Oh yea (smacks self on head). Let em dump all their
interfaces in, we can handle it all with metadata.
=)
Hehe, just because the tools let you doesnt mean you
should.
Miko
From: Matt MacKenzie [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 2:40 PM
To: Miko Matsumura;
Subject: RE: [soa-blueprints]
Anti-Blueprints
But you sell
registries, yeah? Don’t let them get too efficient J
From: Miko
Matsumura [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 5:38
PM
To: Matt MacKenzie;
Subject: RE: [soa-blueprints]
Anti-Blueprints
useful because I see so
many people doing this... =)
From: Matt
MacKenzie [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 2:35
PM
To: Miko Matsumura;
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:]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 4:10
PM
To:
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:]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 12:57
PM
To:
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:]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 12:41
PM
To: ;
;
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:
[mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 11:54
AM
To:
;
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:]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 11:21
AM
To:
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:
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.
