Search the web
Sign In
New User? Sign Up
AgileEmbedded · Agile Embedded
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Message search is now enhanced, find messages faster. Take it for a spin.

Best of Y! Groups

   Check them out and nominate your group.
Having problems with message search? Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.

Messages

  Messages Help
Advanced
Understanding Model-Conductor-Hardware pattern   Message List  
Reply | Forward Message #136 of 464 |
Re: [AgileEmbedded] Re:Understanding Model-Conductor-Hardware pattern


On Jan 11, 2007, at 10:03 AM, Michael Karlesky wrote:
> Let me give you an example. Imagine an embedded system that processes
> temperature. The Hardware layer wraps the temperature sensor and the
> timer that triggers temperature reading (the wrapping is to make unit
> testing possible in the first place, of course). The Conductor
> handles timer events and asks the hardware for raw temperature
> values. The Conductor then hands that raw data off to the Model to
> calculate a temperature
I think the something (Hardware or Conductor) might want to hide the
hardware a little more by normalizing the temperature. so the model
deals with degree's C, K, F, R as suitable, and does not have to
worry about the scaling of the A/D values. This lets the model deal
in the problem domain abstractions, making that code able to better
stand the test of time.


> A subsequent, similar process for displaying
> the temperature can be imagined. The logic for handling the hardware
> can be tested apart from the math that processes the temperature.
> This is far better than verifying temperature processing code with
> heat guns and compressed air cans. While it's true you could possibly
> eliminate the Conductor, we've consistently found that isolating
> functionality always yields unexpected gains because of the
> decoupling it provides. So, we offer that segregating hardware
> handling logic (Conductor) from business logic (Model) is the best
> way to go.
>
> We've been talking all about unit testing thus far. An added benefit
> of the MHC pattern is that it can make system testing much easier. By
> testing the hardware and business logic separately, test fixtures can
> be created and hooks made into the Hardware layer that allow hardware
> related problems (either programming misunderstandings or board
> design issues) to be found and solved much more quickly than in
> traditional firmware development.
Do you try to test the model and controller on the development machine?

James


--------
James W. Grenning
Object Mentor, Inc.
www.objectmentor.com
blog.objectmentor.com
--------










.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Thu Jan 11, 2007 5:13 pm

jwgrenning
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email

Forward
Message #136 of 464 |
Expand Messages Author Sort by Date

I just joined this group after seeing a message on comp.software-eng by Mike Karlesky. I followed some links he provided and found an interesting article,...
Thad Smith
thadsmith3
Offline Send Email
Jan 10, 2007
6:22 am

Thad, I'll try to answer your questions as well as I can. We're pretty excited that there's some discussion starting on this topic. Pardon the length of what...
Michael Karlesky
mkarlesky
Online Now Send Email
Jan 11, 2007
4:11 pm

... I think the something (Hardware or Conductor) might want to hide the hardware a little more by normalizing the temperature. so the model deals with...
James Grenning
jwgrenning
Offline Send Email
Jan 11, 2007
5:14 pm

... The intent of the MHC pattern is to allow for maximum automated testability; it does this by decoupling hardware from code. In MVP the same thing is...
mkarlesky
Online Now Send Email
Jan 12, 2007
3:50 am

I like the comparison of MHC to MVP and have found that analogy useful before. I agree that you want a very thin layer covering the hardware. I also think...
James Grenning
jwgrenning
Offline Send Email
Jan 12, 2007
4:55 am

... from current website: » Unity – embedded unit test framework for C (released 2008) http://sourceforge.net/projects/embunity/ Doesn't seem to have any...
marktxx
Offline Send Email
Apr 27, 2008
6:51 pm

... » Unity – embedded unit test framework for C (released 2008) http://sourceforge.net/projects/embunity/ Follow the link above and select the 'Code' menu...
Greg Williams
willi297
Offline Send Email
Apr 28, 2008
3:36 am

... That makes sense. ... I can understand that benefit to creating a Presenter in MVP. ... So do two separate modules, business and hardware. ... So do two...
Thad Smith
thadsmith3
Offline Send Email
Jan 12, 2007
2:22 am

... logic ... I think I understand what you mean when you say two separate modules, but perhaps I don't. We think the value of three modules (Model, Conductor,...
mkarlesky
Online Now Send Email
Jan 13, 2007
12:48 am

... A thin hardware interface layer, the same, I think, as you use for the H layer, plus the rest in the business layer / application logic. ... I understand...
Thad Smith
thadsmith3
Offline Send Email
Jan 13, 2007
6:47 pm

... the ... understand ... Yes. This is the case. Separating M and C makes things easier to test. The separation ensures that there's no coupling between the...
mkarlesky
Online Now Send Email
Jan 21, 2007
3:12 am

In AgileEmbedded@yahoogroups.com <mailto:AgileEmbedded%40yahoogroups.com>, James Grenning <grenning@...> ... The purpose of the hardware layer is to provide...
Rick
rick_clements
Offline Send Email
Jan 13, 2007
8:06 pm

... board.) ... Rick, what you're describing is what we would call unit tests, system tests, and acceptance tests. The MCH pattern makes it possible to unit ...
mkarlesky
Online Now Send Email
Jan 21, 2007
3:53 am
Advanced

Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines - Help