Re: [soa-blueprints] Anti-Blueprints

[Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org>]

The question is less one of number than independence.  Does the original interface (method call) provide a capability that is useful beyond the object with which it is connected and can it be used without being part of a sequence with other methods from the same object?

Ken

On Oct 25, 2005, at 4:10 PM, Miko Matsumura wrote:

Good feedback Duane.
 
This is a good topic, thanks for introducing it, Steve.
 
The number of services *is* a quantitative measure, but perhaps not a very helpful one? =)
 
I'm pretty sure there's an antipattern here, and I think perhaps there could be some kind of way to assess this. I think another variable in this mix is the extent to which the registry repository in question can help with respect to discovery and classification as well as governance. The thing that worries me is when I see people assuming that fine grained (object level) services will be reused, when the reality is that OO didnt generate that much reuse from even the guy in the next cubicle, let alone across the company or across the planet.
 
I think this is less of a gross number of services antipattern so much as a coarse-grained vs fine-grained antipattern...
 
Best,
Miko

From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 12:57 PM
To: soa-blueprints@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [soa-blueprints] Anti-Blueprints

I disagree with this anti-pattern.
 
I am not sure that the number of services is really a quantitative measure of SOA.  A grid computing cluster administrator may be able to rationalize such behavior, although it may seem absurd in other areas such as Amazon deploying a service for each book it carries vs. deploying one service that allows the consumer to parameterize the book title.
 
Perhaps a better measure would be the development of some test criteria to ascertain whether a contemplated service is a good candidate for repurposing beyond a small number of consumers.  This should be based on alignment with LOB and presumably different implementers will have different criteria for quantifying such.
 
Duane
 

From: Miko Matsumura [mailto:mmatsumura@infravio.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 12:41 PM
To: marchadr@wellsfargo.com; steve.g.jones@capgemini.com; soa-blueprints@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [soa-blueprints] Anti-Blueprints
 
I just added a "microservice" antipattern where programmers put 10000000 WSDLs into a registry just because their IDE lets them do so.
 
Miko
 

From: marchadr@wellsfargo.com [mailto:marchadr@wellsfargo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 11:54 AM
To: steve.g.jones@capgemini.com; soa-blueprints@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [soa-blueprints] Anti-Blueprints
Steve,
 
Good idea. I put up the first drafts of them at: http://blueprints.jot.com/WikiHome/SOA+Anti-Patterns/SOA%20Anti-Patterns
 
Let me know if I correctly eloborated and named them for you.
 
Thanks,
 
Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: Jones, Steve G [mailto:steve.g.jones@capgemini.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 11:21 AM
To: soa-blueprints@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [soa-blueprints] Anti-Blueprints
The SOA Blueprints will lay down a “best practice” set of guidelines and templates for delivering SOA.  This will definitely be a positive thing and help expand and firm up people’s understanding of SOA.  One thing that the group states that it will do is define standards and guidelines, does this mean that allied to our blueprints we must also consider the “anti-blueprints” (analogous to anti-patterns) that must be avoided.  So for instance focusing on process over service (bad), only thinking of web services (bad) etc etc.  Defining the blueprints give guidance towards success criteria, but should we also give guidance on failure criteria for acceptance of a system as being “SOA”.
  
Not sure whether this should be in the TC as its laying down best practice, and not to increase the already large workload… but it needs to be somewhere.
 
My top 5 are
 
1)

      

If you’ve started with an enterprise “best practice” process map you are NEVER going to be SOA and 90% probability your system will be inflexible or fail.
2)

      

Web Service point to point is STILL point to point, doing a bad practice in XML doesn’t make it better
3)

      

Splitting into two separate tiers of Service and Process with separate rules and governance results in divergent solutions
4)

      

Creating “business” services based on the belief that IT understands the business results in services that meet neither IT nor business goals
5)

      

Building your own proprietary XML-RPC stack to give yourself “control“
 
The last could still be SOA from one perspective, but I’ve yet to see it done well when the driver was a belief that its better done in house than using standards.  When we get the official Wiki it could be something to document via that route.
 
Steve
 
 
___________________________________________________________
Steve Jones | Capgemini
CTO, Application Development Transformation
T +44 870 906 7026| 700 7026| www.capgemini.com
m: steve.g.jones@capgemini.com
txt: +44 (0) 7891157026
Join the Collaborative Experience
___________________________________________________________
 

This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Capgemini Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message.
 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Laskey
MITRE Corporation, M/S H305     phone:  703-983-7934
7515 Colshire Drive                        fax:        703-983-1379
McLean VA 22102-7508