Differences between revisions 2 and 3
Revision 2 as of 2007-06-13 13:36:33
Size: 3114
Comment: Modified the 'introduction' section.
Revision 3 as of 2007-06-13 13:38:24
Size: 2220
Comment: Removed the 'general observations' section.
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 6: Line 6:

=== General Observations ===

Whilst the peer-review exercise entails reviewing one project in particular, there were a few general points I thought were worth making when I was bookmarking sites the other day.

==== Blogs ====

 * If the institution hosts a blogging service then it is great to use this, as you (often) get the benefit of institutional branding.
 * It is easy to create a blog using a third-party hosting service, see [https://www2.blogger.com/start Blogger], [http://wordpress.com/ Wordpress], [http://www.typepad.com/ Typepad], etc. Many support the notion of having more than one author (e.g. [https://www2.blogger.com/start Blogger]).
 * Having an RSS feed from your blog is a great feature to enable interested parties to keep up with your posts. Again, by using a well-known blogging service (see above point) you will almost undoubtedly get this for free.

Frockle/PeerReview2

Introduction

This exercise is similar to ../PeerReview, however rather than a physical meeting we will be conducting a tele-conference on 13th June 2007. It is a triangular round-robin where each team reviews the work of another, within a triplet. We are reviewing the work of [http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/elearning_framework/demo_designshare.html DesignShare]. In turn, we are being reviewed by [http://www.essex.ac.uk/chimera/projects/resourcebrowser/ ResourceBrowser].

Main Exercise: DesignShare (conducted on April 24th 2007)

Pluses

Minuses

  • Could not find a project blog.
  • All the CVS commit messages are blank - helpful to have a bit more information, even if it's just "Added a bit more code ..." ;-) .

  • License is probably in the wrong place - should probably be placed at the top of the file above the package declaration.

  • A lot of object-oriented GUI programming involves subclassing and overriding of (callback) methods. Therefore, as the javadoc tool copies entries for overridden methods from the superclass, it is not necessary to document these methods (unless they deliberately deviate from the expected behaviour !). Or, put another way, document the private methods which these callback methods call / do the actual work.

LTGPublicWiki: Frockle/PeerReview2 (last edited 2013-05-20 11:29:48 by localhost)