model,
> > > >
> > > > Would refactoring a model mean that the form and organization of
> > > > the model is being changed while keeping the meaning of the model
> > unchanged?
> > > >
> > > > If so, I would need some convincing to believe there is much
> > > > practical value in it.
> > > >
> > > > If not, then I think refactoring would be a very deceptive way to
> > > > label what is really reworking a model.
> > > >
> > > > SteveG
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 12:37 AM, aishafds <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > **
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi
> > > > > Am planning to do a little research on refactoring of business
> > > > > process models. can you please suggest some ways i can go about...
> > > > >
> > > > > Was thinking of a normalization approach to the models...do you
> > > > > think this idea can work out ?
> > > > > thanks
> > > > > looking forward to your suggestions Aisha
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>  
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/refactoring/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/refactoring/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    [email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/