[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-blueprints] Anti-Blueprints
Good idea. The wiki should be world readable at this url presently, let me know if you have any problems... http://blueprints.jot.com/WikiHome Best, Miko -----Original Message----- From: marchadr@wellsfargo.com [mailto:marchadr@wellsfargo.com] Sent: Wed 10/26/2005 9:01 AM To: steve.g.jones@capgemini.com; mattm@adobe.com; Miko Matsumura; soa-blueprints@lists.oasis-open.org Cc: Subject: RE: [soa-blueprints] Anti-Blueprints I added a bit more anti-patterns: - Nobody Home Anti-Pattern - Creating a service with no real client - Shiny Nickel Anti-Pattern - New technology implemented without a business case in relation to incorporating an ESB say with only one service provider in the enterprise - Too many cooks in the SOA Anti-Pattern - Essentially a bunch of departments start to implement the same service over and over again without looking for something to meet their needs in the registry. Could also be called a Service by Any Other Name Anti Pattern - UBER Service Anti-Pattern - building on one service and adding irrelevant functionality to the same service creating a monolithic service. Similar in nature to the point-to-point problem Steve mentioned. Miko, I wonder if the wiki should have read-only access without a login. This way everyone can start to look at the progress but doesn't have to get a login if they didn't want to deal with that. - Dan -----Original Message----- From: Jones, Steve G [mailto:steve.g.jones@capgemini.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 2:55 PM To: Matt MacKenzie; Miko Matsumura; soa-blueprints@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [soa-blueprints] Anti-Blueprints There are some SOA anti-patterns that will be common to general software but there will also be specifics to SOA (like don’t start with process). I’ve no idea who said it but I recall reading once a phrase something like “IT is 5% what to do, and 95% what not to do”. Having anti-patterns is at this stage almost more valuable than proper patterns as they act as breaks on development expense that would be pointless. I know of a few clients I’ve saved money for by pointing out what is wrong who are now taking the time to move towards a more controlled blueprints type approach. Not only does IT need the “This Way” signs, we also need “There be dragons”. Steve _____ 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 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 <http://www.capgemini.com> m: steve.g.jones@capgemini.com <mailto: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. 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.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]