f3yourmind

Many big vendors have invested a lot on blue print or reference architectures.  I came across another in recent months.  I witnessed a vendor team moving from client to client implementing this reference architecture as part of their SOA solution.

What were they actually doing? They were mapping the client’s domain to the reference architecture domain and thereby identified reference architecture services that supported the client’s needs.  This most probably works for some people.   But I feel uncomfortable with it because…

• It means translating from one domain to another and back again.  It’s like having one massive bounded context around the reference architecture with a gigantic set of adaptors and transformers.
• There is a very real possibility of semantic impedance on the boundary of the two domains.
• There is likely to be two domain vocabularies or one large polluted vocabulary with synonyms, etc.

There are other reasons but these few are just old problems and habits coming back again.  Things that we accepted as dangerous and limits success in creating good software.

So, are reference architectures bad? Yes and no.  Maybe you should consider adopting its domain vocabulary as a first step.  A reference architecture with a rich metamodel is more likely to be more valuable than one without a metamodel.

And the moment you start thinking at a meta level, then you’re moving into a higher level of abstraction.  In this higher level, you will have a greater opportunity to describe your intentions agnostic of the reference architecture and the vendor’s technology stack.

The way I see it, services are defined at a meta level.  They describe your intentions and are independent of a reference architecture.  However, if you chose a reference architecture up front, then describe your intentions in the vocabulary of the reference architecture.

Does this make sense?  Because I’m just hypothesising here.

Anne Thomas Manes wrote a farewall for SOA in her blog post SOA is Dead, Long Live Services.  InfoQ asked for comment from SOA thought leaders and architects on this matter which created quite a stir and the usual amount of noise as well.  One of the most interesting responses I read was from Stefan Tilkov in his blog post Defending SOA.  Now I cannot resist, but give my perspective.

SOA is an attempt to create an architectural style that embodies the heart of the business – the domain.  In any business the domain is vast and so there are many subdomains or even very distinct domains.  In my workshop on Bootstrapping Your SOA Project, I defined a service very traditionally as providers and consumers connected by some execution context that hides implementation.  Now, I like to abstract it a bit more and think of services as business intentions.  These intentions cut right through the fat and get very close to the bone which is all about the domain.  That’s why I think DDD is at the heart of SOA.

Is SOA dead? Not yet but the vendors are doing a great job of killing it with implementations.

Should SOA die? No.  it’s an architectural style worth cherishing since it deals with legacy and new software at the same time, hence spanning multiple systems (like Stefan Tilkov nicely explains).

Does SOA need an ESB? Not necessarily. I think the ESB is just a pattern that happens to have an implementation called the ESB (vocabulary that sucks!).  I have seen some some really complex solutions with an ESB that would have worked just fine with, for example, a simple RMI call instead.

Is it about Business Process Management? Partially.  When you span multiple systems then you will likely do so with processes.  But it’s all about managing state across multiple systems and what nicer way is there than transferring state, i.e. being RESTful (and I am not talking about REST over HTTP).  This also suggests that you should think asynchronously as well.

Is SOA heavyweight? No.  But the vendors make it very, very heavyweight because that is the core of their economic model.  I like to think about all the little Unix command line tools that you can string together to solve a particular problem, like the FindAndDeleteAllOldLogs capability that is part of the FileManagementService

What is killing SOA? The lack of readiness for existing systems that comes from existing software development thinking in most teams.  SOA demands that you think about state, scalability, ownership, backward compatibility, testability … things that go towards creating decent API’s for your systems.  And the more vendor swagger we have, the less development teams think about API’s.

Is SOA Dead? Yes.  It was still born.  But it will be reincarnated as SOA when vendors focus on tools to help people discover domains and increase automation, and not creating heavyweight obstructions;  and when developers figure out that domain understanding is vital and writing good API’s  still count – more than ever before.

I was talking SOA – again! I was arguing that modeling of services in UML, BPEL, and any other fancy acronym immediately constrains you to a specific implementation.  For example, UML means that your are thinking OO already, BPEL means that your are thinking business processes already.  But are those (and others) the best ways to model or represent a service?

In SOA, I have a suspicion (as yet untested!) that a service is closer to an intention than anything else that I can think of because it describes the latent value of the business that invariably is lost by SOA implementations and product stacks.  Now that leaves us with a problem – how do you describe intentions consistently across any domain?   I don’t know how to do this because to describe intentions in a domain, you need to understand the vocabulary of the domain.  Until we can represent vocabularies then only can we create a metamodel for these business intentions.

So how do we model intentions in a single domain since I cannot use UML (implementation!), XPDL (implementation!), BPEL (implementation!) etc?  Since the domain is constrained by its vocabulary, we need to create a language that uses this vocabulary.  And that, my dear folks, is nothing but a DSL.  If we, therefore, model intentions (the services) with a DSL, then we are in a position to translate or transform that intention into any implementation that we like.  Realistically, we will likely need additional metadata surrounding the intention described in the DSL to satisfy UML, XPDL, BPEL, WSDL, RESTful APIs, etc.

When we think of the business as what they intend to do or achieve, then we are actually working at a higher level of abstraction – at a meta-level.  That is hard to do, but if you do it reasonably well, then you have more freedom when it comes to implementation.

SOA is so screwed up at the moment and most are climbing into or out of rabbit holes because the business intentions are being ignored or forgotten far too early or thought about far too late.  Perhaps the most effective SOA implementations will be realised with a suite of DSL’s and the only toolset that you really need is a language workbench and some very skilled language oriented programmers.