June 30, 2009

Less focus on reuse is good for SOA

The value of reuse will continue to drive SOA, but for many, in the wrong direction

Reuse has been the battle cry for many SOA proponents in the recent past. You can't blame them -- that's how SOA has been sold. Reuse, however, is just a small component of the value of SOA, and too much focus on reuse can lead to misalignment of priorities and a resulting bad architecture.

We've been doing SOA long enough to know that the main benefits are around the core architecture and the ability for that architecture to change to accommodate business. Good architecture, including SOA, is not something you come by accidentally; it takes careful planning and a lot of work to get to a healthy state.

[ There is still a lot of misinformation out there about SOA. Read "4 SOA myths busted." | Effective architecture is key to business flexibility, agility, and efficiency. Keep up on developments in SOA with InfoWorld's Technology: Architecture newsletter. ]

When the focus is on reuse within the context of SOA, there seems to be a misalignment of what needs to get done to create an SOA. What should be an architecture problem becomes a programming problem, and that's not going to get you where you need to go. While you may build a mechanism to promote and facilitate reuse, the value of SOA is severely diluted if that's the core focus.

Don't get me wrong -- reuse is a requirement to get to architectural agility, but if reuse is the only objective than you're going to find it hard to map out a path to agility. Architectural agility requires that you address the architecture holistically, from the data to the service to the process layer. Agility, as a value of SOA, requires that you place volatility into a configuration layer, where changes to the architecture do not drive waves of reprogramming, testing, and deployment.

I suspect the value of reuse will continue to drive SOA, but it will also drive many in the wrong direction. Make sure you focus on what's important, versus what seems to be obvious. There is a difference.

White Paper

D2D Virtual Tape Library Replication Primer

This whitepaper explains the terminology and concepts behind Data Replication technologies and establishes some sizing rules through worked examples. Learn the new paradigm in disaster tolerance—protect data anywhere.

Download now »

White Paper

An Alternative to Virtualization for Datacenter Cost Savings

Server virtualization is a popular option for dealing with mounting datacenter costs. Another equally promising approach is the use of an Application Delivery Controller. Citrix NetScaler provides a low-cost way for organizations to reduce their server count and accrue cost savings from a reduction in space, cooling, power and personnel.

Download now »

White Paper

Why Your Firewall, VPN, and IEEE 802.11i Aren't Enough to Protect Your Network

The emergence of WLANs has created a new breed of security threats to enterprise networks.

Included in HP ProCurve WLAN solutions is security technology that alleviates threats from WLANs through:
* Monitoring wireless activity inside and out of the enterprise
* Classifying WLAN transmissions into harmful and harmless
* Preventing transmissions that pose a security threat to the enterprise network
* Locating participating devices for physical remediation

Download now »

White Paper

Bringing the Edge to the Data Center

Effectively address data protection challenges, implementing solutions that help store and protect business–critical data while cutting costs and improving efficiency and reliability.

Download now »
jpmorgenthal 30-Jun-09 9:59am
I totally agree. I blogged on this recently (http://jpmorgenthal.com/morgenthal/index.php?entry=entry090619-132732) discussing that you can create bad service design and have reusability. They are orthogonal issues.
Robert Eve 30-Jun-09 10:06am

Dave -

Let's face it, Reuse is an attractive value proposition as it is easy to estimate and aligns conceptually with an atomic "web service."

However, you are SO RIGHT about AGILITY providing service oriented architecture's highest business value impact.

In our data virtualization customers, across both the web data services and the traditional relational BI side, the other alternatives are so much slower to develop, deploy, and maintain than the more virtualized, abstracted techniques inherent in SOA.

But for some reason, the old reliable (slow and more costly) ways continue and even grow in their adoption.

I guess there is some solace in the fact that those who do use new approaches are well rewarded with a more responsive business model and better economic returns for their employees and shareholders.

Regards, Bob Eve, EVP Composite Software

bmichelson 30-Jun-09 10:49am
Thanks for pointing this out. One more piece of the SOA lore that causes trouble for practitioners.
I "grumpily" went at this topic a few weeks ago: there is more to services than reuse. It was around the time the cloud folks were making your blood boil.
Here's my contribution on the topic -- http://blog.elementallinks.net/2009/06/grumpy-architect-week-there-is-mo...
-brenda
marcrix 16-Sep-09 2:37pm
One of my favorite subjects. Designing solely for reuse is like opening a video store and carrying only the most popular titles. Good when your customers all think alike but not when you need to be ready for any request. More and more, businesses are operating (and profiting) on the fringe, which calls for SOA strategies that embrace one-off services. More at http://soacoach.blogspot.com/2009/09/service-reuse-whatever.html.

Sign up to receive InfoWorld Resource Alerts

Subscribe to the Today's Headlines: First Look Newsletter

Find out what will be news for the day, with our first-thing-in-the-morning briefing.

©1994-2009 Infoworld, Inc.