Comments on: SOA, EDA, and CEP a winning combo

By: udidahan

udidahan — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:41:14 +0000

Thanks Alex – looks interesting. I would say that while it may be valuable to technically keep rules separate (rather than hard coded), I still see them inside the logical service boundary, not outside.

By: Alex

Alex — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:13:06 +0000

Hi Udi, I liked your article and it has provided me with some insights. I am working on a project where I faced some of these dilemmas, and captured my version of a pattern that is able to support SOA. You can find it here if you are interested:

http://www.communities.hp.com/online/blogs/nextbigthingeds/archive/2009/09/25/managing-enterprise-attributes-and-events-using-a-new-soa-provisioning-and-synchronisation-pattern.aspx

By: udidahan

udidahan — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 03:53:33 +0000

Sandeep,

Glad you like nServiceBus. The configuration approach does take some getting used to – I agree. I would suggest that you bring these kinds of questions to the discussion group, though, where more people can see both the question and answer.

Best regards,

By: sandeep

sandeep — Sun, 31 May 2009 23:05:27 +0000

Hello,
I downloaded the NserviceBus and opened up samples. The main method is quite puzzlin with too many extension methods. Can you please demystify this .

thanks in advance for wonderful contributions

By: mfathur

mfathur — Mon, 11 May 2009 08:26:53 +0000

Hi, Udi
I Love This!

Many thanks

By: Lost Notifications? No Problem.

Lost Notifications? No Problem. — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 09:47:09 +0000

[...] More in depth example on events and pub/sub between services [...]

By: udidahan

udidahan — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:20:37 +0000

Mário,

Glad you liked it.
And never underestimate the power of the lone ranger

By: Mário Rui da Costa

Mário Rui da Costa — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:32:48 +0000

Hello,

Congratulations, your post is the clearest view relating the combined use of SOA and EDA principles for Information systems specification I have ever seen. I am a “lonesome cowboy” fighting in the arena of a Telco operator and talking alone about EDA in the last years. Your clear objective view of the benefits of EDA + SOA and their complementary role will be determinant to open some minds around here. Thanks.
Mário Rui da Costa
of

By: Peter Rajsky

Peter Rajsky — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 07:28:06 +0000

It is strange that European union standardize what is banana (and has exact criteria)… They should standardize notion of integration service

By: udidahan

udidahan — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:43:17 +0000

Peter,

I accept that you have a different opinion on the definition of “service” than I do. Apparently, it’s not just the two of us – everyone has their own definition

For me, I’ve given up on the whole reuse thing. I think it’s a crock. Has been since OO.

Also, as the example in my post describes, we can see the same thing being both an event producer and “reaction process” as you call it for different kinds of events.

I’ve read the posts you linked and it appears that you take an integration perspective on SOA. I perceive integration as something that occurs within the context of a single business service.

Anyway, glad you commented and I’m looking to hearing more from you.

By: Peter Rajsky

Peter Rajsky — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:53:57 +0000

Nice article. I follow Jack fight
What I do not like on it is following:
You call Sales, Inventory and Shipping “business services”. Actually there are three different component types: Services, Event producers and Event reaction processes (these are not reusable and catalogized in the same way as services or as events; http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/system-integration-theory/eda-soa-crossproject-documentation-26215).
ESB is still needed – for implementation of reaction processes and simple composite services (e.g. routing/transformation). Again ESB tools should differentiate between these three component types
(http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/system-integration-theory/what-does-the-letter-s-in-jbossesb-mean-27069)
We need to differentiate when to use event-driven communication for your example and not one-way command? It is not about loosely coupling only probably… (I tried to find out answer in http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/system-integration-theory/would-you-like-service-or-event-sir-26243; but it is not so easy…)

By: udidahan

udidahan — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 22:51:29 +0000

Jack,

We need more people fighting the good fight

By: udidahan

udidahan — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 22:50:41 +0000

Mark,

Glad you liked it.

By: Jack van Hoof

Jack van Hoof — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 17:26:44 +0000

Now you really are my friend, Udi. Excellent post!!

-Jack

By: Mark Nijhof

Mark Nijhof — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 00:13:50 +0000

Hi Udi,

Good post! I totally Agree with this idea. SOA is a good pattern to clearly separate the different responsibilities within the application Then use EDA to have these Services communicate with each other. This gives a very high grade of louse coupling and with that all the nice abilities to make changes easier. I have been thinking about combining EDA with DIP as a technical pattern with the main purpose to make change easy (http://blog.fohjin.com/2008/09/no-dependency-architecture-nda.html). Adding SOA to this seems like a logical next step, I will definitely look more into this.

Thanks,

-Mark