From: Matt MacKenzie
[mailto:mattm@adobe.com]
Sent: 25 October 2005 22:35
To: Miko Matsumura;
soa-blueprints@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [soa-blueprints]
Anti-Blueprints
Why is it valuable to
define an “anti-pattern” such as the one discussed here? Doesn’t this
anti pattern apply to pretty much all programming models? It looks like
y’all are fishing here.
Just my
CAD$0.02…
-matt
From: Miko Matsumura
[mailto:mmatsumura@infravio.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 4:10
PM
To:
soa-blueprints@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [soa-blueprints]
Anti-Blueprints
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
Let me know if I
correctly eloborated and named them for you.
-----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. |