Refactoring of the Year?

> Most of you are probably aware how I have been bitching and moaning
> about "random refactorings" that move things from one corner of the
> system to the other, rename them incompatibly in the meantime and just
> generally leave more cruft and problems than they solve?
>
> Well, I just had a completely opposite experience that shows Refactoring
> Done Right. The short version is: We had some serious problems at Qwaq
> with SocketStream in Croquet (which is a 3.8 variant) that has a variety
> of problems in it (our main problem was the lock-up you get in next: if
> a particular sequence of steps occurs). I was finally able to track this
> down to SocketStream and was ready to start a discussion on Squeak-dev
> when I -just to confirm it- tried it in 3.9 and noticed that it worked
> just fine there and that 3.9 has the FastSocketStream version instead of
> the 3.8 version.

> So ... okay I thought this is going to break a number of things since
> really, it's a complete reimplementation so what can you expect. But I
> was willing to debug it and fix the remaining problems because
> SocketStream had proven to be simply to unreliable. Filed in
> SocketStream, immediately ran into two problems (missing methods in
> Socket that it required) added those.
>
> And that was it. I didn't change another line of code other than these
> (basically internal) changes. It just worked. It has the same interface,
> it works the same. Only better. Faster. More reliable.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:squeak-dev-
> [hidden email]] On Behalf Of Andreas Raab
> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 5:00 AM
> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> Subject: Refactoring of the Year?
>
> Hi Guys -
>
> I'm just in a writing mood today so I thought I'd share a short story.
> Most of you are probably aware how I have been bitching and moaning
> about "random refactorings" that move things from one corner of the
> system to the other, rename them incompatibly in the meantime and just
> generally leave more cruft and problems than they solve?
>
> Well, I just had a completely opposite experience that shows Refactoring
> Done Right. The short version is: We had some serious problems at Qwaq
> with SocketStream in Croquet (which is a 3.8 variant) that has a variety
> of problems in it (our main problem was the lock-up you get in next: if
> a particular sequence of steps occurs). I was finally able to track this
> down to SocketStream and was ready to start a discussion on Squeak-dev
> when I -just to confirm it- tried it in 3.9 and noticed that it worked
> just fine there and that 3.9 has the FastSocketStream version instead of
> the 3.8 version.
>
> So ... okay I thought this is going to break a number of things since
> really, it's a complete reimplementation so what can you expect. But I
> was willing to debug it and fix the remaining problems because
> SocketStream had proven to be simply to unreliable. Filed in
> SocketStream, immediately ran into two problems (missing methods in
> Socket that it required) added those.
>
> And that was it. I didn't change another line of code other than these
> (basically internal) changes. It just worked. It has the same interface,
> it works the same. Only better. Faster. More reliable.
>
> Suffice it to say, I was impressed. I had gotten so used to the
> assumption that a new version of a class (as well as Squeak) is so
> fundamentally incompatible with previous versions that I stopped porting
> stuff when we reached 3.9. SocketStream was the nicest exception to that
> pattern that I've seen in the last two years or so.
>
> Can I officially request that we award Goran a medal for the
> "Refactoring of the Year"? Something that basically nobody noticed but
> that has a profound impact on network performance and reliability
> certainly qualifies for that.
>
> Cheers,
>     - Andreas

> Hi Guys -
>
> I'm just in a writing mood today so I thought I'd share a short  
> story. Most of you are probably aware how I have been bitching and  
> moaning about "random refactorings" that move things from one  
> corner of the system to the other, rename them incompatibly in the  
> meantime and just generally leave more cruft and problems than they  
> solve?
>
> Well, I just had a completely opposite experience that shows  
> Refactoring Done Right. The short version is: We had some serious  
> problems at Qwaq with SocketStream in Croquet (which is a 3.8  
> variant) that has a variety of problems in it (our main problem was  
> the lock-up you get in next: if a particular sequence of steps  
> occurs). I was finally able to track this down to SocketStream and  
> was ready to start a discussion on Squeak-dev when I -just to  
> confirm it- tried it in 3.9 and noticed that it worked just fine  
> there and that 3.9 has the FastSocketStream version instead of the  
> 3.8 version.
>
> So ... okay I thought this is going to break a number of things  
> since really, it's a complete reimplementation so what can you  
> expect. But I was willing to debug it and fix the remaining  
> problems because SocketStream had proven to be simply to  
> unreliable. Filed in SocketStream, immediately ran into two  
> problems (missing methods in Socket that it required) added those.
>
> And that was it. I didn't change another line of code other than  
> these (basically internal) changes. It just worked. It has the same  
> interface, it works the same. Only better. Faster. More reliable.
>
> Suffice it to say, I was impressed. I had gotten so used to the  
> assumption that a new version of a class (as well as Squeak) is so  
> fundamentally incompatible with previous versions that I stopped  
> porting stuff when we reached 3.9. SocketStream was the nicest  
> exception to that pattern that I've seen in the last two years or so.
>
> Can I officially request that we award Goran a medal for the  
> "Refactoring of the Year"? Something that basically nobody noticed  
> but that has a profound impact on network performance and  
> reliability certainly qualifies for that.
>
> Cheers,
>    - Andreas
>
>

>From: Andreas Raab <[hidden email]>
>Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers
>list<[hidden email]>
>To: The general-purpose Squeak developers
>list<[hidden email]>
>Subject: Refactoring of the Year?
>Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 01:59:38 -0800
>
>Can I officially request that we award Goran a medal for the "Refactoring
>of the Year"? Something that basically nobody noticed but that has a
>profound impact on network performance and reliability certainly qualifies
>for that.