java教学评价管理系统毕业设计英文文献翻译

java教学评价管理系统毕业设计英文文献翻译内容摘要：

class. Collaborations should also consider the audience for this class. For example, if you create a class Firecracker, who is going to observe it, a Chemist or a Spectator? The former will want to know what chemicals go into the construction, and the latter will respond to the colors and shapes released when it explodes. You may feel like the cards should be bigger because of all the information you’d like to get on them, but they are intentionally small, not only to keep your classes small but also to keep you from getting into too much detail too early. If you can’t fit all you need to know about a class on a small card, the class is too plex (either you’re getting too detailed, or you should create more than one class). The ideal class should be understood at a glance. The idea of CRC cards is to assist you in ing up with a first cut of the design so that you can get the big picture and then refine your design. One of the great benefits of CRC cards is in munication. It’s best done realtime, in a group, without puters. Each person takes responsibility for several classes (which at first have no names or other information). You run a live simulation by solving one scenario at a time, deciding which messages are sent to the various objects to satisfy each scenario. As you go through this process, you discover the classes that you need along with their responsibilities and collaborations, and you fill out the cards as you do this. When you’ve moved through all the use cases, you should have a fairly plete first cut of your design. Before I began using CRC cards, the most successful consulting experiences I had when ing up with an initial design involved standing in front of a team, who hadn’t built an OOP project before, and drawing objects on a whiteboard. We talked about how the objects should municate with each other, and erased some of them and replaced them with other objects. Effectively, I was managing all the “CRC cards” on the whiteboard. The team (who knew what the project was supposed to do) actually created the design。 they “owned” the design rather than having it giving it given to them. All I was doing was guiding the process by asking the right questions, trying out the assumptions, and taking the feedback from the team to modify those assumptio ns. The turn beauty of the process was that the team learned how to do objectoriented design not by reviewing abstract examples, but by working on the one design that was most interesting to them at that moment: theirs. Once you’ve e up with a set of CRC cards, you may want to create a more formal description of your design using UML. You don’t need to use UML .but it can be helpful, especially if you want to put up a diagram on the wall for everyone to ponder, which is a good idea. An alternative to UML is a textual description of the objects and their interfaces, or, depending on your programming languages, the code itself. UML also provides an additional diagramming notation for describing the dynamic model of your system. This is helpful in situations in which the state transitions of a system or subsystem are dominant enough that they need their own diagrams (such as in a control system). You may also need to describe the data structures, for systems or subsystems in which data is a dominant factor (such as a database), You’ll know you’re done with phase 2 when you have described the objects and their interfaces. Well, most of them – there are usually a few that slip through the cracks and don’t make themselves known until phase 3. But that’s OK. All you are concerned with is that you eventually discover all of your objects. It’s nice to discover them early in the process but OOP provides enough structure so that it’s not so bad if you discover them later. In fact, the design of an object tends to happen in five stages, throughout the process of program development. Phase 3: Build the core This is the initial conversion from the rough design into a piling and executing body of code that can be tested, and especially that will prove or disprove your architecture. This is not a onepass process, but rather the beginning of a series of steps that will iteratively build the system, as you’ll see in phase4. Your goal is to find the core of your system architecture that needs to be implemented in order generate a running system, no matter how inplete that system is in this initial pass. You’re creating a framework that you can build upon with further iterations. You’re also performing the first of many system integrations and tests, and giving the stakeholders feedback about what their system will look like and how it is progressing. Ideally, you are also exposing some of the critical risks. You’ll probably also discover changes and improvements that can be made to your original architecture – things you would not have learned without implementing the system. Part of building the system is the reality check that you get from testing against your requirements analysis and system specification (in whatever form they exist). Make sure that your tests verify the requ。