Differences between revisions 2 and 8 (spanning 6 versions)
⇤ ← Revision 2 as of 2007-06-13 13:36:33 →
Size: 3114
Editor: AlexisOConnor
Comment: Modified the 'introduction' section.
← Revision 8 as of 2013-05-20 11:29:48 → ⇥
Size: 2328
Editor: localhost
Comment: converted to 1.6 markup
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 1: Line 1:
#pragma section-numbers off
Line 5: Line 6:
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].

=== 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.
 This exercise is similar to the [[../PeerReview|first]] peer-review exercise. 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]]. (''NOTE: the wording in bold indicates points highlighted with respect to the first peer-review exercise.'').
Line 21: Line 11:
 * Good project [http://designshare.opendocument.net/Application/index.php?crumb=2&action=page&page=About+DesignShare web-site] which provides a nice introduction.  * Good project [[http://designshare.opendocument.net/Application/index.php?crumb=2&action=page&page=About+DesignShare|web-site]] which provides a nice introduction.
Line 24: Line 14:
 * Software works "out-of-the-box"! Compiles and runs from a CVS check-out. It is true that this reviewer [AO'C] has had some familiarity with building [http://www.reload.ac.uk Reload] before (for which this project is a plug-in) and a superficial understanding of Eclipse plugins, but it goes to show that if you write against a standard framework ([http://www.reload.ac.uk/ Reload] / [http://eclipse.org/ Eclipse]) you can "get away" without having any documentation ;-) .  * Could not find a project blog - '''there is now a project blog (albeit sparsely populated one)'''.
 * License is probably in the wrong place - should probably be placed at the top of the file ''above'' the `package` declaration. - '''this has been fixed'''.
Line 26: Line 17:
 * 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.		  * All the CVS commit messages are blank - helpful to have a bit more information, even if it's just ''"Added a bit more code ..."'' ;-) - '''this was highlighted in the previous exercise'''.
 * Whilst I (`AO'C`) could get the project to build and run from a cvs checkout as an Eclipse workbench project, I couldn't get it to run by dropping the [[http://www.reload.ac.uk/beta/OpenDock_Plugin.zip|plugin]] into a download of [[http://www.reload.ac.uk|Reload]] (Ubuntu Linux 7.04 ''Feisty Fawn'').
 * We suggested moving the location of the project web-site to a "nicer" location. It has moved to http://www.oyster-media.com/designshare/. If you go to http://www.oyster-media.com/ (the "root") you find a questionnaire. Just a bit disconcerting that's all. University branding would be nice ;-) .

~- '''Footnotes''' -~

~- `AO'C` - Alexis O'Connor. -~

Frockle/PeerReview2

Introduction

This exercise is similar to the first peer-review exercise. 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 DesignShare. In turn, we are being reviewed by ResourceBrowser. (NOTE: the wording in bold indicates points highlighted with respect to the first peer-review exercise.).

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

Pluses

  • Good project web-site which provides a nice introduction.

  • Sensible code formatting and comments.

  • Being built as an Eclipse plugin, so effectively a standard build procedure (no scripts required) and then just Run As -> Eclipse Application to execute it.

  • Could not find a project blog - there is now a project blog (albeit sparsely populated one).

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

Minuses

  • All the CVS commit messages are blank - helpful to have a bit more information, even if it's just "Added a bit more code ..." ;-) - this was highlighted in the previous exercise.

  • Whilst I (AO'C) could get the project to build and run from a cvs checkout as an Eclipse workbench project, I couldn't get it to run by dropping the plugin into a download of Reload (Ubuntu Linux 7.04 Feisty Fawn).

  • We suggested moving the location of the project web-site to a "nicer" location. It has moved to http://www.oyster-media.com/designshare/. If you go to http://www.oyster-media.com/ (the "root") you find a questionnaire. Just a bit disconcerting that's all. University branding would be nice ;-) .

Footnotes

AO'C - Alexis O'Connor.

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