Udi Dahan   Udi Dahan – The Software Simplist
Enterprise Development Expert & SOA Specialist
 
   
    Blog Consulting Training Articles Speaking About
  

Archive for the ‘Architecture’ Category



People, Politics, and the Single Responsibility Principle

Monday, May 26th, 2014

PeopleIn one of Uncle Bob’s recent blog posts on the Single Responsibility Principle he uses the example of using people and organization boundaries as an indication of possible good software boundaries:

When you write a software module, you want to make sure that when changes are requested, those changes can only originate from a single person, or rather, a single tightly coupled group of people representing a single narrowly defined business function. You want to isolate your modules from the complexities of the organization as a whole, and design your systems such that each module is responsible (responds to) the needs of just that one business function.

This is something that often comes up when I teach people about service boundaries when it comes to SOA – organization boundaries are the most intuitive choice.

And, once up on a time, that intuition might have indeed held up.

Stepping back in time

In the age before computers, organizations had a very specific way of structuring themselves.

People who had to work closely together sat in close physical proximity to each other. Data that was required on an ongoing basis would be in file cabinets also physically co-located with the people using that data, and it would be structured in a way that was optimal for their specific purposes. All of this was due to the high cost of communicating with people farther away.

If you needed data from a different department, you had requisition it by filling out a special form, put it in your outbox, and then some guy from the mail room would pick it up, and physically schlep it to the right department, putting it in their inbox, and then someone there would get your data for you – putting it together with your original request, and then the mail guy would schlep it back. This inbox/outbox style of communication should ring a bell from the messaging patterns I talk about with NServiceBus.

As a result, different departments had to have very clearly delineated responsibilities with minimal overlap with each other. The organization just couldn’t function any other way.

And then a bunch of us geeks came along.

Enter the age of computers and networks

By introducing this technology, the cost of communication across large distances started falling – slowly at first, and then quite dramatically.

When anyone in an organization was able access data from anywhere in the blink of an eye, an interesting dynamic started to unfold. All of a sudden, the division of responsibility between departments wasn’t as critical as it was before. When an employee needed to do something, there wasn’t this “that isn’t our job, you need to go to so-and-so” reaction. Because things could be done instantly, that’s exactly what happened.

And then came the politics

By removing the cost of communication, it became possible for more power-hungry people in the organization to start making (or trying to make) decisions that they couldn’t have made before. The introduction of computers into an organization was heralded as a new way of doing business – that the old organizational boundaries were a relic that we should leave behind us.

And thus can the re-org (the first of many).

Responsibilities and people were shuffled around, managers vied for more power, and politics took its’ place as one of the driving forces in the company structure.

Nowadays, if you want a decision made in a company, there isn’t just one person who has the authority to sign off on it anymore. No, you need to have meetings – and more meetings, with people you never knew existed in the company, or why on earth they should have a say on how something is supposed to get done. But that is now our reality: endlessly partially overlapping responsibilities across the organization.

So, what of the Single Responsibility Principle

This just makes it that much harder to decide how to structure our software – there is no map with nice clean borders. We need to be able to see past the organizational dysfunction around us, possibly looking for how the company might have worked 100 years ago if everything was done by paper. While this might be possible in domains that have been around that long (like banking, shipping, etc) but even there, given the networked world we now live in, things that used to be done entirely within a single company are now spread across many different entities taking part in transnational value networks.

In short – it’s freakin’ hard.

But it’s still important.

Just don’t buy too deeply into the idea that by getting the responsibilities of your software right, that you will somehow reduce the impact that all of that business dysfunction has on you as a software developer. Part of the maturation process for a company is cleaning up its’ business processes in parallel to cleaning up its’ software processes.

The good news is that you’ll always have a job :-)



On that Microservices thing

Monday, March 31st, 2014

antsSeems that I’m a bit late to the Microservices party – original article here.

But since I’ve been getting repeated requests to weigh in on the topic, I guess I’ll have to risk fanning the flames up again.

Also, since quite a few reactions have already been written on the topic (and I don’t want to repeat them here), I’ll just point to this post by Arnon which sums them all up pretty well.

Now, I don’t entirely agree with all the commentary Arnon pointed to, or all of his thoughts on the topic, but I’ll try to take those up some other time.

And before jumping into it, let me say that there is a lot of good stuff in the article and that, regardless of naming, spreading the word more broadly on these approaches has value.

So, where do I stand on the topic

First of all, for those of you who have been following my blog for a while I’d say this:

Microservices almost equals Autonomous Components.

Why “almost”?

Because an Autonomous Component (AC) isn’t necessarily a physical unit of deployment – very often we’ll see multiple ACs deployed in the same physical process. One of the most common occurrences is in a web front end built as a composite UI. In the same web server process we’ll see components from multiple Services.

This is something that was hardly mentioned in the original article.

On Services and Systems

In my world, Services are a larger organizing principle that are meant to align solution domain boundaries with problem domain boundaries.

Now, that might sound very similar to this passage from the original article:

“The microservice approach to division is different, splitting up into services organized around business capability. Such services take a broad-stack implementation of software for that business area, including user-interface, persistant storage, and any external collaborations. Consequently the teams are cross-functional, including the full range of skills required for the development: user-experience, database, and project management.”

Now, this isn’t entirely surprising because I did have several conversations with both James and Martin on the topic over the past couple of years.

Still, there is something important missing here that I believe is very important to achieve loose-coupling, and that is that Services necessarily have to span system boundaries.

Let me repeat that: a Service will need to have components that are deployed to more than one system.

Here’s why:

Let’s say you have a piece of data like the price of a product. Not only will that data be visible in one system, often it will need to be shown (as well as updated) in other systems too. In order to have appropriate encapsulation of that concept, the owning service will need to be the one that owns the components that operate on that concept in the other systems.

This means that if we need to show the product price on an invoice in a back-end system, then that invoice would have to be a composite UI as well, and the service which owns the price will have a component deployed there which would be responsible for showing the price on the invoice.

In this manner, no code outside the service boundary would know about the concept of the product price and thus could not end up coupled to it.

Although the original article does get into this to some degree (when talking about Decentralized Data Management), I don’t really see how a microservice/AC could end up having this level of ownership of data.

Still, the point made about different persistence technologies is valid at the level of services (though not ACs).

How big is a service

Now, if the price is not shared outside the boundary of the service, then how would order totals be calculated?

The answer is that the totals must (MUST) be calculated in the same service.

This shouldn’t be surprising as it’s just good old OO – encapsulating data with the logic that operates on it. Or, if you’d like, call it the Single Responsibility Principle: there should only be a single service impacted by a change to the definition of this data.

As a result, you’ll tend to see services that aren’t all that small, and probably not so many of them. In my experience, I’ve seen between 7 and 15 services the majority of the time.

Cross-service collaboration

Although I am glad to see the recommendation for event-based interactions between microservices, the focus on cross-process communication ignores some extremely important collaboration scenarios – the most important of which is in the client tier.

In a web application, it is quite common to have components written in javascript from multiple services interacting among themselves in the browser – one publishing events, others subscribing to those JS events. It is also quite common to see those JS components request some data from back-end components in the same service in response to those JS events.

This type of synchronous RPC communication within a service boundary is perfectly acceptable, although it stands in contrast to the recommendations of the microservices approach.

Caveat on sharing data

I’ve been going on and on about the importance of not sharing data, but there is one exception to that rule.

There is a special service that I call IT/Ops which (among other things) is responsible for integration with 3rd party systems. As a part of this integration, it encapsulates data transformation logic and, as a result, needs to be able to receive data from the other more business-centric services.

As you can imagine, this puts IT/Ops in the risky position of coupling itself to a lot of things and thus needs to be done carefully. As a result, I recommend that many of the most skilled technical people work within the IT/Ops team, also serving in a consultative capacity to the other service teams.

In closing

I am extremely thankful to Martin and James for writing the Microservices article.

I think that the conversations it has sparked are timely, and hopefully more people will ponder these questions of how to structure their code-bases in order to avoid them becoming monolithic.

And while I think that it’s great to consider aligning team boundaries with service boundaries, people need to understand that it will need to be an evolutionary process – it will take time to transition an existing code base and an existing team structure to this new model, especially since these teams will have to continue to deliver features and bug fixes through the transition period. Jumping to the new model directly may cause more harm than good.

This is actually one of the most salient topics of my course (next one in NYC in May) – how do you get there from here. In my experience there are 4 phases that companies go through, often taking at least a couple of years, with larger environments taking potentially longer.

In any case, let’s keep the conversation going.

What are your thoughts? Have you been applying the Microservices approach, or possibly the one I talk about (I really should give it a name). What’s been working well for you? What hasn’t?

Leave me a comment or write your own blog post.



Thoughts on a career in software development

Friday, December 27th, 2013

helping_handFor much of the history of computers, programmers really only had one path to take – upward into management.

While you could go from Junior Programmer to Senior Programmer, sooner or later you were faced with the choice of becoming a Team Lead or having your career stagnate.

The primary difficult with becoming a team lead is that the skills that made you an excellent Senior Programmer didn’t really carry over to leading a team.

On leading teams

Much ink has been spilled (and keyboards been pounded) on this topic, so I’ll just give the common solution that is proposed to this issue – having a parallel technical career track to the traditional management track.

After being a senior programmer, developers can grow into architects and upwards. IBM, for example, has the title “Fellow” reserved for this ultimate level.

An IBM Fellow is an appointed position at IBM made by IBM’s CEO. Typically only 4 to 9 IBM Fellows are appointed each year in May or June. It is the highest honor a scientist, engineer, or programmer at IBM can achieve. –Wikipedia

All that’s well and good, but I have a feeling that something is still missing.

Why does it have to be either/or?

What if we allowed, nay – encouraged, developers to try both types of roles as they advance in their career?

After your first year as a senior programmer, you are then assigned to be a mentor to a junior programmer. You don’t assign them work, but take responsibility for some of their professional development. During this time, you also start learning what it takes to be a good team lead and developing your soft skills – yourself being mentored by a more senior team lead (probably not a good idea for it to be the team lead on the project you’re working on). From there, you take on a team lead role on a small-ish project leading 2-3 other developers.

During your time as a team lead, architects in the company work with you to deepen your technical knowledge of larger system concerns – grooming you for your next role: an architect. Your experience as a team lead gives you new found appreciation for managing technical risk.

Later, as an architect with developed soft-skills, you are now much more capable of getting teams to adopt your ideas and to want to do “the right thing”, rather than just deliver the project any way they know how. Even as you develop your expertise in various technological areas, the organization has an eye on bringing you back to being a team lead, this time on a larger project.

In praise of the zigzag

I think this has actually been happening more than just a little in our industry, although I believe it usually happens as people move from one company to another.

Is it possible that the limitations of the structures in their previous companies contributed to their choice to move to another company? Well, I wouldn’t discount it.

I don’t think companies should pigeonhole developers – either you’re an X or a Y.

Human beings thrive on variety and occasionally stretching out of their comfort zone.

I believe this model optimizes for people’s personal growth and can be tuned quite easily.

I think this is also very much in alignment with the Software Craftsmanship movement and can make it easier for companies to develop and hold on to the talent they’ve been lucky enough to hire in the first place.

In closing

While I believe this model is workable for a lot of the software industry, both for consulting companies and internal development organization, it’s clearly not going to be applicable for small startups. That being said, if the startup is successful and starts growing, it might not be such a bad idea to lay the groundwork for the team early on.

I don’t claim that this is the “best model” out there, and I haven’t tried it myself (yet), but I do believe that it has potential and would love to (re)spark the conversation about processes and structure that has seemed to die down under the Agile maxim of “Individuals and interactions over processes and tools” (though I believe that Agile as a whole *has* gotten us pointed in a better direction than where the industry was before).

What are your thoughts?

Write a comment or, even better, write something on your blog and spread the word!



Ask Udi 1: Alternative Architectures & Preaching to the Unconverted

Friday, June 28th, 2013

As promised, the podcast is back.

Download episode 1 here      and then      Subscribe to the feed.

There were 16 questions submitted and a couple hundred votes for the various topics. I was able to cover the top two questions.

Do you have a question you want to ask?
Want to vote on which questions will be answered next week?
Click here

This week’s questions

Rob Eisenberg asked:

It seems that every project I walk into has the exact same architecture, regardless of what the company is building. It’s that standard 3-tier pattern: data-business-presentation. But, there are other large-scale architectural patterns available. I’d love to hear some case studies that pair business problems with the rationale for choosing an “alternative architecture.”

And since it’s not just about knowing the right approach but also being able to convince others, I included Rvonwink’s question too:

Some of us see the genuine benefits of pub/sub, EDA and SOA design. However, how do you go about persuading the cynics, time pressed and uninformed:

Our developers hate debugging pub/sub models; Others love the ’simplicity’ of monolithic domains; Our DBA questions why messaging is required (since “the bus simply persists messages elsewhere”); Our sys admins hate deploying new applications or changing the deployment topology; Our boss is scared to tell the business there is a little extra work to start splitting apart services.

Next week

Currently the top questions for next week are:

  • Composite UI, Business Components and Deployment
  • How to handle predetermined technology choices
  • How do you manage NULL pointer exception in general?

What would you like to hear? Let me know.

Until next week…



Queries, Patterns, and Search – food for thought

Sunday, April 28th, 2013

fishWith all the talk of CQRS, the area that doesn’t get enough treatment (in my opinion) is that of queries. Many are already beginning to understand the importance of task-based UIs and how that aligns to the underlying commands being sent, validated, and processed in the system as well as the benefits of messaging-centric infrastructure (like NServiceBus) for handling those commands reliably. When it comes to queries, though, it isn’t nearly as well understood what it means for a query to be “task based”.

Starting with CRUD

Let’s start with a traditional CRUD application and work our way out from there.

In these environments, we often see users asking us to build “excel-like” screens that allow them to view a set of data as well as sort, filter, and group that data along various axes. While we might not get this requirement right away, after some time users begin to ask us to allow them to “save” a certain “query” that they have set up, providing it some kind of name.

That, right there, is a task-based query and it is the beginning of deeper domain insight.

Pattern matching

Any time a user is repeatedly running the same query (this can be once a day or some other unit of time) there is some scenario that the business is trying to identify and is using that user as a pattern-matching engine to see if the data indicates that that scenario has occurred.

It’s quite common for us to get a requirement to add some field (often a boolean or enum) to an entity which defaults to some value and then see that same field used in filtering other queries. These measures are sometimes instituted as a temporary stop-gap while a larger feature is being implemented, though (as the saying goes) there is nothing more permanent than a temporary solution.

Where we developers go wrong

The thing is, many developers don’t notice these sorts of things happening because we don’t actually look at the kinds of queries users are running.

One excellent technique to better understand a domain is to sit down with your users while they’re working and ask them, “what made you run that query just now?”, “why that specific set of filters?”.

What I’ve noticed over the years is that our users find very creative ways to achieve their business objectives despite the limitations of the system that they’re working with. We developers ultimately see these as requirements, but they are better interpreted as workarounds.

I’ll talk some more about how a software development organization should deal with these workarounds in a future post, but I want to focus back in on the queries for now.

Oh, and don’t get me started on caching or NoSQL, not that I think that those tools don’t provide value – they do, but they’re only relevant once you know which business problem you’re solving and why.

Not all queries are created equal

Even before bringing up the questions I described in the previous section, any time you get query-centric requirements the first question to ask is “how often will the user be running this specific query?”.

If the answer is that the specific query will be run periodically (every day, week, etc), then drill deeper to see what pattern the user will be looking for in the data. If the person you’re talking to doesn’t know to answer that question, then go find someone who does. Every periodic query I’ve seen has some pattern behind it – and in my conversations with thousands of other developers over the years, I’ve seen that this is not just my personal experience.

But there is a case where a query does get run repeatedly without there being a pattern behind it.

I know this sounds like I’m contradicting myself, but the distinction is the word “specific” that I emphasized above.

There are certain users who behave very differently from other users – these users are often doing what I call research, i.e. the “I don’t know what I’m looking for but I’ll know it when I see it” people.

These researchers tend to repeatedly query the data in the system however they tend to run different queries all the time. This is the reason why traditional data warehouse type solutions don’t tend to work well for them. Data warehouses are optimized for running specific queries repeatedly.

Keeping the Single-Responsibility Principle in mind – we should not try to create a single query mechanism that will address these two very different and independently evolving needs.

And now on to Search

Search is a feature that is needed in many systems and whose complexity is greatly underestimated.

While the developer community has taken some decent strides in understanding that search needs to be treated differently from other queries, the common Lucene/Solr solutions that are applied are often overwhelmed by the size of the data set on which the business operates.

The problem is compounded by our user population being spoiled by Google – that simple little text box and voila, exactly what you’re looking for magically appears instantaneously. They don’t understand (or care) how much engineering effort went into making that “just work”.

Lucene and Solr work well when your data set isn’t too large, and then they become pretty useless as the quality of their results degrades. The thing is that many of us in IT tend to work on projects where we have an unrealistically small data set that we use to test the system and, at these volumes, it looks like our solutions work great. But if you have 20 million customers, do you think a full text search on “Smith” is going to find just the right one?

Larger data sets require a relevance engine – something that feeds off of what users do AFTER the query to influence the results of future queries. Did the user page to the next screen? That needs to be fed back in. Did they click on one of the results? That needs to be fed back in too. Did they go back to the search and do another similar search right after looking at a result – that should possibly undo the previous feedback.

And that’s just relevance for beginners.

You know what makes Google, you know, Google? It’s that they have this absolutely massive data set of what users do after the query that informs which results they return when. You probably don’t have that. That and search is/was their main business for many years – I’m betting that it’s not your main business.

You should discuss this with your stakeholders the next time they ask for search functionality in your system.

In closing

I know that the common CQRS talking points tell you to keep your queries simple, but that doesn’t mean that simple is easy.

It takes a fair bit of domain understanding to figure out what the queries in the system are supposed to be – what tasks users are trying to achieve through these queries. And even when you do reach this understanding, convincing various business stakeholders to change the design of the UI to reflect these insights is far from easy.

It often seems like the reasonable solution to give our users everything, to not limit them in any way, and then they’ll be able to do anything. What ends up happening is that our users end up drowning in a sea of data, unable to see the forest for the trees, ultimately resulting in the company not noticing important trends quickly enough (or at all) and therefore making poor business decisions.

Even if your company doesn’t believe itself to be in “Big Data” territory, I’d suggest talking with the people on the “front lines” just in case. Many of them will report feeling overwhelmed by the quantity of stuff (to use the correct scientific term) they need to deal with.

It’s not about Lucene, Solr, OData, SSRS, or any other technology.

It’s on you. Go get ‘em.



Life without distributed transactions

Monday, December 31st, 2012

transactionsOccasionally I get questions about the issue of transactional messaging – why is it so important, why does NServiceBus default to this behavior, and if we didn’t use it, what bad things could happen. I’m talking specifically about the ability to enlist a queue in a distributed transaction here.

I think the reason for this interest is the rise in popularity of cloud platforms and queuing systems like RabbitMQ (which don’t support distributed transactions) and the difficulty of setting up distributed transactions even in on-premise.

Of course, there’s also the regular scalability hand-wringing going on even though most people wouldn’t bump up against those limits anyway.

In this post, I’ll talk about the nature of the problem, explain the pitfalls in some of the common solutions, but I’ll put off the description of how to provide consistency without distributed transactions to a future post as this one is already going to be quite long.

I’ll start with the basic fault-tolerance issues and then explain how things spiral out from there.

Starting with the basics

OK, so we have a queuing system in place that dispatches messages to our business logic which does some transactional work against a database.

Let’s say that we completed the transaction against our database but before we could acknowledge to the queue that the message was processed successfully, our machine crashed. What our machine comes up again, the queue will once again dispatch us the same message. Unless we have some logic to detect that we’ve already processed it (called “idempotence” in the REST community), we will end up processing it again.

In short, the problem is duplicates.

Attempted solutions to the duplicate problem

Most queuing systems don’t do anything about duplicates, actually giving it a proper architectural name: At-least-once message delivery, as opposed to the Once-and-only-once model that a queue that supports distributed transaction provides.

The solution often suggested is to have your logic check to see if it has already processed a message with that ID before – in essence storing the ID of each message processed for some period of time. Of course, there is some performance overhead with that, but it might be a small price to pay compared to dealing with it in the logic of every use case.

On the other hand, you’ll often have some messages (like Update commands) for which it looks like you can safely process them multiple times, in which case you might want not to pay the performance overhead there. The thing is, if your logic publishes an event in addition to the regular database work (something that is quite common) and you process the same message twice, you will probably end up publishing the event twice as well.

These duplicates are different in that here we have two distinct messages with different IDs that contain the same business data. This means that recipients of these messages will not be able to filter them out at an infrastructure level anymore.

NOTE: Deduplication abilities in queues

Although the Azure Service Bus doesn’t support distributed transactions meaning you still have the issue mentioned above, Microsoft added the ability to detect and filter out duplicates based on message contents rather than just the ID. This helps quite a bit but it’s important to understand that that doesn’t cover everything for you. Let me explain:

More complex logic

In some of your most important use cases, you may have both entity updates as well as entity creation happening together in your domain model. You might be using some kind of event model (like I wrote about here) to percolate out the information that an entity was created in order to keep your service layer decoupled from the internals of the domain model.

In the callback code from these domain events, you will likely publish out an event on the queuing system containing information like the ID of the entities created as well as other business data. And there’s the rub.

You see, without distributed transactions, you can run into some problematic scenarios:

For example, if you don’t make sure that your event publishing calls to the queuing system include the same transaction object as the one you used when retrieving the original message from the queue, then those calls could “escape” before you know if the database transaction is going to succeed. Deadlocks always happen at the lousiest times. Anyway, if you’re using database generated IDs for your entities, then those IDs will get published out in events despite the database rolling back and your subscribers will now be making decisions on wrong data – not just eventually consistent data.

In this case, processing the message again doesn’t really solve the problem – it just means that you’ll be publishing events with different IDs, so an infrastructure like Azure Service Bus couldn’t really de-duplicate them.

On the other hand, if you do use the same transaction and combine in the infrastructural message ID based de-duplication described above (as identifying duplicate calls for complex business logic is damn hard), you’ll run into another problem.

Consider what would happen if your server crashes right after finishing its database work but before it completes the transaction against the queuing system. When going to retry the message, the infrastructure filtering thing would know not to call your business logic again and that message would be quietly swallowed. Unfortunately, the event publishing calls to the queuing system from the first time the message was processed were rolled back and since your business logic isn’t called again, the event publishing won’t happen again.

Oops.

In closing

I hope I’ve been able to clarify what kind of scenarios distributed transactions solve for you and some of the difficulties in solving them yourself.

Now, to be clear, you could solve these problems by going in-depth on each of your use cases, analyzing the consistency needs and structuring the code differently to address those needs. But give this another thought, if our consistency is dependent on calling otherwise independent APIs in exactly the right order, and that a change in this order would not cause any visible functional effects, what would happen when developers with less expertise maintain this code?

The folks in the event sourcing community have their solution to this which is based on writing their business logic differently. As the adoption of this pattern is still pretty limited (probably still in the Innovator section of the Technology Adoption Curve), it’ll be interesting to see how it holds up with larger teams in the mainstream.

Oh, and in case it wasn’t clear from before, the guys in the REST community haven’t even begun addressing this problem when it comes to server-to-server integration.

We’re working on a solution for this with NServiceBus that won’t require you to change how you write business logic. We’ve got one big release to do before we can roll this in, and that’s coming soon (with all sorts of cool things like support for ActiveMQ and queues in the database). The solution we’ve found is architecturally sound but you’ll have to wait for my next post to hear about it.

Stay tuned.



Service-Oriented API implementations

Monday, December 10th, 2012

gearsIt’s quite common for our systems to need to expose an API for external parties to call that isn’t exactly aligned with our service boundaries – at least, when you follow the “vertical services” model rather than the “layered services” approach. I’ve blogged many times about the problems with layering, so I won’t go into that now beyond to say that you really, REALLY, should avoid it.

A short intro to SOA, done right

In the “vertical services” approach I espouse, you often see components from multiple services deployed to any given endpoint. While these services usually don’t need to communicate with each other at all, occasionally you’ll see them leaving “breadcrumbs” behind for each other – things like UserId or OrderId in the session. What’s especially important is that these IDs are accessible even before the entity is finalized – this enables each service to collect its own data without needing any other service to know about that data.

In an ecommerce environment, we would see one service owning money, another the product catalog (excluding prices, those would be owned by the previous service), another service owning the customers’ payment info (credit cards, etc), and yet another owning shipping addresses – all of these separate from the one that owns the shopping cart. Let’s call these Finance, Catalog, Payment, Shipping, and finally Shopping – just so that we have something to reference later.

The API

While we can do all sorts of cool browser composition with the UI in our own system, enabling each service to collect and display its own information, if we want to expose an API for clients to call, we wouldn’t want to force those clients to have to make a separate call to each service in order to make a purchase. Instead, we’d want something that looks like:

MakePurchase(Guid orderId, Dictionary cart, CreditCardInfo cc, Address shippingAddress)

In case you were wondering, the service which owns the definition of this API is different from all of the above services – it is a service that is primarily technical in nature and is responsible for things like integration and data transformations. I call this service IT/Ops.

Getting the data from the API to the services

So, we don’t want any of our business-centric services to know about anybody else’s data structures, so that leaves it to IT/Ops to pass the data to them. The thing is that we still want to do that in the most loosely-coupled way possible – with messaging being a good candidate for that.

So, what we’ll do is have IT/Ops send a message containing the data to the other services, but with a slight twist.

Here’s what the code would look like with NServiceBus:

Bus.SendLocal(new Order { Id = orderId, Cart = cart,
                          CreditCard = cc, ShippingAddress = shippingAddress });



Why the SendLocal?

So that the components from the other services can all run together with IT/Ops in the same process giving a nice tight deployment model.

Before we get to the services, let me show you the Order class – specifically, the interfaces it implements:

public class Order : ShoppingOrder, PaymentsOrder, ShippingOrder
{
    public Guid OrderId { get; set; }
    public Dictionary<Guid, int> Cart { get; set; }
    public CreditCardInfo CreditCard { get; set; }
    public Address ShippingAddress { get; set; }
}

public interface ShoppingOrder
{
    Guid OrderId { get; set; }
    Dictionary<Guid, int> Cart { get; set; }
}

public interface PaymentsOrder
{
    Guid OrderId { get; set; }
    CreditCardInfo CreditCard { get; set; }
}

public interface ShippingOrder
{
    Guid OrderId { get; set; }
    Address ShippingAddress { get; set; }
}




Each of the above interfaces represents the data that each service cares about. Therefore, each service will provide an assembly that handles that message/data and persists it to its database, like this:


public class ShoppingAPIHandler : IHandleMessages<ShoppingOrder>
{
    public void Handle(ShoppingOrder message)
    {
        //persist to shopping service db
    }
}

public class PaymentsAPIHandler : IHandleMessages<PaymentsOrder>
{
    public void Handle(PaymentsOrder message)
    {
        //persist to payment service db
    }
}

public class ShippingAPIHandler : IHandleMessages<ShippingOrder>
{
    public void Handle(ShippingOrder message)
    {
        //persist to shipping service db
    }
}



Since the Order object being sent is a polymorphic match for all of these interfaces, NServiceBus knows to invoke all of these handlers. By the way, if you care about the order of invocation, then you can control that as well (but I won’t get into that here).

Also, since all of these handler assemblies are deployed to the same endpoint, and the Order object is sent just once, this means that all the handlers will be invoked in a single transaction on a single thread – either all of them succeeding, or all failing. Since they’re all connected on the same Order Id, referential integrity can be preserved as well.

Wrapping up

When you are building a system on SOA principles, you’ll often find that you need a service like IT/Ops to handle data transformation and other broker-centric tasks. While much of SOA is based on the Bus Architectural Style – meaning primarily publish/subscribe interaction between services – that doesn’t mean that your business-centric services cannot have their components deployed in the same process.

I’d go so far as to say that if you aren’t deploying components from multiple services in process with each other at least some of the time then it’s quite likely that your service boundaries are probably incorrect.

Anyway, I hope you found this post interesting. Shout out to Slawek who gave me the idea for this post.

By the way, if you’d like to learn more about these kinds of patterns, the next batch of courses is open for registration – but the early bird prices are almost over, so you’d better hurry.

Register for   Denver CO, USA,     Bad Ems, Germany,     Perth, Australia.



JPA with REST, OData, and SQL

Sunday, November 4th, 2012

Feeling a little bit rant-y today, as I just saw some more abuse of remote calls, this time on the Java side of things.

JPA is the Java Persistence API – a kind of ORM, as you’d expect. Luckily, a lot of the web services stuff was already on the way out by the time that EclipseLink DBWS came out. DBWS allowed you to expose database artifacts as web services.

I mean, it’s not like we have any other interoperable ways of accessing data, right?

Anyway, like I said, that didn’t take off, but now they’re reinventing it – this time with REST!

In case you had any doubts, REST is pure awesomeness and adding it to anything else makes it awesome too. Lest anybody take this out of context (it’s happened before), I’m being sarcastic.

Here it is.

God knows they couldn’t let Microsoft totally dominate this area with OData coming out quite some time ago. In case you were wondering, OData was designed to provide standard CRUD access of a data source over HTTP.

Of course, none of these support any transactions so if you actually wanted to do some meaningful business logic on top of this CRUD, you wouldn’t have any consistency. And, let’s face it, if you’re not doing any meaningful business logic, just basic persistence, you just do it. That problem’s been solved a long time ago.

Can we please stop reinventing SQL already?



Leveraging irrationality towards success

Thursday, September 27th, 2012

irrationalWe’ve all seen good ideas emerge in the software space – from objects, to components, to services, to domain models, and the *DD approaches. Yet, in most organizations, it is very hard for these ideas to get traction.

I’ve heard from countless developers and architects over the years about their frustration in getting everybody else to go along with them. “Can’t they see how much better [new approach] is over what we’re doing now?!” they ask, believing that things could and actually would be evaluated on their merits, especially in a rational field like IT.

The usual explanation I give has a couple of parts.

Conway’s Law

In 1968 Melvin Conway penned what later became known as Conway’s Law which stated:

“organizations which design systems … are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations.”

An important corollary of that law is that if you wish to have a significant impact on the design of a system, you would need to have a similarly significant impact on the communication structure of the organization making that system.

The main problem is that the people that tend to be pushing for DDD, IoC, CQRS, SOA, etc are usually not as strong when it comes to the soft skills that are so necessary for bringing about organizational change. The thing is that, at a minimum, these types of changes take 3 to 5 years so it really takes a long-term commitment, both from the individual and the organization.

On the rationality of people in IT

First of all, people are a whole lot less rational than they’d like to believe – or that they’d like other people to notice. In fact, people will go to great lengths to maintain the appearance of consistency and rationality, even at the cost of harm to themselves. How’s that for irrational?

Don’t take my word for it – there’s a great book on the topic: Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions. The somewhat scary thing about it is that not only are we irrational beings, but that that irrationality can be predicted and, yes, even manipulated.

Once you can understand that the people you’re trying to convince aren’t Vulcan, you have a much better chance of being effective. I’d say that, for myself, understanding my own modes of irrationality increased my effectiveness as well, and made me quite a bit happier in life too.

Why you need to bring in a consultant

This isn’t me hawking my wares – believe me, I’m busy enough as it is, but let me know when this starts to sound familiar to you.

There’s a problem in your organization – could be that you’re not delivering software fast enough, high enough quality, whatever. Suffice it to say that Management isn’t happy. You’ve been living this pain for a while and know exactly what the source of the problem is (more often than not, management has at least a hand if not a whole arm in it). You come up with some recommendations, bring them to the higher-ups, but ultimately are ignored, dismissed, or don’t even get into the room.

Some time later, management brings in a Consultant (that’s right, with a capital ‘C’) who is there to figure out what’s wrong and come up with recommendations. In some cases, especially in larger organizations, they bring in a whole bunch of them from a brand name like McKinsey or Ernst & Young.

If these guys are smart, they listen to you, ultimately presenting your analysis and recommendations to management. Of course, those higher-ups are in awe of how quickly these guys were able to understand the inner workings of their organization. That awe lends instant credibility to their recommendations which are then adopted and given powerful political backing.

And you’re sitting there thinking, “but… but… but that’s what I was saying!!”.

It’s not the message – it’s the messenger.

Let me put it another way, explained from the perspective of management – we’re having problems, you work here, ergo you’re part of the problem. Also, you don’t make that much money (compared to management), so how smart could you be? Those brand-name consultants, well, they cost a LOT, so they MUST be good (good enough to know not to work here too).

Therefore the more the consultant costs, the more likely management is to listen, which ultimately creates the conditions for success, which makes the change happen, which proves to management that they were right to bring in an expensive consultant. A vicious (or virtuous) cycle – depending on how you look at it.

Now, it doesn’t always work this way, but it does often enough to perpetuate management’s world view.

In Closing

I do hope your organization and its leaders aren’t trapped in this kind of dysfunction, but if they are, know that you’re not alone and that you can get help – either via consulting or in some books:

Some good books include Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die and the grandfather of the field: How to Win Friends & Influence People. There are countless others and there isn’t any right place to start – the most important thing to do is to start.

It’s been over 40 years since Melvin Conway’s observation and, as an industry, we’re still relearning these things – usually through the school of hard knocks. But there is an upside here – I’m pretty sure that, knowing these patterns, you could pick up on some signals during the interviewing process and find a company that’s outgrown many of these issues – one that would be able to have more meritocratic discussions on technical choices.

In the worst case, you could become a consultant and make a living off of all this irrationality :-)



Build one to throw away

Saturday, September 8th, 2012

recycleThere’s a pattern I’ve seen with companies that are starting on a large green-field project that gets them into trouble later on that I wanted to call out because the pitfall is quite subtle.

It’s something I touched on in my presentation last week about Balancing Architecture & Agile at the Agile Practitioners group in Israel but didn’t have as much time to get into.

Agile

You see, at the beginning of these projects, often our users or customers don’t exactly know what they want. Even if you go through some process of doing mock-ups, sometimes users can’t really know what they want until they can interact with working software.

This is one of the advantages of an agile approach that focuses on getting working software in the hands of users very early. It allows us to mitigate the risk of us building the wrong system.

Pitfalls

The mistake here is believing that this needs to be done in a production-ready manner, using all of the super-scalability and highly reliable infrastructural elements in our target deployment environment.

While there is value in building real functionality on top of your production infrastructure to learn more about the challenges in doing that and in that process, refining the API of your platform, baking more capabilities into it, etc, the problem is that you are slowing down the important learning of what system needs to be built.

Decouple those two things.

Build one to throw away.

Sometimes, the way to be most effective is to be somewhat inefficient.

Once you’ve gotten your users to the point that they can point at a piece of working software and say, “Yes – build me that”, then you can go about building it the right way on top of your production platform.

Let me go a step further, just to be crystal clear.

Do not unit-test that code. Do not use TDD, DDD, CQRS, Event Sourcing, SOA, etc.

Just get it done.

Architecture

You also want to have a good understanding of the use cases in your system before you make too many big architectural decisions (where that might even be just 1 decision, but you only find out after the fact). Some use cases are architecturally significant – many aren’t. This falls under the “just enough architecture up-front”, but is really very dependent on the experience and skills of the people on your team so I really can’t give you anything more prescriptive.

Of course, there’s another risk around this approach.

Organizational Dysfunction

In some organizations, there isn’t enough of an understanding or appreciation of the difference between production-ready software and a prototype. I think we’ve all been through this at one time or another. If users see “the software” works, we might be forced to deploy the prototype – all our protests for naught.

If this is the environment you’re in, don’t worry about it.

Seriously – don’t.

Growing up

You can explain to a child that fire is hot, and that they will get burned if they stick their hand in it, but all of that is theoretical – it doesn’t really sink in, because they haven’t yet had a visceral experience of “hot”.

If the organization you’re in isn’t that mature yet, they’re going to have to get burned a couple of times until they learn. The only thing you can do as a responsible adult is to *try* to get them started with smaller burns so that they’ll learn the lessons with the minimal amount of pain.

Given that the people doing the learning are higher up the food-chain, you really don’t have much influence. Accept that and move on. If necessary, cover your assets – write an email containing the “meeting minutes” in which you describe the concerns that you raised and that the decision was made against your recommendations – but phrase it gently. Depending on the state of the economy and your network, it might be a good time to start job-hunting.

In closing

I said it before but it bears repeating:

Efficiency is secondary to effectiveness.

You want to make sure your headed in the right direction before putting the pedal to the metal.

Rework is to be accepted and, yes, even embraced.

There’s even a book about it.

Have fun.



   


Don't miss my best content
 
Locations of visitors to this page

Recommendations

Bryan Wheeler, Director Platform Development at msnbc.com
Udi Dahan is the real deal.

We brought him on site to give our development staff the 5-day “Advanced Distributed System Design” training. The course profoundly changed our understanding and approach to SOA and distributed systems.

Consider some of the evidence: 1. Months later, developers still make allusions to concepts learned in the course nearly every day 2. One of our developers went home and made her husband (a developer at another company) sign up for the course at a subsequent date/venue 3. Based on what we learned, we’ve made constant improvements to our architecture that have helped us to adapt to our ever changing business domain at scale and speed If you have the opportunity to receive the training, you will make a substantial paradigm shift.

If I were to do the whole thing over again, I’d start the week by playing the clip from the Matrix where Morpheus offers Neo the choice between the red and blue pills. Once you make the intellectual leap, you’ll never look at distributed systems the same way.

Beyond the training, we were able to spend some time with Udi discussing issues unique to our business domain. Because Udi is a rare combination of a big picture thinker and a low level doer, he can quickly hone in on various issues and quickly make good (if not startling) recommendations to help solve tough technical issues.” November 11, 2010

Sam Gentile Sam Gentile, Independent WCF & SOA Expert
“Udi, one of the great minds in this area.
A man I respect immensely.”





Ian Robinson Ian Robinson, Principal Consultant at ThoughtWorks
"Your blog and articles have been enormously useful in shaping, testing and refining my own approach to delivering on SOA initiatives over the last few years. Over and against a certain 3-layer-application-architecture-blown-out-to- distributed-proportions school of SOA, your writing, steers a far more valuable course."

Shy Cohen Shy Cohen, Senior Program Manager at Microsoft
“Udi is a world renowned software architect and speaker. I met Udi at a conference that we were both speaking at, and immediately recognized his keen insight and razor-sharp intellect. Our shared passion for SOA and the advancement of its practice launched a discussion that lasted into the small hours of the night.
It was evident through that discussion that Udi is one of the most knowledgeable people in the SOA space. It was also clear why – Udi does not settle for mediocrity, and seeks to fully understand (or define) the logic and principles behind things.
Humble yet uncompromising, Udi is a pleasure to interact with.”

Glenn Block Glenn Block, Senior Program Manager - WCF at Microsoft
“I have known Udi for many years having attended his workshops and having several personal interactions including working with him when we were building our Composite Application Guidance in patterns & practices. What impresses me about Udi is his deep insight into how to address business problems through sound architecture. Backed by many years of building mission critical real world distributed systems it is no wonder that Udi is the best at what he does. When customers have deep issues with their system design, I point them Udi's way.”

Karl Wannenmacher Karl Wannenmacher, Senior Lead Expert at Frequentis AG
“I have been following Udi’s blog and podcasts since 2007. I’m convinced that he is one of the most knowledgeable and experienced people in the field of SOA, EDA and large scale systems.
Udi helped Frequentis to design a major subsystem of a large mission critical system with a nationwide deployment based on NServiceBus. It was impressive to see how he took the initial architecture and turned it upside down leading to a very flexible and scalable yet simple system without knowing the details of the business domain. I highly recommend consulting with Udi when it comes to large scale mission critical systems in any domain.”

Simon Segal Simon Segal, Independent Consultant
“Udi is one of the outstanding software development minds in the world today, his vast insights into Service Oriented Architectures and Smart Clients in particular are indeed a rare commodity. Udi is also an exceptional teacher and can help lead teams to fall into the pit of success. I would recommend Udi to anyone considering some Architecural guidance and support in their next project.”

Ohad Israeli Ohad Israeli, Chief Architect at Hewlett-Packard, Indigo Division
“When you need a man to do the job Udi is your man! No matter if you are facing near deadline deadlock or at the early stages of your development, if you have a problem Udi is the one who will probably be able to solve it, with his large experience at the industry and his widely horizons of thinking , he is always full of just in place great architectural ideas.
I am honored to have Udi as a colleague and a friend (plus having his cell phone on my speed dial).”

Ward Bell Ward Bell, VP Product Development at IdeaBlade
“Everyone will tell you how smart and knowledgable Udi is ... and they are oh-so-right. Let me add that Udi is a smart LISTENER. He's always calibrating what he has to offer with your needs and your experience ... looking for the fit. He has strongly held views ... and the ability to temper them with the nuances of the situation.
I trust Udi to tell me what I need to hear, even if I don't want to hear it, ... in a way that I can hear it. That's a rare skill to go along with his command and intelligence.”

Eli Brin, Program Manager at RISCO Group
“We hired Udi as a SOA specialist for a large scale project. The development is outsourced to India. SOA is a buzzword used almost for anything today. We wanted to understand what SOA really is, and what is the meaning and practice to develop a SOA based system.
We identified Udi as the one that can put some sense and order in our minds. We started with a private customized SOA training for the entire team in Israel. After that I had several focused sessions regarding our architecture and design.
I will summarize it simply (as he is the software simplist): We are very happy to have Udi in our project. It has a great benefit. We feel good and assured with the knowledge and practice he brings. He doesn’t talk over our heads. We assimilated nServicebus as the ESB of the project. I highly recommend you to bring Udi into your project.”

Catherine Hole Catherine Hole, Senior Project Manager at the Norwegian Health Network
“My colleagues and I have spent five interesting days with Udi - diving into the many aspects of SOA. Udi has shown impressive abilities of understanding organizational challenges, and has brought the business perspective into our way of looking at services. He has an excellent understanding of the many layers from business at the top to the technical infrstructure at the bottom. He is a great listener, and manages to simplify challenges in a way that is understandable both for developers and CEOs, and all the specialists in between.”

Yoel Arnon Yoel Arnon, MSMQ Expert
“Udi has a unique, in depth understanding of service oriented architecture and how it should be used in the real world, combined with excellent presentation skills. I think Udi should be a premier choice for a consultant or architect of distributed systems.”

Vadim Mesonzhnik, Development Project Lead at Polycom
“When we were faced with a task of creating a high performance server for a video-tele conferencing domain we decided to opt for a stateless cluster with SQL server approach. In order to confirm our decision we invited Udi.

After carefully listening for 2 hours he said: "With your kind of high availability and performance requirements you don’t want to go with stateless architecture."

One simple sentence saved us from implementing a wrong product and finding that out after years of development. No matter whether our former decisions were confirmed or altered, it gave us great confidence to move forward relying on the experience, industry best-practices and time-proven techniques that Udi shared with us.
It was a distinct pleasure and a unique opportunity to learn from someone who is among the best at what he does.”

Jack Van Hoof Jack Van Hoof, Enterprise Integration Architect at Dutch Railways
“Udi is a respected visionary on SOA and EDA, whose opinion I most of the time (if not always) highly agree with. The nice thing about Udi is that he is able to explain architectural concepts in terms of practical code-level examples.”

Neil Robbins Neil Robbins, Applications Architect at Brit Insurance
“Having followed Udi's blog and other writings for a number of years I attended Udi's two day course on 'Loosely Coupled Messaging with NServiceBus' at SkillsMatter, London.

I would strongly recommend this course to anyone with an interest in how to develop IT systems which provide immediate and future fitness for purpose. An influential and innovative thought leader and practitioner in his field, Udi demonstrates and shares a phenomenally in depth knowledge that proves his position as one of the premier experts in his field globally.

The course has enhanced my knowledge and skills in ways that I am able to immediately apply to provide benefits to my employer. Additionally though I will be able to build upon what I learned in my 2 days with Udi and have no doubt that it will only enhance my future career.

I cannot recommend Udi, and his courses, highly enough.”

Nick Malik Nick Malik, Enterprise Architect at Microsoft Corporation
You are an excellent speaker and trainer, Udi, and I've had the fortunate experience of having attended one of your presentations. I believe that you are a knowledgable and intelligent man.”

Sean Farmar Sean Farmar, Chief Technical Architect at Candidate Manager Ltd
“Udi has provided us with guidance in system architecture and supports our implementation of NServiceBus in our core business application.

He accompanied us in all stages of our development cycle and helped us put vision into real life distributed scalable software. He brought fresh thinking, great in depth of understanding software, and ongoing support that proved as valuable and cost effective.

Udi has the unique ability to analyze the business problem and come up with a simple and elegant solution for the code and the business alike.
With Udi's attention to details, and knowledge we avoided pit falls that would cost us dearly.”

Børge Hansen Børge Hansen, Architect Advisor at Microsoft
“Udi delivered a 5 hour long workshop on SOA for aspiring architects in Norway. While keeping everyone awake and excited Udi gave us some great insights and really delivered on making complex software challenges simple. Truly the software simplist.”

Motty Cohen, SW Manager at KorenTec Technologies
“I know Udi very well from our mutual work at KorenTec. During the analysis and design of a complex, distributed C4I system - where the basic concepts of NServiceBus start to emerge - I gained a lot of "Udi's hours" so I can surely say that he is a professional, skilled architect with fresh ideas and unique perspective for solving complex architecture challenges. His ideas, concepts and parts of the artifacts are the basis of several state-of-the-art C4I systems that I was involved in their architecture design.”

Aaron Jensen Aaron Jensen, VP of Engineering at Eleutian Technology
Awesome. Just awesome.

We’d been meaning to delve into messaging at Eleutian after multiple discussions with and blog posts from Greg Young and Udi Dahan in the past. We weren’t entirely sure where to start, how to start, what tools to use, how to use them, etc. Being able to sit in a room with Udi for an entire week while he described exactly how, why and what he does to tackle a massive enterprise system was invaluable to say the least.

We now have a much better direction and, more importantly, have the confidence we need to start introducing these powerful concepts into production at Eleutian.”

Gad Rosenthal Gad Rosenthal, Department Manager at Retalix
“A thinking person. Brought fresh and valuable ideas that helped us in architecting our product. When recommending a solution he supports it with evidence and detail so you can successfully act based on it. Udi's support "comes on all levels" - As the solution architect through to the detailed class design. Trustworthy!”

Chris Bilson Chris Bilson, Developer at Russell Investment Group
“I had the pleasure of attending a workshop Udi led at the Seattle ALT.NET conference in February 2009. I have been reading Udi's articles and listening to his podcasts for a long time and have always looked to him as a source of advice on software architecture.
When I actually met him and talked to him I was even more impressed. Not only is Udi an extremely likable person, he's got that rare gift of being able to explain complex concepts and ideas in a way that is easy to understand.
All the attendees of the workshop greatly appreciate the time he spent with us and the amazing insights into service oriented architecture he shared with us.”

Alexey Shestialtynov Alexey Shestialtynov, Senior .Net Developer at Candidate Manager
“I met Udi at Candidate Manager where he was brought in part-time as a consultant to help the company make its flagship product more scalable. For me, even after 30 years in software development, working with Udi was a great learning experience. I simply love his fresh ideas and architecture insights.
As we all know it is not enough to be armed with best tools and technologies to be successful in software - there is still human factor involved. When, as it happens, the project got in trouble, management asked Udi to step into a leadership role and bring it back on track. This he did in the span of a month. I can only wish that things had been done this way from the very beginning.
I look forward to working with Udi again in the future.”

Christopher Bennage Christopher Bennage, President at Blue Spire Consulting, Inc.
“My company was hired to be the primary development team for a large scale and highly distributed application. Since these are not necessarily everyday requirements, we wanted to bring in some additional expertise. We chose Udi because of his blogging, podcasting, and speaking. We asked him to to review our architectural strategy as well as the overall viability of project.
I was very impressed, as Udi demonstrated a broad understanding of the sorts of problems we would face. His advice was honest and unbiased and very pragmatic. Whenever I questioned him on particular points, he was able to backup his opinion with real life examples. I was also impressed with his clarity and precision. He was very careful to untangle the meaning of words that might be overloaded or otherwise confusing. While Udi's hourly rate may not be the cheapest, the ROI is undoubtedly a deal. I would highly recommend consulting with Udi.”

Robert Lewkovich, Product / Development Manager at Eggs Overnight
“Udi's advice and consulting were a huge time saver for the project I'm responsible for. The $ spent were well worth it and provided me with a more complete understanding of nServiceBus and most importantly in helping make the correct architectural decisions earlier thereby reducing later, and more expensive, rework.”

Ray Houston Ray Houston, Director of Development at TOPAZ Technologies
“Udi's SOA class made me smart - it was awesome.

The class was very well put together. The materials were clear and concise and Udi did a fantastic job presenting it. It was a good mixture of lecture, coding, and question and answer. I fully expected that I would be taking notes like crazy, but it was so well laid out that the only thing I wrote down the entire course was what I wanted for lunch. Udi provided us with all the lecture materials and everyone has access to all of the samples which are in the nServiceBus trunk.

Now I know why Udi is the "Software Simplist." I was amazed to find that all the code and solutions were indeed very simple. The patterns that Udi presented keep things simple by isolating complexity so that it doesn't creep into your day to day code. The domain code looks the same if it's running in a single process or if it's running in 100 processes.”

Ian Cooper Ian Cooper, Team Lead at Beazley
“Udi is one of the leaders in the .Net development community, one of the truly smart guys who do not just get best architectural practice well enough to educate others but drives innovation. Udi consistently challenges my thinking in ways that make me better at what I do.”

Liron Levy, Team Leader at Rafael
“I've met Udi when I worked as a team leader in Rafael. One of the most senior managers there knew Udi because he was doing superb architecture job in another Rafael project and he recommended bringing him on board to help the project I was leading.
Udi brought with him fresh solutions and invaluable deep architecture insights. He is an authority on SOA (service oriented architecture) and this was a tremendous help in our project.
On the personal level - Udi is a great communicator and can persuade even the most difficult audiences (I was part of such an audience myself..) by bringing sound explanations that draw on his extensive knowledge in the software business. Working with Udi was a great learning experience for me, and I'll be happy to work with him again in the future.”

Adam Dymitruk Adam Dymitruk, Director of IT at Apara Systems
“I met Udi for the first time at DevTeach in Montreal back in early 2007. While Udi is usually involved in SOA subjects, his knowledge spans all of a software development company's concerns. I would not hesitate to recommend Udi for any company that needs excellent leadership, mentoring, problem solving, application of patterns, implementation of methodologies and straight out solution development.
There are very few people in the world that are as dedicated to their craft as Udi is to his. At ALT.NET Seattle, Udi explained many core ideas about SOA. The team that I brought with me found his workshop and other talks the highlight of the event and provided the most value to us and our organization. I am thrilled to have the opportunity to recommend him.”

Eytan Michaeli Eytan Michaeli, CTO Korentec
“Udi was responsible for a major project in the company, and as a chief architect designed a complex multi server C4I system with many innovations and excellent performance.”


Carl Kenne Carl Kenne, .Net Consultant at Dotway AB
“Udi's session "DDD in Enterprise apps" was truly an eye opener. Udi has a great ability to explain complex enterprise designs in a very comprehensive and inspiring way. I've seen several sessions on both DDD and SOA in the past, but Udi puts it in a completly new perspective and makes us understand what it's all really about. If you ever have a chance to see any of Udi's sessions in the future, take it!”

Avi Nehama, R&D Project Manager at Retalix
“Not only that Udi is a briliant software architecture consultant, he also has remarkable abilities to present complex ideas in a simple and concise manner, and...
always with a smile. Udi is indeed a top-league professional!”

Ben Scheirman Ben Scheirman, Lead Developer at CenterPoint Energy
“Udi is one of those rare people who not only deeply understands SOA and domain driven design, but also eloquently conveys that in an easy to grasp way. He is patient, polite, and easy to talk to. I'm extremely glad I came to his workshop on SOA.”

Scott C. Reynolds Scott C. Reynolds, Director of Software Engineering at CBLPath
“Udi is consistently advancing the state of thought in software architecture, service orientation, and domain modeling.
His mastery of the technologies and techniques is second to none, but he pairs that with a singular ability to listen and communicate effectively with all parties, technical and non, to help people arrive at context-appropriate solutions. Every time I have worked with Udi, or attended a talk of his, or just had a conversation with him I have come away from it enriched with new understanding about the ideas discussed.”

Evgeny-Hen Osipow, Head of R&D at PCLine
“Udi has helped PCLine on projects by implementing architectural blueprints demonstrating the value of simple design and code.”

Rhys Campbell Rhys Campbell, Owner at Artemis West
“For many years I have been following the works of Udi. His explanation of often complex design and architectural concepts are so cleanly broken down that even the most junior of architects can begin to understand these concepts. These concepts however tend to typify the "real world" problems we face daily so even the most experienced software expert will find himself in an "Aha!" moment when following Udi teachings.
It was a pleasure to finally meet Udi in Seattle Alt.Net OpenSpaces 2008, where I was pleasantly surprised at how down-to-earth and approachable he was. His depth and breadth of software knowledge also became apparent when discussion with his peers quickly dove deep in to the problems we current face. If given the opportunity to work with or recommend Udi I would quickly take that chance. When I think .Net Architecture, I think Udi.”

Sverre Hundeide Sverre Hundeide, Senior Consultant at Objectware
“Udi had been hired to present the third LEAP master class in Oslo. He is an well known international expert on enterprise software architecture and design, and is the author of the open source messaging framework nServiceBus. The entire class was based on discussion and interaction with the audience, and the only Power Point slide used was the one showing the agenda.
He started out with sketching a naive traditional n-tier application (big ball of mud), and based on suggestions from the audience we explored different solutions which might improve the solution. Whatever suggestions we threw at him, he always had a thoroughly considered answer describing pros and cons with the suggested solution. He obviously has a lot of experience with real world enterprise SOA applications.”

Raphaël Wouters Raphaël Wouters, Owner/Managing Partner at Medinternals
“I attended Udi's excellent course 'Advanced Distributed System Design with SOA and DDD' at Skillsmatter. Few people can truly claim such a high skill and expertise level, present it using a pragmatic, concrete no-nonsense approach and still stay reachable.”

Nimrod Peleg Nimrod Peleg, Lab Engineer at Technion IIT
“One of the best programmers and software engineer I've ever met, creative, knows how to design and implemet, very collaborative and finally - the applications he designed implemeted work for many years without any problems!

Jose Manuel Beas
“When I attended Udi's SOA Workshop, then it suddenly changed my view of what Service Oriented Architectures were all about. Udi explained complex concepts very clearly and created a very productive discussion environment where all the attendees could learn a lot. I strongly recommend hiring Udi.”

Daniel Jin Daniel Jin, Senior Lead Developer at PJM Interconnection
“Udi is one of the top SOA guru in the .NET space. He is always eager to help others by sharing his knowledge and experiences. His blog articles often offer deep insights and is a invaluable resource. I highly recommend him.”

Pasi Taive Pasi Taive, Chief Architect at Tieto
“I attended both of Udi's "UI Composition Key to SOA Success" and "DDD in Enterprise Apps" sessions and they were exceptionally good. I will definitely participate in his sessions again. Udi is a great presenter and has the ability to explain complex issues in a manner that everyone understands.”

Eran Sagi, Software Architect at HP
“So far, I heard about Service Oriented architecture all over. Everyone mentions it – the big buzz word. But, when I actually asked someone for what does it really mean, no one managed to give me a complete satisfied answer. Finally in his excellent course “Advanced Distributed Systems”, I got the answers I was looking for. Udi went over the different motivations (principles) of Services Oriented, explained them well one by one, and showed how each one could be technically addressed using NService bus. In his course, Udi also explain the way of thinking when coming to design a Service Oriented system. What are the questions you need to ask yourself in order to shape your system, place the logic in the right places for best Service Oriented system.

I would recommend this course for any architect or developer who deals with distributed system, but not only. In my work we do not have a real distributed system, but one PC which host both the UI application and the different services inside, all communicating via WCF. I found that many of the architecture principles and motivations of SOA apply for our system as well. Enough that you have SW partitioned into components and most of the principles becomes relevant to you as well. Bottom line – an excellent course recommended to any SW Architect, or any developer dealing with distributed system.”

Consult with Udi

Guest Authored Books
Chapter: Introduction to SOA    Article: The Enterprise Service Bus and Your SOA

97 Things Every Software Architect Should Know



Creative Commons License  © Copyright 2005-2011, Udi Dahan. email@UdiDahan.com    Freely hosted by Weblogs.us