Browsing Posts published in March, 2008

During my geekSpeak screencast last week, one of the attendees asked:

Any recommendations for refactoring existing code to insert interfaces? (e.g., what’s the best dependency to break first, the database?)

Excellent question! Most of us do not have the luxury of working on greenfield projects, but instead work on brownfield projects – existing applications that could use some tender loving care. Brownfield projects are often inflicted with legacy code. What do I mean by legacy code? I agree with Michael Feathers’ definition:

Legacy code is simple code without tests.

Michael elaborates further saying:

Code without tests is bad code. It doesn’t matter how well written it is; it doesn’t matter how pretty or object-oriented or well-encapsulated it is. With tests, we can change the behavior of our code quickly and verifiably. Without them, we really don’t know if our code is getting better or worse.

If you haven’t read Michael’s book, Working Effectively with Legacy Code, you really must. It is on my short list of must-read development books. Michael provides excellent strategies and patterns for safely implementing tests around untested code, which is crucial in order to make non-breaking changes to an existing application AKA refactoring. If you can refactor your code, you can improve your code.

Now back to the question at hand… Which dependency to break first? Let me turn the question around. Which dependency is causing you the most pain?

In my experience, it is typically the database as round-tripping to a database on each test to fetch or save data dramatically slows the tests down. If you have slow tests, you’ll be unlikely to run them as often and then the tests start to lose their value as a safety net. (N.B. You still want integration tests that access the database. You just don’t want each and every unit test to do so.) As well it requires a lot of effort to keep consistent data for tests, often using test data setup scripts or rolling back transactions at the end of tests.

Other areas that often cause pain are integration points – web services, DCOM/Enterprise Services, external text files, … Anywhere your application is relying on an external application. Integration points are problems for tests because if you’re relying on them, your tests will fail when the external applications are unavailable due to crashes, service outages, integration point upgrades, external network failures, behaviour changes, … Imagine that your e-commerce website integrates with 6 external systems (credit card processor, credit check, inventory, sales, address verification, and shipping). Your development environment integrates with DEV/QA versions of each of these services. Each service has 95% uptime, which translates into 1.5 days of downtime a month for maintenance, upgrades, and unexpected outages. The chance of all systems being available is the product of their availabilities or 95%*95%*95%*95%*95%*95%=73.5% uptime for all 6 integration points. If your tests directly use these test systems, your test suite will fail over 25% of the time for reasons beyond your control. Now is that because you introduced a breaking change or because one of your integration points is temporarily unavailable or misbehaving? Life gets worse when you integrate with more systems or when the availability of those systems is lower. Imagine you have to integrate with 12 integration points with 95% availability – your test suite will only pass 54% of the time. Or if your 6 test systems only have 90% availability, your test suite only passes 53% of the time. In each case, it’s a coin toss whether you know for certain whether the change you just made broke the application. When you start getting a lot of false negatives (failing tests when the problem is in an integration point), you stop trusting your tests and you’re essentially flying without a parachute.
By decoupling yourself from your integration points by using interfaces for the majority of your tests, you know that the code base is healthy and you can separately test the interactions with your integration points.

To figure out which dependency to break first, take a critical look at your codebase. What is causing you the most pain? Pain can manifest itself as long debug sessions, waiting for external services to be available, high bug counts, … Solve the pain by decoupling yourself from that dependency. Then look at what is now causing you the most pain and solve that. Lather, rinse, repeat. It might take a few weeks or months, but eventually you’ll have a codebase that is a pleasure to work with. If you don’t believe me, read this email that I received from Karl (originally posted here):

Hi James,

I’m writing you because I just wanted to thank you!

It was about two months ago and I attended TechEd/Orlando. I have to say that it was the first time for me and it really was an honor to be the one and only chosen from approximately 300 software developers working in my company to go to Orlando. I was very impressed about the good quality of the sessions, especially on the architecture track, but your tiny little discussion on Tuesday evening really opened my mind. At that time I had been working as a software developer for 7 years with about 5 years experience in software design and project management and 5 years of .NET experience. I was fighting with a 400,000 LOC .NET legacy monster that’s used by public safety agencies around the world in security related areas. I have a team of 12 developers and we were trying really hard to keep this beast up and running and extend it with new features. I think you can imagine that most of the time we were using the trial and error approach to get new features in (just hack it in and prepare for long debugging sessions hunting weird bugs in parts of the application you never expected to be affected by the new feature…). The main problem was – guess what – the dependencies. There were about 50 classes (all singleton “Managers”), and every single manager was tied to at least 10 other managers – no interfaces at all – and that’s just one of several layers of the app… We knew that dependencies were our problem, but we had no clue how to solve it – there was this chicken/egg problem – I want to decouple my system, which needs a lot of refactoring. To ensure that I don’t break anything I’d need unit tests but I can’t use them because my system is so highly coupled ;-) We have tried TypeMock, but my feeling was that this went in the wrong direction. Needless to say that this attempt failed.

During the discussion after your session you gave me some quite useful hints:

1. Read Applying Domain Driven Design and Patterns by Jimmy Nilsson
2. Read Working Effectively with Legacy Code by Michael Feathers
3. Use ReSharper (especially for Refactoring)
4. Use a Mock-Framework (preferably RhinoMocks)
5. Use a Dependency Injection Framework like Spring.NET

I bought Jimmy Nilsson’s book in the conference store and read it cover to cover on my flight back to Vienna. Then I bought the second book and read it within one week. I started to use ReSharper more extensively to apply some of the patterns from Michael Feathers’ book to get some unit tests in place. I extracted a lot of interfaces, brought Spring.NET into action and used RhinoMocks and the VS2005 built in UnitTest-Framework to write some useful unit tests. I also used the built in code coverage functionality in combination with the unit tests. In addition we already started Design for a messaging based service application that we want to develop in a very TDDish style.

As you can see there’s a lot going on since I attended your session. It was really this discussion about agile principles that gave me sort of a boost.

So again – thanks for opening my mind and keep on doing this great work!


In my opinion, Karl and his team are the real heroes here. You can be a hero too by taming your software dependencies!

Today at lunch* I’ll be joining Glen Gordon and Lynn Langit on geekSpeak to talk about Taming Your Software Dependencies. Specifically I’ll be talking about moving from tightly-coupled to loosely-coupled architectures using dependency inversion, dependency injection, and inversion of control containers. geekSpeak is an interactive LiveMeeting driven by audience questions with no PowerPoint and lots of code. Come and geek out with me on geekSpeak! Register here.

* Today at lunch == Wednesday, March 26, 2008 from 12-1pm PST or 1-2pm MST or 2-3pm CST or 3-4pm EST or …

My latest article just hit the web in the March 2008 issue of MSDN Magazine. Loosen Up: Tame Your Software Dependencies for More Flexible Apps takes you on a journey from a highly-coupled architecture, which we’re all familiar with, to gradually more loosely-coupled ones. First stop is the problems inherent in highly-coupled applications. To start solving those problems, I look to dependency inversion and service location. Next stop is poor man’s dependency injection and then a simple, hand-rolled inversion of control (IoC) container. From there, I look at the features provided by full-fledged IoC containers and use Castle Windsor as an example, along with some Binsor thrown in for configuration goodness. My goal was to help developers understand the benefits of dependency injection and IoC containers by showing them the problems solved at each stage of the journey.

A big thanks to Howard Dierking, MSDN Magazine editor extraordinaire, for his encouragement and not having an issue with using Windsor for the advanced examples. Thanks to Oren Eini for help debugging a Binsor configuration problem in one of the examples. And an especially big thanks to my spouse and two young sons for their patience while I was writing.

Thanks in advance for reading the article. I welcome your feedback and questions.

DISCLAIMER: For the agilists reading this post, there is nothing new here. I just hear a lot of misconceptions around terms like YAGNI and wanted to provide my own take on things.

YAGNI is an acronym for “you ain’t gonna need it”. You often hear it bandied about agile shops. One developer suggests an over-architected solution and the other cries out YAGNI. For example:

Dev#1: We can transfer that file using BizTalk!

Dev#2: YAGNI. We can download it using HttpWebRequest.

I’m not knocking BizTalk here. My point is that if all you need to do is transfer a file from point A to point B, BizTalk is an awfully complicated and expensive way to do it.

Many agile critics see YAGNI as an excuse for developers to do stupid things. Critics claim that YAGNI encourages developers to hard-code connection strings and other silliness. “In development, you’re not going to need to change the connection string. So by the YAGNI principle, you should hard-code your connection strings. Isn’t agile stupid?” YAGNI is a principle like any other and should be applied intelligently. It’s about keeping simple problems simple. It’s about the right tools for the right job – don’t try to drive a finishing nail with a sledgehammer. Too often we as an industry implement “enterprise solutions” to solve otherwise trivial problems.

YAGNI isn’t an excuse to be sloppy with your architecture. If you’re building the next hot social bookmarking application, it better scale. You better design with caching, distribution, load-balancing, etc. in mind. I would want some architectural spikes demonstrating acceptable performance at high user loads. Similarly if you’re developing an internal application to be used by 10 users, I would bet that you don’t need the complexity of a load-balanced web farm, distributed middle-tier cache infrastructure, and a clustered database. YAGNI is about choosing the appropriate amount of complexity for the problem at hand.

YAGNI is about building software at the last responsible moment. The “responsible” part is key. You can’t slap an asynchronous architecture in after the fact. You need to design that in up front. At the same time you should avoid speculative generalization. Solve the problems at hand with a responsible eye toward future requirements. Keep yourself lean and nimble enough to respond to those future requirements, but don’t build them “just in case we need them”. What you will need in the future seldom has any resemblance to what you might build now. Even worse, unused features add complexity and rigidity to a codebase. You’re actually worse off than if you didn’t have those features at all! Keeping your architecture simple, lean, and nimble requires a lot of discipline.

So next time someone suggests using a SOA-based ESB to integrate the disparate workflows in the document lifecycle, ask yourself whether a wiki couldn’t work just as well. :^)

The Plumbers are back for another half-hour of mayhem. Get it here.

  • Heroes Happen {Here} Launch (
  • DevTeach Toronto May 12-16 (
  • Discussing Hanselminutes #103 Quetzal Bradley on Testing after Unit Tests (
  • Release It! by Michael Nygard (
  • Bil 0 IE 8 (
  • John {Hearts} Polymorphic Podcast (
  • MSDN Mag article – Loosen Up: Tame Software Dependencies for More Flexible Apps (Coming soon to
  • James talking about Taming Software Dependencies on GeekSpeak – Wed. Mar. 26 @ 12-1pm PST (
  • John Guests on .NET Rocks (
  • Living Life on the Edge