This week's book giveaway is in the OO, Patterns, UML and Refactoring forum. We're giving away four copies of Refactoring for Software Design Smells: Managing Technical Debt and have Girish Suryanarayana, Ganesh Samarthyam & Tushar Sharma on-line! See this thread for details.
I'm about to submit my assignment, but when I made the final review of the specification I found a sentance seeming stranger than what I had thought earlier. In the DBAccess interface, the comment close to the updateRecord() reads:
"... The new value for field n appears in data[n]."
I originally interpreted the 1st field as appearing in data, the second in data, ... etc.
But I'm considering of another interpretation that the 1st field appears in data, the second in data, ... etc.
What do you interpret it as the specification really wanted?
Thanks in advance!
Best regards, Scott
(SCEA Part II in progress...)<br /> <br />Scott H. Kao<br />[SCJD, SCBCD, SCWCD, SCJP]
In this assignment, as in real life, you are unlikely to get perfect instructions. Sometimes this could be because the person writing the instructions has a different "mindset" (e.g. they may be a DBA moving into writing programming specifications - in which case they may well write that field 1 goes into data), and sometimes the confusion could be deliberate (so that the customer has more time to think / clarify instructions, or (in the case of assignments for certification) it could be that the instructions are meant to mirror the vaguarities of a real life assignment ).
Go with what seems a reasonable interpretation for us: that the "1st field as appearing in data"