Timeline for Best practices for moving large MS Access application towards .Net?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 29, 2011 at 16:35 | comment | added | S.Lott | @MattDavey: "in order to meet the requests from our clients we realize that we have to move to something new". It seems extreme to me. You see it otherwise. Please provide your own answer in light of your own interpretation of the question. I have not seen gradual migration work. Perhaps you have. If so, please describe an approach that will work. | |
| Dec 29, 2011 at 16:31 | comment | added | S.Lott | @Chad: What? "While that may be what you would prefer"... I provided the only answer that I know will work. I'm sorry you don't like it. Please upvote the answer that you like better. My role is not to agree with all the other answers. My role is provide an answer that I know will work. I know this will work. If you don't like it, you should provide a list of corrections, or -- better yet -- write your own answer that you know will work. Then folks can upvote your answer. | |
| Dec 29, 2011 at 16:29 | comment | added | MattDavey | @S.Lott I think it's extreme to say that the code is more of a liability than a value. Nothing the OP said indicated that it didn't work or fulfil the business needs - in fact "We are quite satisfied with the current functionality of the application". There doesn't seem to be an urgent need to bin perfectly working code - no cancer to cut out. But the OP has identified that to make improvements in the future he needs to break through the glass ceiling imposed by Access - this can be a gradual process. | |
| Dec 29, 2011 at 16:24 | comment | added | SoylentGray | @maple_shaft - I do not disagree with that. But the question is not how do i change the culture, or even should I change the culture. The assumption it is acceptable the demand your company change to suit what you (or even the internet) thinks it should be is not realistic and will more likely end up with the OP looking for a new job. While that may be what you would prefer to his job, it is not fair for you to assume he feels the same way. | |
| Dec 29, 2011 at 16:22 | comment | added | S.Lott | @MattDavey: Joel is not describing this case at all. In this case, the code -- as written -- is more of a liability than a value. "in order to meet the requests from our clients we realize that we have to move to something new". In many cases, the code has been poorly designed and poorly maintained. Joel's quote "As if source code rusted" is meant ironically. But badly-maintained and poorly-architected code does "rot" because of the accretion of poorly-made changes. This appears to be the case here. Do you have evidence to the contrary? | |
| Dec 29, 2011 at 16:13 | comment | added | MattDavey | I'm not questioning your advice at all Steven :) Did you read the Spolsky article I linked to? If you know ways to overcome the problems he talks about there then I'm subscribing to your blog immediately | |
| Dec 29, 2011 at 16:12 | comment | added | maple_shaft♦ | @Chad If you don't change the culture immediately and violently then it never changes. Poor management has self preservation in mind and good management inevitably gets tempted to start reversing course or bastardizing the eventual result as soon as things start getting difficult. They will inevitably pick a comfortable Hell over an unfamiliar Heaven. I have never seen a gradual approach work when it comes to cultural change, the result is just a facade. | |
| Dec 29, 2011 at 16:06 | comment | added | S.Lott | "Because most people would say the opposite". Most people are smarter than the customers I've worked with. Good for them. Sadly, I've had to work with a number of customers with large, bad MS-Access applications that needed wholesale rewrites because they couldn't gradually migrate. It's my experience. That's my citation. I'm sorry my experience appears to be unique. | |
| Dec 29, 2011 at 16:01 | comment | added | MattDavey | Sorry had to -1 this for Often a mistake. Best practice is to not try "gradually". - Do you have a citation for this 'best practice'? Because most people would say the opposite - joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html | |
| Dec 29, 2011 at 15:58 | history | edited | S.Lott | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 669 characters in body
|
| Dec 29, 2011 at 15:42 | comment | added | S.Lott | @Chad: "Your experience is not the sum total of universe". I never said it was. But my experience is the only experience I've ever had. That's the basis for my answer. "change the culture immediately"? Where did I say that in the answer? "clouds your ability to see other potential solutions"? I'm not here to see other solutions. I'm here to provide an answer. I'm not the decision-maker. This isn't public policy. We don't need a consensus. I'm providing an answer. | |
| Dec 29, 2011 at 15:33 | comment | added | maple_shaft♦ |
@AlexanderGalkin will definitely show the complete discussion to our CEOs (who decide on the final solution) This is a huge red flag with your company right here. Effective leadership at the executive CEO level should never be this close to the technical design decisions. They should be establishing long and short term strategies and should be setting company direction. This situation screams of a strangling micro-manager and I don't need to explain what is wrong with that. I hope your CEO reads this comment as well.
|
|
| Dec 29, 2011 at 15:25 | comment | added | SoylentGray | -1 Your experience is not the sum total of universe. While we would all love to live in a perfect world where we can change the culture immediately that is not reality. In addition your bias towards against some proven technologies clouds your ability to see other potential solutions. You have spelled out the best way for YOU to solve the problem not for the OP. | |
| Dec 29, 2011 at 15:08 | comment | added | Alexander Galkin | @S.Lott: I appreciate your answer a lot and will definitely show the complete discussion to our CEOs (who decide on the final solution), I just doubt that they will consider it possible, despite the negative experience... I am sorry. | |
| Dec 29, 2011 at 15:02 | history | edited | S.Lott | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 226 characters in body
|
| Dec 29, 2011 at 14:45 | comment | added | S.Lott | @AlexanderGalkin: My customers who tried that failed. They found that Access functionality -- when still embedded in Access -- was inaccessible. Pretty much what you're discovering. You can continue to try, however. I've provided an alternative. You can reject it as much as you want. | |
| Dec 29, 2011 at 14:39 | comment | added | Alexander Galkin | @S.Lott: You are right that the way of "gradual change" might is harder and I would be the first to vote for throwing the complete code base and write it anew if this were feasible... The only solution we see is to decouple step for step some part of functionality and implement it with a new technology. And this is what we can do. We seek help for best integration between these application. | |
| Dec 29, 2011 at 14:15 | history | edited | S.Lott | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 50 characters in body
|
| Dec 29, 2011 at 14:14 | comment | added | S.Lott | @AlexanderGalkin: The "Gradual" is nice but not realistic either. You must take a very, very hard line on using Access for storage. Moving from Access to SQL Server is often defeated by people putting "just one little table" in Access. If they do that, they cause endless problems and need to be coached or fired. I use the word "fire" to cause thinking. You can think that firing is excessive. Good. You thought about it. You aren't "throw away everything". I think I said that you have to preserve the most valuable thing, which is the data. Does that need to be in bold? | |
| Dec 29, 2011 at 13:44 | comment | added | Alexander Galkin | This is all nice, but not realistic. Especially the part with "firing anyone" and "discarding entirely". We can't just throw away everything and start from a green field, both from financial, strategical and personal viewpoints. | |
| Dec 29, 2011 at 12:39 | history | edited | S.Lott | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Dec 29, 2011 at 12:37 | comment | added | maple_shaft♦ |
+1 Because of this... Often a mistake. Best practice is to not try "gradually".
|
|
| Dec 29, 2011 at 12:33 | history | answered | S.Lott | CC BY-SA 3.0 |