智能客户端软件工厂的经验
有没有人有使用 Microsoft 模式的 智能客户端软件工厂 构建“现实世界”应用程序的经验和实践组？ 我正在寻求关于掌握它的难度、它是否会缩短您的上市时间以及任何其他常见陷阱的建议。
Has anyone had any experience in building a 'real world' application with the Smart Client Software Factory, from Microsofts Patterns and Practices group? I'm looking for advice on how difficult it was to master, whether it decreased your time to market and any other general pitfalls.
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（5）
我没有个人经验，所以更喜欢那些比我更有经验的人的建议。 我认识两个使用过这家工厂的同事，他们都有相同的看法：
所以如果你有空闲时间，我会去的。
I don't have personal experience, so favor the advice of someone that does over mine. I know two coworkers that have used this factory and both had the same take-way:
So if you have up-front time to spare, I'd go for it.
我们于 2006 年与 8 名（4 个 UI + 4 WCF 服务）开发人员开发了 SCSF 应用程序（进入招聘），目前一层楼有 350 个用户使用。
一开始需要学习的东西太多了，因为教程较少，我感谢 Matias Wolosky 和 Eugenio Pace 在模式和实践/codeplex 方面做出了很多贡献。 我们得分的关键领域是：-
1) UI 和业务的清晰分离
2) 开发人员的重点角色
3）基于模块的按需结构的应用程序
4) 通过clickonce轻松部署
5）现成的模式和帮助器使开发人员的生活变得轻松且更加结构化。
随着时间的推移，它赢得了用户的广泛尊重，因为它支持：-
1) RBAC - 基于角色的访问控制
2) 功能快速周转，因为我们将基础设施服务/业务服务/UI Helper 服务整齐地分开，并且整个应用程序是基于模块的（CAB 的最佳部分）。
3) 现在我们正在考虑迁移到 WPF 以添加更多爵士乐元素。
We developed our SCSF Application (into recruitment) in 2006 with 8 (4 UI + 4 WCF Service) developers which is currently used by 350 users in one floor.
In beginning there was too much to learn as there were less tutorials, Am thankful to Matias Wolosky and Eugenio Pace who contributed a lot in patterns and practices/ codeplex. The key areas in which we scored were :-
1) Clear separation of UI and Business
2) Focussed role for developers
3) Module based on-demand structure of application
4) Easily deployable through clickonce
5) Ready patterns and helpers which makes developers life easy and more structured.
It has gained a lot of respect amongst users with time as it supports :-
1) RBAC - Role Based Access Control
2) Quick turnarounds of feature as we separated infrastructure services/Business services/ UI Helper services neatly and the entire application is module based (Best part of CAB).
3) Now we are thinking to move to WPF to add some more jazz element.
我们使用 SCSF 来构建一个由 6 名开发人员组成的真实复合应用程序； 整个团队规模为 14 人，包括 BA、PM、测试人员等。就像 Torrey 所说，对于 3 名没有 OO 或设计模式经验的开发人员来说，这是一个陡峭的学习曲线。 我自己和另外两个人多年来一直是面向对象的纯粹主义者。 所以我们只要认出其中的模式，就对CAB如鱼得水。 在项目进行过程中，我们组织了为期一周的面向对象原则培训课程，然后设计模式。 当其他 3 个人完成这门课程后，生产力立即开始提高。
我的建议是，确保您的团队拥有扎实的面向对象和设计模式知识。 当他们可以看到他们识别的模式时，曲线就会下降。
We used SCSF for a real world composite app with 6 developers; the full team size was 14, including BAs, PMs, testers, etc. Like Torrey said, it was a steep learning curve for the 3 developers that didn't have OO or design patterns experience. Myself and two others had been OO-purists for years; so we took to CAB like ducks to water just by recognizing the patterns. Part-way through the project, we put together a one-week training course on OO principles and then design patterns. Once the other 3 went through this course, the productivity started to increase immediately.
My advice, make sure your team has sound OO and Design Patterns knowledge. The curve drops off when they can see patterns that they recognize.
我们使用 Web 服务软件工厂，我们非常喜欢它，因为它使开发人员更容易遵循标准和适当的模式。 我们的学习曲线还不错——每个开发人员最多几个小时。
除此之外，没有任何其他优点和优点。 缺点值得一提。
We use the Web Service Software Factory, and we really like it because it makes it easier for developers to follow standards and appropriate patterns. The learning curve for us wasn't bad - a few hours per developer at most.
Other than that, there aren't any other pros & cons worth mentioning.
我们使用 SCSF 开发了一个拥有大约 10 名开发人员的真实应用程序。 设置和开发使用模式是一个陡峭的学习曲线，但一旦设置完毕，向项目引入新开发人员就非常容易了。 使用 CAB 和 SCSF 对我们的项目非常有益，特别是让每个开发人员都能加快速度并提高工作效率。
SCSF 的一个缺点是它提供了大量可能未使用的功能（我们可能只使用了 60% 的功能）。
我还在一个新项目中使用 SCSF，并正在考虑重构为 PRISM。 PRISM 允许您剔除未使用的功能。 如果您使用 WPF，我建议您研究一下 PRISM。
We used SCSF for a real world app with about 10 developers. It was a steep learning curve to set up and develop a pattern of usage, but once it was set up, introducing new developers to the project was VERY easy. Using CAB and SCSF was very beneficial to our project especially getting each developer up to speed and productive.
A downfall of SCSF is that it provides ALOT of functionality that may not be used (we probably only used 60% of the functionality).
I am also using SCSF for a new project and am considering refactoring to PRISM. PRISM allows you to cull the functionality that is not used. If you use WPF, I suggest looking into PRISM.