Learning to play

I’ve started re-learning how to play a guitar again after a more than 10 year hiatus. It’s a little difficult. I’m not starting with something simple, I’m going for complex. I’m re-learning to play ‘Classical Gas’ by Mason Williams. 

I started by learning the first bar. Just 4 notes. Repeated that a few times then went to the next bar. Then I put the 2 bars together and played then a few times. I repeated this for the 3rd and 4th bars. Iteratively learning and reinforcing what I previously learned. 

I feel the same should be done with development. Build the first bit of functionality. Iterate over and refactor till you are happy. Build the second bit of functionality.  Iterate over that. Review any lessons learned from the previous bit and then move on. Keep continuously improving and when you are finished you should have an app very well built. I know. I know. Easier said than done, but the simple fact that you are trying to improve means you are improving. Eventually you should get to the point where the review you do after writing new functionality should be a cursory glance every now and then and can should take the form of automated tests (but not too early)

You should be confident your code runs well, reads well and be proud. 

Well… That is the dream at least.  


A little while ago, I had a discussion with one of my colleges with regards to documentation. His argument was that the best documentation was the code. My argument was contrary to that.

I thought I would discuss my thoughts here.

Te get things started, lets say you have the below code…

I’ve changed the variable names to make it a little obscure, but given its only half a dozen lines of code, can you tell me in 10 seconds what it does?

My guess is that you can’t. I couldn’t.

I could write a word document that describes the functionality, it could say…

Given 2 numbers, the two numbers are multiplied together and the result is returned.

Ah, now you say, I know what it does!

Are you sure? Word documents can be incorrect or out of date. You cannot rely on them.

So what is next?

This is where my argument comes in. My thoughts are that the best documentation is the tests. Not the code, and not the description of what the document does.

So lets write a test.

As you can see, the tests clearly show what the functionality is.

When we run it, We get confirmation.


So now we know that the method adds two numbers.

Now I hear you say, “Tests are not very user friendly, how is a business person suppose to understand this?”

Well, this is where my second part of this discussion comes in.

There is an open source project called Concordion that can help with this.

Concordion allows you to specify the functionality as examples into an HTML document. It uses the “<span>” tag to mark out sections of the document to be executed.

So, for our little example, our HTML specification would be:

Which renders to:

Test FizzBuzz with Concordion

If the Fizz is 1 and the Buzz is 1 then the FizzBuzz should be 2

If the Fizz is 2 and the Buzz is 2 then the FizzBuzz should be 4

If the Fizz is 3 and the Buzz is 3 then the FizzBuzz should be 6

If the Fizz is 4 and the Buzz is 4 then the FizzBuzz should be 8


All very readable.

The next step is to add a fixture.  A fixture is a bit of code that links the HTML page to the system you are trying to test.

For this simple execution, the fixture is:

Now, when we execute the fixture, we get:


As you can seem the results are green. If for example, we got something wrong, we would get.


So, if we ties this into a continuous integration suite such as Jenkins or Bamboo, we should always have up to date documentation that has been verified and human readable.

Now, if we need to add more tests, we no longer need to write code for this particular scenario. Why? Because we have decoupled “What we are testing” from “How we are testing“.

The fixture controls how we test the method, but the HTML page controls what we are testing. So, to add more tests, provided we haven’t changed any functionality, we just need to modify the HTML page.

Finally, in this example I used Concordion. But there are other tools out there such as Fitnesse which is wiki based, Cucumber and JBehave which is Text file based and numerous others.




Concordion, like Fitnesse is another Specification By Example tool which I like because of its free form structure.

Concordion uses HTML as its syntax to write specifications. With the HTML, it uses the <span> tag to specify commands. Just like Fitnesse, fixtures are required to interpret the specification and execute the tests. Tests are written in Java using ether JUnit or TestNG. Other languages are supported, but I haven’t tried them.

The basic functions of Concordion are:

Assert Equals : To assert whether a value is equal and return true or false.

Set : Sets a variables value.

Execute : Execute an instruction with a result. The result can be void.

Execute On A Table : Executes the same behaviour across a row on a table. This is good for verifying multiple input tests.

Verify Rows : Allows you to verify the results when multiple values are returned. For example when returning the results form a database query.

When you run a test, Concordion returns HTML which has been marked up with the test results.


The advantages of using Concordion over Word documents (and even in some cases fitnesse) are

  • It uses HTML. Be careful though using WYSIWYG HTML editors. The HTML generated may be complex and it might be easier to just hand code the HTML yourself.
  • Concordion is simple to understand and implement.
  • Just like Fitnesse, it is easy to see when your document is up to date and that the examples are correct.
  • Integrates well with Jenkins. I had no troubles incorporating within Jenkins and just used the HTML report plugin to incorporate the results.


Again, like Fitnesse, there are a number of disadvantages of using Concordion over a Word Document.

  • Requires coding compared to a word document, but then again, the purpose of Concordion is different.
  • There is no version control built in, but saying that, you can tie the HTML with your source code and check in at the same location. That is what I have done.
  • Again, just like HTML (Well, it is actually…) images and attachments need to be stored in separate files.

I like Concordion for its simplicity. I haven’t tried Concordion with message formats such as XML, but I’m assuming that the same caveat with Fitnesse where you need to decode the XML still applies.

Saying that, I do have some ideas about using the test data builder pattern to generate my XML message based on a table of inputs.

Maybe one day I’ll get around to doing it.

Let me know in the comments which you prefer, Concordion or Fitnesse and especially if you are using these in any SOA/Integration space.

Guitar Theory

When I was much younger, I use to play the guitar. For my first guitar, I had bought it at an auction at a market. The pickups didn’t work, the nut was missing, no strings, but I was determined to learn. So I went to the nearest guitar shop that did repairs and took it to them.

Several parts later, I had a working monster, and it was a monster, but it got me started.

Not long after, I got a new guitar. Not much better, it was the cheapest one I could get. It had only 21 frets, and the amp I got was a cheap and nasty from Tandy at the time. What do you expect, I was a poor student at the time. That was when I really learned to play, and so I practiced every chance I got.

One thing I heard or read somewhere at the time that has stuck in my mind is that having a very expensive guitar like the one your favourite guitarist plays does not make a bad guitarist good, they will sound bad regardless, but a great guitarist can make a box and strings sound great and a good guitar sound amazing.

So where am I getting at, well… In my experience, companies go and fork out hundreds of thousands to even millions of dollars for tools or frameworks to help with their corporate development thinking it will save them lots of money, make things easier and or get them there sooner and a lot of the time, these projects generally fail, cost a lot more money, take forever to get off the ground as they wait for approval to spend the funds or end up not being what was envisioned in the first place.

In these circumstances, the time to practice, the time to learn the fundamentals of what this new product is meant to make easier, the time to iterate over your procedures to learn what is the best way to implement, the time to become a good player has not been put in.

My advice is to start learning the fundamentals today. Use open source software (it may surprise you), build your own stuff, cobble together scripts, read, learn, practice. Just workout your own sound. Learn to play with that box and strings and make it sound good so that when you get your new shiny tool, framework etc – you will just sound amazing!


As mentioned in my previous post, Fitnesse is a product used to describe specifications using the Acceptance Test Driven Devlopment or Behaviour Driven Development methodology.

Fitnesse was created by Robert C. Martin (Uncle Bob) about 10 years ago and originally was based on the FIT language created by Ward Cunningham.

Fitnesse uses a wiki to write your specifications and fixtures written in multiple languages, but originally in Java.

Fit provides the ability to create :

Column fixtures : Where the rows represent inputs and expected outputs

Rows Fixtures : Testing queries that return an exact set of values (Ordered independantly)

Action Fixture : Allows you to write a script that emulates a series of events.

Comment Tables : Allows tabular comments that are not executed as tests.

Slim, the other language used by Fitnesse provides a lot more functionality.

Decision Table : Supplies the inputs and outputs for decisions.

Dynamic Decision Table : Same as the decision table, but passes column headers as parameters for the fixture.

Query Table : Supplies the results of the query.

Subset Query Table : Supplies a subset of the results.

Ordered Query Table : Supplies the expected result of a query in a particular order.

Script Table : Allows scripting a series of actions and checks.

Table Table : Allows you to write a fixture that arbitrarily executes as specified.

Import : Add path to the fixture search path.

Comment : Add a comment

Scenario Table : A table that can be called from other tables.

Library Table : A Table that installs fixtures available to all test pages.

Define Table Type : A helper table that defines the default table for named fixtures.


There are a number of advantages of using Fitness over using word for your specification documentation. These include…

  • Built in Version Control. You do not need to add your specifications to a version control system. Adding is supported but not required.
  • Its easy to see when your document is up to date. You simply run the test. If all is green, all is good.
  • The wiki is rendered to HTML. So you can export to to HTML documents or Rich Text format for those who would like to use Word.
  • You can use CSS to format your pages. So you can have everything company specific, team specific or however you like.
  • Built in User Access Control, so only registered users can modify the documentation.
  • There are a lot of plugins that can extend the functionality of Fitnesse.


Consequently, there are a number of disadvantages of using Fitnesse over Word.

  • Fitnesse requires coding to get the background tests done. None required by Word (given it can’t execute tests anyway).
  • Adds another layer of complexity, but saying that, I would say the benefits are greater.
  • When using XML messages as sample data, they are encoded to be visible within the wiki format. Therefore before you use them in your fixtures, you need to decode (ie change the &lt; &amp; etc characters) to get the original XML.
  • You also get formatting issues with using XML. ie, leading and trailing spaces that needs to be fixed by the fixture.
  • Editing the wiki text can be quite difficult if you have exotic formatting. I had some issues getting tables looking like they would in word where you have merged cells etc.
  • Not everyone is comfortable with a wiki, epecially non technical people. This was the biggest argument I had with my team about Fitnesse. I don’t think it is founded. Mind you, we had the same argument about Mardown.
  • Just like a wiki/HTML page, embedded images and attachments are stored in separate files.
  • You are not able to make the document as pretty as a word document. But then again, that isn’t the purpose.

Fitnesse is a very powerful tool and I think using it for specifications is very advantageous especially if you are using free form documents for your specs.  If your organisation is  adverse to change, this may be one way to bring Specification By Example tools in while keeping a similar document format to your current word documents.

Getting started with Fitnesse is easy. The documentation is very well written and can get you started very quickly.

I would very much like to hear if anyone else is using Fitnesse, especially in the SOA/Integration space and how you document your message formats. Please let me know in the comments.


Specification By Example

If the company you work for is like mine, your specifications are a word document produced by someone who barely knows the technology, or by someone who knows the technology and not the business. Also, after a time, the specifications become out of date. If there are samples within the specification, these become out of date as well.

So, how do you know if a specification is out of date? Well, usually you have to manually check these, which usually does not happen.

Another problem I have come across where specifications are done through word documents is that the examples given are inaccurate. This can make things difficult for the developer to know what the requirement is. They then “guess” an interpret the specification in their own way.

Written specifications are up for interpretation.

For example, I tried Gojko’s Star experiment with my team. As expected, everyone in the team answered 10. When I asked “Why not 5?” an arguement ensured, but a few got the point. “Specifications can be subjective!”

So how do you get away from the subjectiveness? Well, there are a lot of different practices at the moment, Test Driven Development (TDD), Behaviour Driven Development (BDD), and Acceptance Test Driven Development (ATDD). There are probably a few more that I have left out, but all these methods have something in common. They document your specification by using tests. Tests are verifiable and measurable. If a test fails, the specification is not met. (You can get into the case that the test is wrong in the first place, but that is for a later discussion).

The documentation of these tests can also take different forms. For example with TDD, tests are specified using traditional means such as using JUnit for Java. These tests/specifications are tightly coupled to the code they are testing/designing. This is fine if the audience such as other developers are the target, but for business analysts, project managers and other management are the audience, they may get a little bamboozled.

This is where ATDD and BDD come in. These methodologies use natural language, be it English or any other native language to describe the the specification. Bridging code known as a fixture then takes these specifications, takes the examples written within the spec and executes tests.

Screen Shot 2015-08-28 at 9.20.07 am

This methodology provides two way verification. You can check if your system meets the specification. You can also see if the specification accurately describes the system.

Any changes that create a failing test,  immediately lets you know if the system has a changed or the specification has changed.

So, how are these types of specifications written?

There are a number of methods, but the major types are…

  • Gerkin based, these are used by products such as JBehave, Cubumber, EasyB etc. These use the “Given, When, Then” terminology used to describe user stories in text files and then have a bridge to convert the scenarios to tests.
  • Table Based, these are used by Fitnesse and Concordion. Fitnesse uses a wiki to write the specification using 2 types of languages. The older FIT and the newer SLIM. Concordion uses HTML and the <span> tag to mark entries to be used by the fixtures.

I haven’t had a chance yet to play with the Gerkin based products as yet. But I have done a couple of POCs with Fitnesse and Concordion.

Each had their own advantages and disadvantages, but overall my impression was that these provided a better means to get better specifications than a simple word document.


Short one this time…

I was looking at getting myself a linux box where I could try playing around with Docker, when I wondered if its possible to get an online virtual linux box without a credit card.

That is when I found http://www.koding.com.

It gives you a free virtual machine, no credit card required. The only drawback is that the machine only remains on while you are logged in.

Great for learning, not so great for running, but then again, they do have plans where you can get a running machine.


Koding.com has a number of guides to get you started. These can be found at http://learn.koding.com/guides/

Happy Playing!


DFDL is a modelling language currently under development to describe the format of non-xml data. For example –

  • Delimited (CSV)
  • Fixed width
  • Binary etc

DFDL uses XML schema notation to describe data formats. In order to do this, it uses a subset of the xml schema constructs. When implemented, it will provide a means to describe non-xml data using well formatted, valid XML.

Take note, it describes data that is NOT xml.

Source: https://redmine.ogf.org/dmsf_files/8110?download=12653


5 digit house number 10 Character street 10 character suburb 3 character state

Similarly for CSV data

Where the data is comma separated

Sources: http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/


It is still early days. There are a couple of implementations available, mainly open source, but the idea is promising. Hopefully

Daffodil – Open Source

Defuddle – Open Source

  • written iin java
  • early stages or abandoned.
  • Last updated 2/4/22013


IBM – IBM Integration Bus (formerly IBM Websphere Message Broker)

  • Paid (But a free developers edition is available)

Test Data Builder Pattern

The test data builder pattern is a pattern as the name implies, is to build test data. It works on the principle of setting the details in teh constructor and then have a method that builds (returns) the built object. Default values are set in the constructor and the methods are then used to override those defaults.

As you can see, the code is a little different to your usual getter and setter code. By using the with methods. The with method return the current object, so it allows you to chain with statements together.

For example:

Also, by indenting the statement over multiple lines, it makes it more readable. It also gives the advantage that you can comment out certain with lines to debug or change the data without affecting the execution.


As a first post to this blog (See the about page for links to my previous blogs) I would like to go though my journey of Documentation technologies that I have tried.

I have worked in the IT sector for many years and it seems that the default method of doing documentation has always been Microsoft Word documents, which I’m sure a lot of you and myself included are still using today. This is because Businesses tend to use this as the default method of documenting anything.

So what is wrong with Word documents. Not a lot really, it does what it is suppose to do. Which is replicate the printed page on the screen.

To me, this seemed like an archaic method of doing documentation, there must be other means. This is when I came across Tiddly Wiki. This was about 10 years ago, it seemed very easy to use, I started playing around with it, but I could not use it because business wants Word Documents. So I dropped it. I have just started using Tiddly Wiki again for my personal notes. Adding Dropbox and I have my personal notes everywhere I go.

A little while later, I came across DocBook. DocBook is an documentation format in XML. I tried writing a post back in 2011, Message Tracking. I liked the idea of DocBook. You can write your content in the XML and use css to change the format. You can then output the document as either HTML, PDF, word and most likely several other formats. I haven’t really touched on it since, but I do like the idea. It means that your documentation format is decoupled from the format. Maybe one of these days I’ll look into it again.

The next format I started looking at which is more common is the Wiki. I think the humble wiki is probably the best method to do your documentation. There are many open source wiki’s available on different platforms, but the one I like most is from a company in my home country, Atlassians Confluence. Everyone can collaborate on a wiki. No need to email documents around (Yes, I know you can use something like SVN to keep the store documents in a common area, but it is still difficult to navigate and search.)

I had been searching for a better way to do Specification documents. I was trying to find a template on the Internet. I didn’t quite like the way that our company did them. There seemed to be too much fluff and not enough content. This is when I got exposure to the whole Specification by example movement. From this, I came across Fitnesse and Concordion. These two products allow you to create executable documents. Documents that can be used to test your applications that you have developed. Fitnesse uses a wiki to hold the documentation portion and Concordion uses HTML pages. These seem the best methods I have come across to document your systems. They are always up to date as they are part of the testing process. The only downside I have come across with these products is… they don’t use Word, so it makes it hard for business types to accept. Oh well. I have done some proof of concepts with both Fitnesse and Concordion. At some point I’ll put up a tutorial on how to use them.

The final type of documentation technology I would like to talk about isMarkdown. Markdown is a text format that can be rendered with the right software to HTML. I like it because it is easy to read as a text file, but can also be rendered to HTML. For example, this blog post is being written in Markdown. As a proof of concept I have used Markdown for comments in SoftwareAG’s WebMethods. I then wrote a python script that takes those comments and renders it to HTML. With extensions, which included adding the js-sequence-diagram.js library, I was able to add sequence diagrams to the output.

That is it for the first post. I have lots of topics I would like to cover, unfortunately I don’t have a lot of time. Hopefully I’ll be able to keep up the content.

Thoughts, Tutorials and Learnings specifically with regards to Agile, DevOps and SOA/EAI