I've let this percolate a few days, so it's time to try to verbalize it... :)
In continuing the thread of jk: Maybe my cup was full?:
My expectation of this presentation was that the speaker would provide more answers than questions. I'm not a believer in hyped anything; I have no issue with having my thinking challenged. It seemed the presentation was slanted towards anti-hype/thought-provoking.
IMHO, it would have been nice to get that expectation set in the presentation summary beforehand. Then, I could have emptied my cup and actually gotten more value out of the 2 hour investment of my time. By not properly setting expectations, I feel a boundry of trust (ironically an SOA tenet!) was violated between the presenter and the audience.
Since I do believe in the "rule of 3" for many things, I'll try going one more time to see if the time spent attending is justified or not.
One soundbite from the presentation which I thought was good is:
"A design goal for SOA is to reduce dependencies". Nothing earth shattering, but noting goals and rationale for making decisions always rings true w/ me.
November 09, 2004
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
de ja vu - the sensation that you've been through the same situation before.
didn't the OOP kids say a long time ago:
"lower coupling is better"Jake
from whoISjake.com fame
Right; agreed. However, i think the dependencies is a larger topic.
Obviously, binary dependency between objects (a la COM, CORBA, etc) is very intimate. The messaging/contract based nature of SO should help alleviate that issue.
Secondly, the notion of transactions in a cross-database/cross-service dependency seems to be a design goal as well. There is really no notion of a cross service transaction (you can't lock on my data), so the paradigm of 'instant transactions' differs from traditional programming.
There are probably more things that would qualify, and as they percolate (my word of the week), i'll try to post back here. I'm sure all 5 readers of this blog can come up with more than I thought of... :)
Right; agreed. However, i think the dependencies is a larger topic.
Obviously, binary dependency between objects (a la COM, CORBA, etc) is very intimate. The messaging/contract based nature of SO should help alleviate that issue.
Secondly, the notion of transactions in a cross-database/cross-service dependency seems to be a design goal as well. There is really no notion of a cross service transaction (you can't lock on my data), so the paradigm of 'instant transactions' differs from traditional programming.
There are probably more things that would qualify, and as they percolate (my word of the week), i'll try to post back here. I'm sure all 5 readers of this blog can come up with more than I thought of... :)
Post a Comment