Do you like the idea?
I recently started to write about "Ecoliability" as a new quality attribute. Although I'm certainly not the person who is able to dictate what is right or what is wrong; at least I can use my weblog to share my thoughts. Perhaps there are others around the world who also likes the idea of this new quality attribute.
Why the need for this attribute?
As in previous posting I already referred to the trend to focus on data storages to save energy and special forums to explain the benefits of virtual machines. See:
04--7-2008: The green part of development and software testing: "Ecologiability"
11-02-2008: Introduction of the quality attribute: "Ecoliability"
Currently environmental awareness is getting already much attention. Discussions are held how to store data or how to use machines efficiently. Why not make it also important and explicitly measure the outcome of it by assigning those figures to an individual attribute?
Why not using an existing Quality Attribute?
In my opinion you could capture the urge for this green part under several other attributes like:
Efficiency: Time behavior and Resource Utilization: e.g. how much CPU do you need?
Portability: Replacebility: e.g. how easy can an old machine be replaced?
Only is this enough? If we capture the sense of ECO under those attributes, they will just become a part of the whole picture. If we make a single attribute for it: we can measure it as part of the requirements. It might help making decisions and also make it visible that an organization cares. As an example an organization can demand that the new application should reduce the data storage by 10%.
What to measure?
I think there are enough objects we can measure. Only we have to measure with sense . And as technology is evolving all the time and Ecological common sense also I suggest making this attribute the first dynamic Quality Attribute. Only it should be dynamic within borders. Otherwise we get a situation as we have now with the name Agile development. As long as it fits in our picture we call it Agile.
As said before objects to measure can be:
- batch jobs are scheduled on a need for information basis, not only because we just like them to run
- data is stored because we need that data now and not possible in a unknown future
- database tables are defined based on need not on easy of usages or as a workaround
- environments can be mirrored in an virtual environment
I can imagine after making this explicitly mentioned in requirements they would look like:
- Data storage is minimized by 10%
- CPU usage is reduced by 15% of machine "XYZ"
- The environment should exist out of maximum of x-machines
- Backups are created based on business critical data only
Which Possible Dynamic Borders?
Perhaps the borders can be related to:
- Infrastructure: e.g. which machine are we using and how are the connections defined?
- Datastorage: e.g. what is the lifecycle of data? What is the level of redundancy?
- Functionality: e.g. how does the functionality support the infrastructure and data storage borders?
When to measure?
I think it can be measured in all stages from Unit test towards user acceptance testing.
The question is: when do we start measuring?
I dare you reader to think with me how this could work.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Do you like the idea?