Web programming
Units WEB1P and WEB2P
|
Web programmingUnits WEB1P and WEB2P |
|
Task B was generally carried out competently, but obviously some groups implemented more functionality than others, and no group implemented everything.
I was especially pleased with the way that ALL groups mastered JPA and EJB.
Comments about the structure and readability of the code have been made on the submitted printouts. See those for further feedback.
Category |
Out of |
Mark |
Comments |
Overall functionality |
10 |
6 |
Stores persistently; add address book records works; search works (though case sensitive); amend works; can't find capitalisation fix; can't find anything to do with relationships |
Input validation |
10 |
5 |
Weirdly, only accepts names in uppercase! |
User interface utility |
5 |
2 |
Curious order of fields in person input table. |
Entity and relationship storage |
10 |
8 |
Used features of JPA and EJB appropriately and well. |
Quality of code written |
15 |
12 |
Well laid out. Occasionally poor variable names. Would help if printouts had titles and page numbers. |
TOTAL |
50 |
33 |
Good effort. Achieved a significant proportion of the functionality. Well done. |
Category |
Out of |
Mark |
Comments |
Overall functionality |
10 |
4 |
Stores persistently; add address book records works; search doesn't work; amend doesn't work; can't find capitalisation fix; can't find anything to set/amend relationships |
Input validation |
10 |
4 |
Doesn't seem to work client-side; server-side weird – says "Person cannot be added: null"; |
User interface utility |
5 |
3 |
Reasonable user interface using buttons; no start.jsp (should be start.html) |
Entity and relationship storage |
10 |
8 |
Used features of JPA and EJB appropriately and well. |
Quality of code written |
15 |
7 |
Hard to read because of the way it was printed out (without wrapping). Some minor discrepancies between submitted code and printed code. Did not use nblib for shared libraries. Some poor variable/function names. |
TOTAL |
50 |
26 |
Reasonable effort. Achieved some functionality and others partly done. Shows promise. |
Category |
Out of |
Mark |
Comments |
Overall functionality |
10 |
7 |
Stores persistently; add address book records works; search works (though case sensitive and doesn't show company name); amend works; fix capitalisation done in JavaScript; null pointer exception thrown when I attempted to add a relationship; couldn't find report of relationships |
Input validation |
10 |
6 |
Done reasonably effectively. Some error messages could be improved. Not able to cancel client-side validation. Server side validation not distributed to appropriate classes. |
User interface utility |
5 |
3 |
OK without being great. |
Entity and relationship storage |
10 |
8 |
Used features of JPA and EJB appropriately and well. |
Quality of code written |
15 |
10 |
Reasonably well laid out. Some variable names could be more self-explanatory. Many instances where .toString() called unnecessarily. Submitted RAR instead of ZIP. Would help if printouts had titles and page numbers. |
TOTAL |
50 |
34 |
Good effort. Achieved most of the aims. Well done. |
Category |
Out of |
Mark |
Comments |
Overall functionality |
10 |
8 |
Stores persistently; add address book records works; search doesn't work; amend works; capitalisation fix works but allowed duplicate name insertion; relationships implemented fully |
Input validation |
10 |
6 |
JavaScript a bit fiddly (thrown by automatic form completion, for example) but OK. Not able to cancel client-side validation. |
User interface utility |
5 |
3 |
Not great, but workable. |
Entity and relationship storage |
10 |
8 |
Used features of JPA and EJB appropriately and well. |
Quality of code written |
15 |
12 |
Well laid out and clear. Code still to complete marked as TODO. |
TOTAL |
50 |
37 |
Very good effort. Achieved most of the aims, including relationships. Very well done. |
Individual feedback has been written on each submission. Ticks indicate that you have made a good point. Double ticks, doubly so.
The most common criticism generally was that people did not provide enough detail. You might say what you or your group did, but much more interesting (in a reflective sense) is usually how you did it, or why you did it that way. For example, several people mentioned problems with regular expressions without a single person including a regular expression in their report!
The length of submissions was much more variable than in previous years. The task specification said "approximately 2 sides of A4" – the shortest was only 1 side and there were a couple that stretched to 6. Also I have been marking students' work long enough not to be fooled into thinking that 2 sides of double-spaced text contains as much information as 2 sides of single-spaced!
| Student number | Scaled group mark (Task B) | Indiv mark (Task C) | SWS Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Out of | 50 | 50 | 100% |
| 387744 | 26 | 28 | 54% |
| 389689 | 24 | 33 | 57% |
| 443286 | 34 | 27 | 61% |
| 445507 | 23 | 35 | 58% |
| 472643 | 34 | 26 | 60% |
| 476764 | 23 | 27 | 50% |
| 478690 | 33 | 37 | 70% |
| 489254 | 35 | 35 | 70% |
| 509899 | 31 | 26 | 57% |
| 513315 | 34 | 31 | 65% |
| 513858 | 48 | 25 | 73% |
| 513867 | 46 | 24 | 70% |
| 516609 | 31 | 24 | 55% |
| 600178 | 35 | 34 | 69% |
| 600188 | 34 | 34 | 68% |
| 602447 | 30 | 22 | 52% |
Note: In order to achieve a pass mark in this unit, a student must achieve a minimum mark of 30% in each assessment component as well as an overall aggregate mark of 40%. (APC approved exemption from University Examination and Assessment Regulations).
The "scaled group mark" above reflects the proportions of work reported by each member of the group.
These marks are provisional and subject to change until confirmed by the Unit Assessment Board.
Jim Briggs, 21 January 2011
|
Last updated by Prof Jim Briggs of the School of Computing at the University of Portsmouth |
||
| The web programming units include some material that was formerly part of the WPRMP, WECPP, WPSSM and WEMAM units. |