tagged by: refactoring
Articles on refactoring, links to more articles (and tools) on refactoring, index of all the refactorings in the book with additional comments and a few more refactorings.
Over the last decade or so, Refactoring has become a widely used technique to keep a high internal quality for a codebase. However most teams don't make enough use of refactoring because they aren't aware of the various workflows in which you can use it. In this keynote talk from OOP 2014 in Munich, I explore some of these workflows: such as Litter-Pickup Refactoring, Comprehension Refactoring, and Preparatory Refactoring. I also remind people why common justifications for refactoring will sabotage your best efforts. (This talk also has a treatment as an infodeck.)
10 February 2014
In January 2001 two Java tools crossed Refactoring's Rubicon. Refactoring in Java now has serious tool support
A code smell is a surface indication that usually corresponds to a deeper problem in the system. The term was first coined by Kent Beck while helping me with my Refactoring book.
9 February 2006
In my refactoring book, I gave a couple of definitions of refactoring.
It's a common question, and the short answer is that yes, refactoring is very useful when building a framework. But the issues involved depend on the state of life of the framework, and particularly in the approach you use to building a framework.
18 May 2003
Making a change to an interface that impacts all its consumers requires two thinking modes: implementing the change itself, and then updating all its usages. This can be hard when you try to do both at the same time, especially if the change is on a PublishedInterface with multiple or external clients.
Parallel change, also known as expand and contract, is a pattern to implement backward-incompatible changes to an interface in a safe manner, by breaking the change into three distinct phases: expand, migrate, and contract.
13 May 2014
Once a term known to only a few, "Refactoring" is commonly tossed around the computer industry. I like to think that I'm partly responsible for this and hope it's improved some programmers lives and some business's bottom lines. (Important point, I'm not the father or the inventor of refactoring - just a documenter.)
3 January 2004
Self-Testing Code is the name I used in Refactoring to refer to the practice of writing comprehensive automated tests in conjunction with the functional software. When done well this allows you to invoke a single command that executes the tests - and you are confident that these tests will illuminate any bugs hiding in your code.
1 May 2014
Refactoring has grown into a well-known technique, and most software development teams at least claim to be doing refactoring regularly. Many teams, however, don't appreciate the different workflows that refactoring can be used in, and thus miss opportunities to effectively incorporate refactoring into their development activities. In this deck I explore various different workflows. I hope it will encourage teams to integrate refactoring more deeply into their work, resulting in a better designed code-bases that will make it quicker and easier to add new features.
8 January 2014
by Pramod Sadalage and Martin Fowler
Over the last few years we've developed a number of techniques that allow a database design to evolve as an application develops. This is a very important capability for agile methodologies. The techniques rely on applying continuous integration and automated refactoring to database development, together with a close collaboration between DBAs and application developers. The techniques work in both pre-production and released systems.
So far refactoring tools have appeared for a number of languages. After Smalltalk's lead, we've seen several tools for Java and a couple for C#. One language conspicuous by its absence is C++, despite appeals. All this despite the fact that the first refactoring thesis was done by Bill Opdyke, who's background is in C++.
18 October 2003
Whenever two or three values are gathered together - turn them into a $%#$%^ object.
-- Me (it was funnier with the voices)
This is one of my favorite CodeSmells from the refactoring book. You spot it when you constantly see the same few data items passed around together. start and end are a good example of a data clump wanting to be a range. Often data clumps are primitive values that nobody thinks to turn into an object.
This question struck my mind a few times when writing the refactoring book. I knew the term was used within a fairly small community, so in order to discover the etymology of refactoring I talked to the people in that group (Ward Cunningham, Kent Beck, Bill Opdyke, John Brant, Don Roberts, Ralph Johnson...) to find what had led them to come up with the term.
10 September 2003
From the very beginning of when I started to talk and write about refactoring people have asked me how it should be incorporated into the wider software development process. Should there be refactoring phases in the software development lifecycle, what proportion of an iteration should be devoted to refactoring tasks, how should we figure out who should be assigned to refactoring duties? Although there are places for some scheduled refactoring efforts, I prefer to encourage refactoring as an opportunistic activity, done whenever and wherever code needs to cleaned up - by whoever.
1 November 2011
A recent piece by Robert Cringely caused a small stir in the refactoring community recently, as he criticized refactoring. Phlip summed the response on the refactoring mailing list with an unusually restrained '...he sounds like a "skeptic" who writes reviews of books he has no intention of reading.'
3 June 2003
It looks like those devious people at UIUC getting ready to refactor Fortran. Brian Foote writes about the project in his unparallelled style. (He's one of the most amusing writers in software - but getting him to write anything is usually like trying to pull teeth from a live sabre-tooth tiger while wearing a necklace of freshly killed lamb chops.) (Yes I know it's old news, but I saw something else on his blog and then found this.)
24 August 2005
As I listen to our development teams talk about their work, one common theme is their dislike of things held in statics. Typically we see common services or components held in static variables with static initializers. One of the big problems with statics (in most languages) is you can't use polymorphism to substitute one implementation with another. This bits us a lot because we are great fans of testing - and to test well it's important to be able to replace services with a Service Stub.
20 October 2004