tsJensen

A quest for software excellence...

Seek to Establish a Corporate Culture of Honesty

In April of this year, an executive of another company told me in a telephone conversation, "Everybody lies. You just have to get used to it."

I was stunned by the statement and have given it a lot of thought since then. It reminded me of a scene from Babylon 5 that went something like this:

Garibaldi: Everybody lies.
Edgars: That's a very sad view of the universe, Mr. Garibaldi.
Garibaldi: Yeah, well, it's the only one I got. And it works for me.
Edgars: The truth will be revealed in a couple of days. How many people can say that?
Garibaldi: I don't know. But I think the last guy got thirty pieces of silver for the same job.

Dishonesty in this technological age has even produced its own vocabulary, specifically the verb "to blag." The third definition of "blag" in the Urban Dictionary:

To convince another person that all the stuff you just made up is in fact true and worthy. Example: "Caught in a tight spot, Harry blagged his way through the conversation and somehow got the job."

I do not wish to accept the dim view that everybody lies. And I certainly do not wish to get used to it, in any way shape or form. And yet there is growing evidence both anecdotally in my own professional career and globally that the enterprise often creates a dishonest culture. Author Brian Amble in Management Issues filed a piece in 2005 entitled Corporate Culture Encourages Lying. The author mentions "blagging" and makes these three very interesting points:

"The rot starts at the top, revealing a surprisingly ambivalent attitude amongst...bosses towards the honesty – or otherwise - of their staff."

"The vast majority of company directors and senior managers believe it is wrong for their employees to lie to them. But almost half are comfortable with those same employees telling untruths on their behalf to their customers – with female bosses even more tolerant of this sort of behavior than their male colleagues."

"[Microsoft] encourages decision-making [using a] technology-based process that creates permanent digital records and maintains the integrity of the information on which those decisions are based."

In my experience blagging is most especially prevalent in the world of software development where management clings to the notion, and consultants sell the latest process magic to reaffirm the assumption, that building software is like building a house, sufficiently predictable and repeatable so as to accurately establish a firm budget, timeline and resource commitment before ground is broken. Software artisans then find themselves in the very uncomfortable position of feeling pressured to lie to their patron bosses who clearly do not wish to know that building software is often as much an unpredictable art as it is in any way a predictable science.

Software craftsmen who boldly stand their ground and declare, "I don't know how long it will take to build that," are more often attacked and labeled malcontent and misfit, shunned by managers who insist that they can bend reality to their will while they ignore what their experts have told them. And lower management who know better are caught in the ultimate catch 22. They may believe their lead developers or software architects when they say, "we cannot deliver all these features on that date," but they cannot report that fact to their own managers or customers, so they choose to lie in order to protect and even advance their own career knowing that if the implementation team fails, they may avoid accountability by throwing the developers under the bus, asserting the implementation team is incompetent and ought to be replaced.

Given the impossible circumstances in which software craftsmen find themselves, they often resort to lying to themselves and their bosses asserting that they can produce some piece of software, despite the general lack of specific requirements and understanding of the problem domain or the target users, within the time budget and resource constraints imposed by management. And then in order to avoid being exposed as just another blagger, the software artisan (or collectively the team) works impossible hours, makes imprudent quality compromises and desperately seeks for external circumstances which can be blamed for delays. Knowing that such responsibility diverting opportunities always arise, the software artisan begins to accept and even embrace the culture of lies produced by her circumstances until she does not even recognize the truth.

I know that this scenario is not universal. There are organizations who take great steps, incorporating technology and constant vigilance, to avoid the traps of dishonesty. These organizations are led by honest people who genuinely listen to their people and avoid the trap of boxing their software craftsmen into a set of assumptions that are untenable at best and downright foolish at worst. Dr. Rhonne Sanderson said it best in an article by Marcia A. Reed-Woodard entitled Don't lie to me: dishonesty can ruin professional and personal relationships:

"Although lying provides an easy out in the short-term, it comes with serious repercussions," says Dr Rhonne Sanderson, a Dallas--Fort Worth area licensed psychotherapist. He maintains that the fallout from lying can hurt others, ruin relationships, as well as rob the liar of integrity, credibility, confidence, and self-esteem. "Lying only exacerbates the real problem."

If we let honesty govern our dealings with our fellow man, we will all be the better for it. We do not need to sacrifice civility for honesty, nor should we mistake an honest disagreement for disrespect or insubordination, for when we do, we encourage others to be dishonest through their silence.

We can boldly speak the truth and expect others to do so. We can hold ourselves and others to account. We need not settle for the notion that everybody lies. And we certainly do not need to get used to it. We can and ought to do and be better.

C# Thread Safe Class Essentials

In this post I'm recording my own code sample for future reference. It is not meant to be perfectly usable or even a representation of best practices but a practical reminder note of the most common thread safe code I end up writing. The code is a thread safe singleton class that demonstrates the use of the lock keyword, the Interlocked class, ReadWriterLockSlim class, and one of the new concurrent collections available in .NET 4.0.

In the code below, I've only shown the ConcurrentDictionary being used. There is a gold mine of power in the other concurrent types to be explored in other posts.

using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Collections.Concurrent;
using System.Threading;

namespace SafeThreads
{
  public sealed class DataCache
  {
    // Thread Safe Singleton Pattern
    //+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    
    //volatile to insure assignment before read access
    private static volatile DataCache _instance;
    
    //the sync root object - clever name
    private static object _threadBolt = new object();

    private DataCache() { } //cannot create outside this

    public static DataCache Instance
    {
      get
      {
        if (null == _instance)
        {
          lock (_threadBolt)
          {
            if (null == _instance)
            {
              _instance = new DataCache();
            }
          }
        }
        return _instance;
      }
    }
    

    // Thread Safe with lock
    //+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    private long _callCount = 0;
    private long _updateCount = 0;

    public long UpdateCountWithLock(long callCount)
    {
      lock (_threadBolt)
      {
        _callCount += callCount;
        _updateCount++;
        return _updateCount;
      }
    }

    // Thread Safe Interlocked class
    //+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    public long UpdateCountWithInterlocked(long callCount)
    {
      Interlocked.Add(ref _callCount, callCount);
      Interlocked.Increment(ref _updateCount);
      return _updateCount;
    }

    private Tuple<int, string> _currentItem = 
      new Tuple<int, string>(0, string.Empty);

    public Tuple<int, string> CurrentItemInterlocked
    {
      get { return _currentItem; }
      set
      {
        Interlocked.Exchange<Tuple<int, string>>(ref _currentItem, value);
      }
    }


    // Thread Safe ReaderWriterLockSlim
    //+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    private ReaderWriterLockSlim _slimLock = new ReaderWriterLockSlim();
    private Dictionary<string, int> _keys = new Dictionary<string, int>();
    private List<string> _values = new List<string>();

    public int Count
    {
      get
      {
        _slimLock.EnterReadLock();
        try
        {
          return _values.Count;
        }
        finally
        {
          _slimLock.ExitReadLock();
        }
      }
    }

    public string this[int index]
    {
      get
      {
        _slimLock.EnterReadLock();
        try
        {
          if (_values.Count > index && index > -1)
            return _values[index];
          else
            return null;
        }
        finally
        {
          _slimLock.ExitReadLock();
        }
      }
    }

    public string this[string key]
    {
      get
      {
        _slimLock.EnterReadLock();
        try
        {
          if (_keys.ContainsKey(key))
          {
            return _values[_keys[key]];
          }
          else
            return null;
        }
        finally
        {
          _slimLock.ExitReadLock();
        }
      }

      set
      {
        _slimLock.EnterWriteLock();
        try
        {
          if (_keys.ContainsKey(key))
          {
            _values[_keys[key]] = value;
          }
          else
          {
            _values.Add(value);
            _keys.Add(value, _values.Count - 1);
          }
        }
        finally
        {
          _slimLock.ExitWriteLock();
        }
      }
    }

    //demonstrate upgrade from read to write lock
    public AddUpdateResult AddOrUpdate(string key, string value)
    {
      AddUpdateResult result = AddUpdateResult.Unchanged;
      _slimLock.EnterUpgradeableReadLock();
      try
      {
        if (_keys.ContainsKey(key))
        {
          if (value == _values[_keys[key]])
            return result;
          else
            result = AddUpdateResult.Updated;
        }
        else
          result = AddUpdateResult.Added;

        //upgrade to write lock
        _slimLock.EnterWriteLock();
        try
        {
          if (result == AddUpdateResult.Updated)
          {
            _values[_keys[key]] = value;
          }
          else
          {
            _values.Add(value);
            _keys.Add(value, _values.Count - 1);
          }
        }
        finally
        {
          _slimLock.ExitWriteLock();
        }
        return result;
      }
      finally
      {
        _slimLock.ExitUpgradeableReadLock();
      }
    }

    public enum AddUpdateResult
    {
      Added,
      Updated,
      Unchanged
    };


    // Thread Safe Collections
    //+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    private ConcurrentDictionary<string, string> _concurrentCache = 
      new ConcurrentDictionary<string, string>();

    public ConcurrentDictionary<string, string> ConcurrentCache
    {
      get { return _concurrentCache; }
    }
  }
}

DomainAspects: Aspect Oriented Library Update - Configuration by Code and Convention

A year ago I posted a library that I enjoy using in one form or another called DomainAspects, an aspect oriented infrastructure or template for domain driven design in .NET applications. The library allows you to isolate cross cutting concerns such as exception logging and authorization from domain or business specific concerns. I promised to write more about the library but I got distracted with work and other topics.

In this post, I will introduce a new version of the library in which I mark the domain classes internal in order to isolate the implementation of the domain interface from the outside world making it impossible to create an instance of the domain implemenation directly. This change helps to enforce the use of the DomainAspects proxy wrapper to create and dispose of the domain object.

internal class ClassroomDomain : IClassroomDomain
{
  public List<string> GetStudents()
  {
    return new List<string>();
  }
}

I also wanted to explore the idea of getting away from XML configuration in part because Castle Project shuns it while supporting it for backward compatibility and in part because managing runtime configuration files can be problematic and convention is generally easier to support. Here's the aspect oriented service components being registered in the DomainFactory's static constructor:

container = new WindsorContainer(); //no more XML

container.Register(
  Component.For<IPrincipalProvider>()
  .ImplementedBy<PrincipalProvider>()
  .Named("PrincipalProvider")
  .LifeStyle.Transient,
  
  Component.For<IOperationAuthorizer>()
  .ImplementedBy<OperationAuthorizer>()
  .Named("OperationAuthorizer")
  .LifeStyle.Transient,
  
  Component.For<IOperationAuditor>()
  .ImplementedBy<OperationAuditor>()
  .Named("OperationAuditor")
  .LifeStyle.Transient,
  
  Component.For<OperationInterceptor>()
  .Named("OperationInterceptor")
  .LifeStyle.Transient);

Now, the DomainFactory's Create method uses the convention that the implementation has the same name without the "I" prefix on the interface name.

/// <summary>
/// Use this factory method to create a transient (one time use) instance.
/// </summary>
/// <typeparam name="T"></typeparam>
/// <returns></returns>
public static T Create<T>() where T : class
{
  var svc = container.GetService<T>();
  if (null == svc)
  {
    //resolution of type by convention MyClass implements IMyClass
    Type interfaceType = typeof(T);
    var implementedByName = interfaceType.AssemblyQualifiedName
      .Replace("." + interfaceType.Name + ",",
					"." + interfaceType.Name.Substring(1) + ",");
    Type implementedByType = Type.GetType(implementedByName);
    if (null == implementedByType) 
      throw new TypeAccessException(string.Format("Type {0} could not be found.", implementedByName));

    container.Register(Component.For(interfaceType)
      .ImplementedBy(implementedByType)
      .Named(implementedByType.Name)
      .Interceptors(InterceptorReference.ForKey("OperationInterceptor")).Anywhere
      .LifeStyle.Transient);
  }
  if (!isConfigured) throw initializationException;
  return container.Resolve<T>();
}

Now I remove the app.config from my projects and run my tests XML-config-free. There is a lot more fun stuff to explore in this library, so check back soon for more info on DomainAspects.

You can download the new code here: DomainAspects_v1_1.zip (30.25 KB).

Fear Corrupts Process and Assures Failure

A certain angel investor chose three companies in which to invest a relatively large sum. In the first, he invested $10 million. In the second, he invested $5 million. And in the third, he invested $1 million. A year later, the first had doubled in value because it had boldly used the capital to execute on its business plan. The second company had also doubled in size because they had taken the investment and worked very hard to grow their business. The third company had run into some problems and was afraid of losing their capital, so they did nothing and had nothing to show for it. The angel investor liquidated his interest in the third company and those people are now looking for work.

Yes, I’ve borrowed the plot for that story from someone much wiser than me. But it applies in today’s world of technology and software development as much as it applies to the context for which it was originally told. Fear paralyzes us into inaction or into making unwise choices which almost always result in the corruption of otherwise sound business processes and just as often leads to complete and utter failure.

One of the greatest fears in software development that corrupts process and assures failure is the fear to tell the client or customer no. In the world of software development, especially in internal enterprise software development, the fear of saying no can be so paralyzing that we often place impossible burdens on teams already pushed to their limits. The fear of saying no can lead us to short circuit our process, skip critical steps and gloss over real analysis and careful design. The fear of saying no can lead to general discord when a team member objects and the manager angrily brushes her off, dismissing her concerns as irrelevant or inconsequential. This fear leads to chaos and assured failure. Failure to deliver on time. Failure to communicate and manage realistic client expectations. Failure to establish credibility and confidence with the client and the organization. Failure to keep and foster a well organized, happy and productive team.

So how can one overcome this fear? You just jump. How does the diver overcome his fear of heights to jump from a platform so high the first time? He just jumps. How does a skydiver overcome her fear of falling to her death from an airplane? She just leaps or is pushed. And then training and preparation take over and fear is overcome. You may never completely overcome the fear of saying no. But if you jump, take a leap of faith, just do it, you’ll find that you have not died and that you will have an easier time doing it the next time.

When we overcome our fear and take a leap of faith, we can accomplish great things. Let us work like the first two companies in our story and succeed.

Software Architecture: Use Cases, Not Frameworks

I enjoy continually learning from Robert Martin (Uncle Bob). Sometimes I disagree with him but usually only until I’ve thoroughly processed what he is trying to teach me. In his latest missive on 8thlight.com, Uncle Bob writes a stunningly cogent brief called Screaming Architecture in which he makes a critical point: software architecture is all about the use cases of a system and NOT the framework.

“Architectures are not (or should not) be about frameworks. Architectures should not be supplied by frameworks. Frameworks are tools to be used, not architectures to be conformed to. If your architecture is based on frameworks, then it cannot be based on your use cases.”

Focus on the use cases and perhaps even group them into logical hierarchies with tidy “40,000 foot level” epochs that describe the thing you are building. Is it a customer relationship management system? The first thing we should notice in an architecture, whether document or code, is that this is a CRM system. Presentation, delivery, storage and communication frameworks are all secondary, just plumbing, not the architecture.

“A good software architecture allows decisions about frameworks, databases, web-servers, and other environmental issues and tools, to be deferred and delayed.”

I’m not completely at this point in my journey toward architectural perfection but I recognize the need to strive for this idea of producing architectures that are designed to solve the problems of the users first rather than designed fit within the strictures of a framework while addressing the use cases after the fact.

I recommend you read the full article. Take Uncle Bob’s advice, as I intend to do, and focus more strongly on architecture for your use cases on your next project. Use frameworks carefully and work to keep your business code independent of your frameworks and thus imminently more testable. And don’t forget your tests.

How to Earn Respect as a Leader in the Workplace

I’ve recently been interested in the subject of respect and the question of whether respect is given or earned. My conclusion is that respect is given most often when it is earned and certainly most easily when that is so. In contemplating and researching this subject, I ran across a post by Bret Simmons that I liked very much called 10 Ways to Earn Respect as a Leader in the Workplace.

I recommend you read the full article but I’ll share a few of my favorites here along with some personal thoughts about each one.

Get to know your co-workers and their families.
This is the author’s first point and I think most important one. It is very hard to give respect to someone who has no empathy and does not appear to be genuinely interested in you and your personal circumstances. A little bit of real care can earn a lot of respect.

Communicate clearly and regularly.
If one does not hear from or speak with his manager on a regular basis, it is impossible for the first point to occur. And if a person is left in the dark with respect to what is happening within the organization, an atmosphere of fear and a feeling of neglect can result in poor attitudes and even overt disrespect.

Make generous use of self-deprecating humor.
When I work with someone who refrains from making deprecating remarks about others but has the self confidence to take a jab at himself from time to time in order to put others at ease, I’m more likely to feel comfortable working with that person and will certainly have more respect for him.

Admit when you screw up.
Nothing can destroy the respect you have earned more rapidly than dodging responsibility for your own mistakes. Nothing can more irreversibly damage your own reputation more powerfully than when you throw a subordinate or coworker under the bus rather than owning up and facing the music. At the same time, the opposite is true. If I have a boss who takes responsibility for mistakes made and asks the team for their support as she takes corrective action, I will have just that much more respect for that person.

Stand behind your staff during times of difficulty.
When mistakes are made by subordinates or coworkers, stand by them. Don’t abandon them in an attempt to save yourself. Chances are you will all survive but you will have lost their respect forever. The author writes, “If you can’t stand behind one of your team members, then you don’t belong in management and you’re certainly not a leader.”

C# Basics: Extension Methods and QDD vs TDD

In this sixth installment of C# Basics, I want to share a brief snippet of an extension method I’ve found useful that will introduce you to QDD as well. Quick and Dirty Design (QDD) is my name for having multiple tiny console application projects lying around in which I test little code snippets before putting them into something more serious. This is only necessary in projects in which TDD has not been used and no testing framework or tests are available for whatever reason.

But back to extension methods. From MSDN we learn:

“Extension methods enable you to "add" methods to existing types without creating a new derived type, recompiling, or otherwise modifying the original type. Extension methods are a special kind of static method, but they are called as if they were instance methods on the extended type. For client code written in C# and Visual Basic, there is no apparent difference between calling an extension method and the methods that are actually defined in a type.”

As the MSDN article points out, the most common extension methods you may run into are the LINQ standard query operations. But don’t let that stop you from providing yourself with some very nice little extension methods like this one:

using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
using System.IO;
using System.Text.RegularExpressions;

namespace IOTest
{
  class Program
  {
    static void Main(string[] args)
    {
      string phone1 = @"8015551212";
      string phone2 = @"(8a0d1d)d d5d5d5d-d1d2d1d2";

      if (phone1.StripNonNumeric() == phone2.StripNonNumeric())
        Console.WriteLine("true");
      else
        Console.WriteLine("false");

      Console.ReadLine();
    }
  }

  static class Ext
  {
    private static Regex nonNum = new Regex(@"[^0-9]");

    public static string StripNonNumeric(this string item)
    {
      return nonNum.Replace(item, string.Empty);
    }
  }
}