To begin with an antipodean metaphor, using a service-oriented architecture, when it works out, can be as elegant and exhilarating as surfing on a 10 meter wave, exploiting huge uncontrollable forces to move forward at great speed. However, unfortunately, and maybe much like in the surfing world, the SOA wave often mercilessly rolls over a hapless development team, leaving them confused and wondering whether to give up on the idea or to paddle out again.

Despite its complexity a service-oriented architecture is high on almost every project’s wish list. I have been involved in eight projects over the last year, sometimes directly delivering working software, sometimes reviewing or advising, and out of these eight projects six were, according to the respective architects, building a system with a service-oriented architecture. On these projects I have come across two recurring uses of language around SOA that I found noteworthy.

Firstly, SOA used to, and still should, stand for an architecture that is service-oriented, with “architecture” being the noun. What I have found, though, is that more and more often people use “SOA” as an adjective and then add it to a more or less random noun, such as “approach” or “model” or even “architecture” again. Yes, I have heard people talk about an SOA Architecuture more than once.

This use of language highlights a problem. Sticking the three letters “SOA” onto a random noun, without pronouncing what the letters stand for, makes it easy to forget what this was all about in the first place. In fact, it seems that “SOA” is now put in front of words such as “approach” simply to make something sound contemporary; as in: “How’s your project?” — “Oh, we follow an SOA approach.” Given my experience, chances are that the project’s architecture is not service-oriented. It might use WS-* standards, though.

Secondly, there are people who are referred to as SOA professionals or similar. It usually sounds like it’s their job to build SOAs. But what does that really mean? Shouldn’t developers built software according to a service-oriented architecture? Are the SOA professionals merely advising teams on how to build service-oriented architectures correctly?

In my experience the SOA professionals have a different agenda, and that is to sell SOA. Unfortunately, in the words of my colleague Jim Webber, there are two things money can’t buy: love and an SOA. Again, using the three letters one might think “why not?” but spelled out, would anybody argue you can buy a service-oriented architecture? Or any architecture for that matter? So, what is really being sold is usually a set of products, software and/or hardware, that may or may not help a team implement a service-oriented architecture.

The key problem in this case is that when you “buy SOA” the success criteria shift. It seems that success is defined based on whether something that can be labelled “SOA” is in place, and not whether actual business value is delivered. What is often completely forgotten is an evaluation of the suitability of the architecture, but that’s a topic for another post.

At some point last year I was asked to review the architecture of the software behind a large and popular website. The resident architect explained how he had followed a modern approach, decoupling the web front-end from back-end services that provide content. To gain further flexibility he had put the front-end and the services on an ESB, mostly to cater for the possibility to make the content available to other consumers. In short, the architecture diagram looked a lot like many others: nothing to see here, move on.

The diagram above only shows one of the content services, which for the sake of this article is a service that provides contact details for a person.

Based on conversations with the project sponsors I began to suspect that at least the introduction of the ESB was a case of RDD, ie. Resume-Driven Development, development in which key choices are made with only one question in mind: how good does it look on my CV? Talking to the developers I learned that the ESB had introduced “nothing but pain.” But how could something as simple as the architecture in the above diagram cause such pain to the developers? Was this really another case of architect’s dream, developer’s nightmare?

(more…)

Admittedly, I’ve been struggling with the “Architect” title in the IT world. It is not that I think there’s no role for architecture, far from it, but too often I’ve encountered architects who focus too narrowly on architecture, losing track of the realities of actual software development and the context in which the software will be used. I wonder, if there was no “Architect” title and people who are responsible for architecture would be called guide or coach or tech lead, or just the senior developer, whether things would be better.

About a year ago, in a discussion about architects, rather than trying to define what an architect is or does, we looked at what he or she should know. We expressed our ideas as mini-essays, strictly limiting ourselves to one per essay, and it turned out that, at least to my surprise, there was a lot of agreement; maybe because we hadn’t come up with hard and fast rules but with ideas and guidelines.

Luckily Richard Monson-Haefel was part of that discussion and he had the resolve and means to make our thoughts more widely available. Our list of the 97 things every architect should know was collected and refined on this wiki, and is available under a creative commons license. For a more convenient read it has now also been published as a book by O’Reilly. As expected, the discussions have begun.

Of the many projects I have worked on the rewrite of the Guardian website is certainly a highlight. And in this case I can even speak about it in detail. In fact, Mat Wall from the Guardian and I presented some of our experiences at several conferences, and now the Software Engineering Radio has published a podcast in which we talk about this project.

Travelling’s good for you, and on a recent trip through Patagonia I unexpectedly found the answer to a question that had tormented me for a while: What does SOA really mean? Well, have a look: The meaning of SOA.