SC-BAT and SC-SF

Topics: CAB & Smart Client Software Factory
Jun 16, 2006 at 12:03 PM
originally posted by: ksunair

I have one computer and I do my development on this. If I install sc_sf on the same box as SC-Bat will I have any problems with my production development?

Thanks.
Jun 17, 2006 at 11:55 AM
originally posted by: austinlamb

SC-SF is just what SC-BAT was renamed to. I'm not sure I follow your question?
Jun 20, 2006 at 6:40 AM
originally posted by: ksunair

Thanks autin. Why is it renamed? Is there anything new in it? If I download and install it will it work with existing project by just recompiling???
Jun 20, 2006 at 12:06 PM
originally posted by: austinlamb

I'm not part of the team or anything, just someone who's been following this project closely, so don't take this as official, but here's my understanding:

It was renamed because they realized, after getting SC-BAT out initially, that this idea of a "Baseline Architecture Toolkit" was, with the addition of Guidance Packages, really becoming more like a Software Factory than dislike. So, to align with Microsoft's Software Factories goals, they renamed it and began to really focus on it as a SF, not just a reference implementation with a guidance package.

As for just recompiling - I don't know. Obviously existing code you have will continue to function just the same. But the newer drops (the ones under the SC-SF name, not SC-BAT) have changed the reference implementation in many ways, some of which may cause you to re-think how you've got your app set up now (if you were following the early drops very closely). Further, the newest Guidance Package may not work on a project designed for the old GP - I'm not sure, I haven't changed version of GP before.
Jun 20, 2006 at 12:15 PM
originally posted by: ksunair

Austin, Again thanks. two questions and quit bothering you

1. Is there any documentation on migrating from SC-BAT to SC-SF?
2. "some of which may cause you to re-think how you've got your app set up now (if you were following the early drops very closely). " In this statement "re-think" word is kinda strong. Can you give me any idea? Right now all the applications are developed with workitem, view and implementation. Along with commands, services and event broker. Is it different?? I hope someone from development team help me with some document or examples.

Thanks again for the help.
Jun 21, 2006 at 11:35 AM
originally posted by: austinlamb

I don't know of any documentation for migrating from earlier drops (under the SC-BAT name) and later drops (under the SC-SF name), but there may be some. I must admit I've not used the docs all that much, so it could be in there?

As for why I chose the word "re-think" - I did mean it somewhat strongly. The newer drops are pushing further and further into the capabilities of CAB, Enterprise Library, and many patterns. The eariler drops were an initial attempt by the P&P team to use all this stuff. But the later drops are a lot more mature - so they use some variations on eariler approaches, or show significant refactoring in some cases.

Yes, they end up using WorkItems, Services, Views, SmartParts, and all that just as any CAB project, but the difference is in the solution structure and the coupling. For example, the June 5th drop has all the "Infrastructure" projects that show a lot of refactoring from earlier versions. Similarly, they have the Shell.Layout project which wasn't in earlier builds, that may provide a solution to certain layout problems you have now (or wish to plan for), which the earlier factoring would have made much more difficult.

So, if you are happy with your solution structure, and don't find any immediate or percieved value in the latest drops, then by all means stick with what you have. But looking at the latest drop of the Bank Teller RI has definitely made me consider some things I hadn't considered before, or given me interesting new ways to approach problems. Thus my choice of the word "re-think".
Jun 21, 2006 at 12:03 PM
originally posted by: ksunair

Autin, thanks for the great insight. I am going to checkout what is new in SC-SF in a seperate box before I am sitting on top of the old architecture, you know what I mean :)