Re: two setup overview questions
From: Scott Allen (scott_at_nospam.OdeToCode.com)
Date: 01/17/05
- Next message: dw: "Re: Help! Can't create ASP.NET project"
- Previous message: WJ: "Re: Building Solution"
- In reply to: Chris: "Re: two setup overview questions"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 07:32:55 -0800
Chris:
The setup would depend on many factors - the size of the database, the amount
of processing required, etc., so isolated development is not the answer for
all development questions, but I'd still recommend the setup whenever possible.
If I walked into a development shop that did not have this setup I'd ask
"why not?" and have serious concerns if reasonable answers were not forthcoming.
More inline:
> I read the articles that were linked in both responses, thank you.
> I see the advantages with Source Save but if you,as a developer, are
> required to have all the necessary componets and server on your local
> workstation that can get pretty expensive and resource intense. I
> currently
> use a P4, 2.8G, 1GDDR, etc. and can't see running IIS, SQL Server,
> Mail
> server(if using non-CDONTS), all the third party com objects, etc.
> I can see maybe IIS installed locally and have always hoped for a
> local version, better than what was attempted before with Personal Web
> Server. Then I guess you could 'bounce' all the other requests, i.e.
> Data, Mail, etc off of a real server.
Wow, a 2.8Ghz machine with 1GB of RAM should have plenty of horsepower to
run all the software needed for isolated development. Of the handful of machines
I work from at least one has half the processing power and RAM you've spec'ed
out here and performs more than adequately.
> I still don't see the point though, if two developers happen to be
> working on the same pages, in isollation, then move to the production
> web server, who wins? Unless you 100% lock the files, then what about
> someone making changes to the production server that effect others? I
> don't see a full-proof way of doing it?
This scenario is exactly what source control is for. You never move code
directly from a developer's machine into production - and never make changes
directly in production. Changes are only commited into source control which
can track revisions.
>I personnelly like the workstation/server set-up, servers are servers and
PC are >workstations. Maybe that's just old school.
It's unfortunately tedious and error prone. You can easily hit scenarios
where one developer overwrites another developer's work, or one dev makes
a breaking schema change and the entire team is sitting around waiting for
a resolution.
-- Scott http://www.OdeToCode.com/blogs/scott/
- Next message: dw: "Re: Help! Can't create ASP.NET project"
- Previous message: WJ: "Re: Building Solution"
- In reply to: Chris: "Re: two setup overview questions"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
