One of the things I haven’t like about using IoC containers, AKA dependency injection frameworks, was the string-based configuration model they exposed. In order to set these values, developers had 2 options: either use XML config (usually without the benefit of intellisense or refactoring support), or use code (still quoting property names - again, no intellisense or refactoring support).

In short, there seemed to be a hole in the development model.

Here’s an example from how nServiceBus used to do this:

builder.ConfigureComponent(typeof(HttpTransport), ComponentCallModelEnum.Singleton)
  .ConfigureProperty(”DefaultNumberOfWorkerThreads”, 10)
  .ConfigureProperty(”DefaultNumberOfSenderThreads”, 10);

The problem was that if a developer got the case of the property wrong, misspelled it in some way, or somebody later refactored/renamed that property, the system would break. It would also be very difficult to figure out why.

Then, a couple of weeks ago, it dawned on me.

This was the same problem we used to have with testing using mock objects - before we had today’s more advanced frameworks. So, the solution must be to use the same techniques. The container should give the developer an object that looks just like their class, but that would intercept all calls. Then, that interceptor could turn those into the config calls shown above. Here’s what the new config model looks like: 

HttpTransport transport = builder.ConfigureComponent<HttpTransport>
                                                   (ComponentCallModelEnum.Singleton);

transport.DefaultNumberOfSenderThreads = 10;
transport.DefaultNumberOfWorkerThreads = 10; 

Granted, you’re not going to have tons of code like this. However, for all those parameters which are factory-configured and that customers/integrators shouldn’t tinker with, it makes a difference. The biggest difference is during that time of development where you’ve gotten into preliminary integration tests but the systems components are still being “polished”.

Aside: On the current project that has adopted this model, we’ve probably saved (conservatively) about 3 months of effort with this tiny (?) thing, and this isn’t a huge project. If that’s more than you would’ve thought, well, I was surprised myself. First, understand that in the old config model, everything still compiles and unit tests pass, even though its broken.

Just consider what happens in the lab when this occurs. You have N testers that can’t test the new version, waiting. You have the person who installed the version, trying to figure out what’s wrong. They then call in one of the developers where most of the new development occurred since the previous version. They fiddle around with it, looking at exception traces and whatnot. In the best case, we’re talking about 2 hours from noticing its broken until a new version comes out fixed. Multiply that by N+3 people. Then multiply by the number of versions you do integration tests on in the lab.

Caveat: In the current version, properties must be virtual in order for this to work.

For those of you who want just this feature without nServiceBus, I’ve put up all the binaries here. For the source, you’ll need to go to here.

Let me know what you think - especially if you can take the implementation to the point where it won’t need virtual properties to work

There’s a new article up on MSDN describing how to write Smart Clients using WCF. The author is none other than WCF-Master Lowy and he goes over the multitude of ways you can deadlock yourself.

Here’s a taste:

UI Thread and Concurrency Management

Whenever you use hosting on the UI thread, deadlocks are possible. For example, the following setup is guaranteed to result with a deadlock: A Windows Forms application is hosting a service with UseSynchronizationContext set to true, and UI thread affinity is established. The Windows Forms application then calls the service over one of its endpoints. The call to the service blocks the UI thread, while WCF posts a message to the UI thread to invoke the service. That message is never processed, because of the blocking UI thread—hence, the deadlock.

Another possible case for a deadlock occurs when a Windows Forms application is hosting a service with UseSynchronizationContext set to true and UI thread affinity is established. The service receives a call from a remote client. That call is marshaled to the UI thread and is eventually executed on that thread. If the service is allowed to call out to another service, that can result in a deadlock if the callout causality tries somehow to update the UI or call back to the service’s endpoint, because all of the service instances that are associated with any endpoint (regardless of the service-instancing mode) share the same UI thread.

Similarly, you risk a deadlock if the service is configured for reentrancy and it calls back to its client. You risk a deadlock if the callback causality tries to update the UI or enter the service, because that reentrance must be marshaled to the blocked UI thread.

Actually, I have difficulty believing that Juval would go so far as to suggest that even the forms should be services, but he does:

Form as a Service

The main motivation for hosting a WCF service on the UI thread is if the service must update the UI or the form. The problem is always: How does the service reach out and obtain a reference to the form? While the techniques and ideas that appear thus far in the listings certainly work, it would be simpler yet if the form were the service and hosted itself. For this to work, the form (or any window) must be a singleton service. The reason is that singleton is the only instancing mode that enables you to provide WCF with a live instance to host. In addition, you would not want a per-call form that exists only during a client call (which is usually very brief), nor would you want a per-session form that only a single client can establish a session with and update.

When a form is also a service, having that form as a singleton service is the best instancing mode all around.

I think that this article serves as a great treatise leading to only one conclusion - you’d have to be crazy to try to do this without some higher level framework, preferably with a different low-level framework too . Sucks Microsoft didn’t put one out - nor is there a pending beta, CTP, or even word about some project with a codename handling this. From what I know about Prism, it doesn’t intend to handle this issue either.

One thing that isn’t covered in the article is that if you do choose not to tie the client-side service to the UI thread, you open yourself up to race conditions. Reasons you’d want to handle messages on a different thread center around UI responsiveness. I’ve written about these things before:

• Object Builder - the place to fix system-wide threading bugs

• Eureka! AOP is the final piece of the multi-threaded smart client puzzle

• What Makes Smart Clients Safe?

The more I read things like this, the more I feel that I have to get going with my nServiceBus based solution. I’m fairly swamped as it is, so if anyone is interested in helping get this project off the ground, I’d be most grateful - as I think anyone else that had to build a smart client would.

Update: The new and improved solution is now available: Domain Events, Take 2.

Most people getting started with DDD and the Domain Model pattern get stuck on this. For a while I tried answering this on the discussion groups, but here we have a nice example that I can point to next time.

The underlying problem I’ve noticed over the past few years is that developers are still thinking in terms of querying when they need more data. When moving to the Domain Model pattern, you have to “simply” represent the domain concepts in code - in other words, see things you aren’t used to seeing. I’ll highlight that part in the question below so that you can see where I’m going to go with this in my answer:

I have an instance where I believe I need access to a service or repository from my entity to evaluate a business rule but I’m using NHibernate for persistence so I don’t have a real good way to inject services into my entity. Can I get some viewpoints on just passing the services to my entity vs. using a facade?

Let me explain my problem to provide more context to the problem.

The core domain revolves around renting video games. I am working on a new feature to allow customers to trade in old video games. Customers can trade in multiple games at a time so we have a TradeInCart entity that works similar to most shopping carts that everybody is familiar with. However there are several rules that limit the items that can be placed into the TradeInCart. The core rules are:

1. Only 3 games of the same title can be added to the cart.
2. The total number of items in the cart cannot exceed 10.
3. No games can be added to the cart that the customer had previously reported lost with regards to their rental membership.
    a. If an attempt is made to add a previously reported lost game, then we need to log a BadQueueStatusAddAttempt to the persistence store.

So the first 2 rules are easily handled internally by the cart through an Add operation. Sample cart interface is below.

   1:  class TradeInCart{

   2:      Account Account{get;}

   3:      LineItem Add(Game game);

   4:      ValidationResult CanAdd(Game game);

   5:      IList<LineItems> LineItems{get;}

   6:  }

However the #3 rule is much more complicated and can’t be handled internally by the cart, so I have to depend on external services. Splitting up the validation logic for a cart add operation doesn’t seem very appealing to me at all. So I have the option of passing in a repository to get the previously reported lost games and a service to log bad attempts. This makes my cart interface ugly real quick.

   1:  class TradeInCart{

   2:      Account Account{get;}

   3:      LineItem Add(

   4:          Game game, 

   5:          IRepository<QueueHistory> repository, 

   6:          LoggingService service);

   7:   

   8:      ValidationResult CanAdd(

   9:          Game game, 

  10:          IRepository<QueueHistory> repository, 

  11:          LoggingService service);

  12:   

  13:      IList<LineItems> LineItems{get;}

  14:  }

The alternative option is to have a TradeInCartFacade that handles the validations and adding the items to the cart. The façade can have the repository and services injected though DI which is nice, but the big negative is that the cart ends up totally anemic.

Any thought on this would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Jesse

As I highlighted above, the thing that will help you with your business rules is to introduce the Customer object (that you probably already have) with the property GamesReportedLost (an IList<Game>). Your TradeInCart would have a reference to the Customer object and could then check the rule in the Add method.

Before I go into the code, it looks like your Account object might be used the same way, but your description of the domain doesn’t mention accounts, so I’m going to assume that that’s unrelated for now:

   1:  public class Customer{

   2:   

   3:      /* other properties and methods */

   4:   

   5:      private IList<Game> gamesReportedLost;

   6:      public virtual IList<Game> GamesReportedLost 

   7:      { 

   8:          get

   9:          {

  10:              return gamesReportedLost;

  11:          }

  12:          set

  13:          {

  14:              gamesReportedLost = value;

  15:          }

  16:      }

  17:  }

Keep in mind that the GamesReportedLost is a persistent property of Customer. Every time a customer reports a game lost, this list needs to be kept up to date. Here’s the TradeInCart now:

   1:  public class TradeInCart

   2:  {

   3:      /* other properties and methods */

   4:   

   5:      private Customer customer;

   6:      public virtual Customer Customer

   7:      { 

   8:          get { return customer; }

   9:          set { customer = value; }

  10:      }

  11:   

  12:      private IList<LineItem> lineItems;

  13:      public virtual IList<LineItem> LineItems

  14:      {

  15:          get { return lineItems; }

  16:          set { lineItems = value; }

  17:      }

  18:   

  19:      public void Add(Game game)

  20:      {

  21:          if (lineItems.Count >= CONSTANTS.MaxItemsPerCart)

  22:          {

  23:              FailureEvents.RaiseCartIsFullEvent();

  24:              return;

  25:          }

  26:   

  27:          if (NumberOfGameAlreadyInCart(game) >=

  28:              CONSTANTS.MaxNumberOfSameGamePerCart)

  29:          {

  30:              FailureEvents

  31:                .RaiseMaxNumberOfSameGamePerCartReachedEvent();

  32:              return;

  33:          }

  34:   

  35:          if (customer.GamesReportedLost.Contains(game))

  36:              FailureEvents.RaiseGameReportedLostEvent();

  37:          else

  38:              this.lineItems.Add(new LineItem(game));

  39:      }

  40:   

  41:      private int NumberOfGameAlreadyInCart(Game game)

  42:      {

  43:          int result = 0;

  44:   

  45:          foreach(LineItem li in this.lineItems)

  46:              if (li.Game == game)

  47:                  result++;

  48:   

  49:          return result;

  50:      }

  51:  }

  52:   

  53:  public static class FailureEvents

  54:  {

  55:      public static event EventHandler GameReportedLost;

  56:      public static void RaiseGameReportedLostEvent()

  57:      {

  58:           if (GameReportedLost != null)

  59:               GameReportedLost(null, null);

  60:      }

  61:   

  62:      public static event EventHandler CartIsFull;

  63:      public static void RaiseCartIsFullEvent()

  64:      {

  65:           if (CartIsFull != null)

  66:               CartIsFull(null, null);

  67:      }

  68:   

  69:      public static event EventHandler MaxNumberOfSameGamePerCartReached;

  70:      public static void RaiseMaxNumberOfSameGamePerCartReachedEvent()

  71:      {

  72:           if (MaxNumberOfSameGamePerCartReached != null)

  73:               MaxNumberOfSameGamePerCartReached(null, null);

  74:      }

  75:  }

Your service layer class that calls the Add method of TradeInCart would first subscribe to the relevant events in FailureEvents. If one of those events is raised, it would do the necessary logging, external system calls, etc.

As you can see, the API of TradeInCart doesn’t need to make use of any external repositories, nor do you need to inject any other external dependencies in.

One thing I didn’t do in the above code to keep it “short” is to define the relevant custom EventArgs for bubbling up the information as to which game was reported lost or already have 3 of those in the cart. That is something that definitely should be done so that the service layer can pass this information back to the client.

Here’s a look at Service Layer code:

   1:  public class AddGameToCartMessageHandler :

   2:      BaseMessageHandler<AddGameToCartMessage>

   3:  {

   4:      public override void Handle(AddGameToCartMessage m)

   5:      {

   6:          using (ISession session = SessionFactory.OpenSession())

   7:          using (ITransaction tx = session.BeginTransaction())

   8:          {

   9:              TradeInCart cart = session.Get<TradeInCart>(m.CartId);

  10:              Game g = session.Get<Game>(m.GameId);

  11:   

  12:              Domain.FailureEvents.GameReportedLost +=

  13:                gameReportedLost;

  14:              Domain.FailureEvents.CartIsFull +=

  15:                cartIsFull;

  16:              Domain.FailureEvents.MaxNumberOfSameGamePerCartReached +=

  17:                maxNumberOfSameGamePerCartReached;

  18:   

  19:              cart.Add(g);

  20:   

  21:              Domain.FailureEvents.GameReportedLost -=

  22:                gameReportedLost;

  23:              Domain.FailureEvents.CartIsFull -=

  24:                cartIsFull;

  25:              Domain.FailureEvents.MaxNumberOfSameGamePerCartReached -=

  26:                maxNumberOfSameGamePerCartReached;

  27:   

  28:              tx.Commit();

  29:          }

  30:      }

  31:   

  32:      private EventHandler gameReportedLost = delegate { 

  33:            Bus.Return((int)ErrorCodes.GameReportedLost);

  34:          };

  35:   

  36:      private EventHandler cartIsFull = delegate { 

  37:            Bus.Return((int)ErrorCodes.CartIsFull);

  38:          };

  39:   

  40:      private EventHandler maxNumberOfSameGamePerCartReached = delegate { 

  41:            Bus.Return((int)ErrorCodes.MaxNumberOfSameGamePerCartReached);

  42:          };

  43:      }

  44:  }

It’s important to remember to clean up your event subscriptions so that your Service Layer objects get garbage collected. This is one of the primary causes of memory leaks when using static events in your Domain Model. I’m hoping to find ways to use lambdas to decrease this repetitive coding pattern. You might be thinking to yourself that non-static events on your Domain Model objects would be easier, since those objects would get collected, freeing up the service layer objects for collection as well. There’s just on small problem:

The problem is that if an event is raised by a child (or grandchild object), the service layer object may not even know that that grandchild was involved and, as such, would not have subscribed to that event. The only way the service layer could work was by knowing how the Domain Model worked internally - in essence, breaking encapsulation.

If you’re thinking that using exceptions would be better, you’d be right in thinking that that won’t break encapsulation, and that you wouldn’t need all that subscribe/unsubscribe code in the service layer. The only problem is that the Domain Model needs to know that the service layer had a default catch clause so that it wouldn’t blow up. Otherwise, the service layer (or WCF, or nServiceBus) may end up flagging that message as a poison message (Read more about poison messages). You’d also have to be extremely careful about in which environments you used your Domain Model - in other words, your reuse is shot.

Conclusion

I never said it would be easy

However, the solution is simple (not complex). The same patterns occur over and over. The design is consistent. By focusing on the dependencies we now have a domain model that is reusable across many environments (server, client, sql clr, silverlight). The domain model is also testable without resorting to any fancy mock objects.

One closing comment - while I do my best to write code that is consistent with production quality environments, this code is more about demonstrating design principles. As such, I focus more on the self-documenting aspects of the code and have elided many production concerns.

Do you have a better solution?

Something that I haven’t considered?

Do me a favour - leave me a comment. Tell me what you think.

I got a question about how to stay away from CRUD based service interfaces when the logic itself is like that, and I’ve found that this shift in thinking really needs more examples, so I’ve decided to put this out there:

For instance, in an HR system, the process of interviewing candidates - wouldn’t you just insert, update, and delete these Appointment objects?

If I were to put on my domain-driven hat, I would describe those requirements differently – interview appointments have a lifecycle: proposed, accepted, cancelled, etc. It seems that only a user of the role HR Interviewer should be able to make appointments for themselves, so the service layer code would probably look something like this:

using (ISession session = SessionFactory.OpenSession())
using (ITransaction tx = session.BeginTransaction())
{
    ICandidateInterviewer interviewer = session.Get<ICandidateInterviewer>(message.InterviewerId);
    ICandidate candidate = session.Get<ICandidate>(message.CandidateId);

    interviewer.ScheduleInterviewWith(candidate).At(message.RequestedTime);
    tx.Commit();
}

The “ScheduleInterviewWith” method accepts an ICandidate and returns an IAppointment. IAppointment has a method “At” which accepts a DateTime parameter and returns void – just changes the data of the appointment. The state of the appointment at creation time would probably be proposed. The appointment object would probably be added to the list of appointments for that interviewer – that’s what will cause it to be persisted automatically.

Later, when the candidate accepts the meeting, we could have the following method on ICandidate – void Accept(IAppointment); that would obviously check that the candidate is the right person for that interview, the appointment’s current state (not cancelled), etc – finally updating its state. What part of this looks like create, update, delete? If that’s what your service layer to domain interaction looks like, do you now know what your messages will be looking like?CRUD seems to be what most of us are familiar with. Moving to domain-driven thinking takes time and practice, but is well worth it. Contrast this with a more traditional O/R mapping solution:

using (ISession session = SessionFactory.OpenSession())
using (ITransaction tx = session.BeginTransaction())
{
    ICandidateInterviewer interviewer = session.Get<ICandidateInterviewer>(message.InterviewerId);
    ICandidate candidate = session.Get<ICandidate>(message.CandidateId); 

    Appointment a = new Appointment(); 

    a.Interviewer = interviewer;
    interviewer.Appointments.Add(a); 

    a.Candidate = candidate;
    candidate.Appointments.Add(a); 

    a.Time = message.RequestedTime; 

    session.Save(a);  

    tx.Commit();
} 

As you can see, we’ve got simpler, more expressive, and more testable code when employing the domain model pattern, than using “just” O/R mapping. I’m not saying that the domain model pattern doesn’t need O/R mapping in the background for it to work. But that’s just it - the persistence gunk needs to be in the background and the business logic needs to be encapsulated.

So, while I’ll agree with Dave that the Domain Model is more lifestyle than pattern, I would argue against these conclusions:

If this post had a point, it’s only to share the idea that Domain Model is a big, big thing. It’s probably overkill in a lot of cases where you have simple applications that have very simple purposes.

As you just saw in the example above, there is no “overkill” to be seen. The domain model in the example wasn’t “a big, big thing”.

The domain model. Use it.

Why not have a better lifestyle?  

It’s one of the things that sometimes drives me mad about the YAGNI philosophy of Agile.

We need to stop throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Jay really liked that statement with relation to my previous post “Scalability - you wish you’re gonna need it“, so I thought I’d put up a logo for this movement. Anyone feeling like joining in, leave a comment, link, or whatever.

I understand that we don’t need to over-engineer everything, putting in every possible kind of extensibility point, so I accept that part of YAGNI. That is not a license to not think about the extensibility points you do need.

<Remarks>

This is a somewhat tongue-in-cheek post, and I do not want the pendulum to swing to far back the other way. But I do think it’s time it took a step back from the over-zealous “we’ll TDD our way there” thinking. Maybe Ron can pull it off. I’ve yet to see anyone else succeed.

</Remarks>

Jeremy’s trying to answer some hard questions about agile. I wanted to tackle the issue of fixed-bids, since most of my clients work on those kinds of projects and I managed those projects full-time before becoming a consultant.

So, here’s the thing.

The only way to win on fixed-bid projects, is to bid low, and then rack up the change-requests. This is why people spend so much time documenting requirements, and then getting the client to sign off. It’s so they can prove that something is an actual change request, and thus they don’t have to do it. So, if the client wants to do whatever, they have to pay more money.

The problem is that it pisses off the client.

There’s another, subtler problem. It’s that clients get wise to this game, and front-load every possible requirement requesting total flexibility in everything.

This leads to another problem. We can’t bid low anymore.

Which leads to another problem. The client doesn’t have the budget to pay for the longer list of requirements.

Which leads us back to square one.

Fixed bids are a lose-lose proposition.

You see, if you bid rationally, taking into account the fact that some requirements will change, others will appear mid-way through, and so on, you’re bid will be significantly higher than the other guy who low-balled it. That means that the client will have a very hard time explaining to his management why he wants you to do the project.

So, the only way to win is for the client to realize this and game the system. This is sometimes a fine-line, possibly bordering on illegal when it comes to government contracts.

Once you have a client who understands that the fixed-bid is not in their interest, they will work collaboratively with you to get a reasonable system out the door within the given budget. There will be a lot of give-and-take but it can work. After a system goes into production successfully, it’s a lot easier to get management buy-in for the next version.

Fact is, upper management doesn’t really know all the specific requirements. So, if you don’t do them all, you’re OK, and so is your client.

In these circumstances, agile development is not only possible, but likely.

I know that it’s not really fixed-price, fixed-time, fixed-scope this way. But that’s what makes it successful

I’m in the process of implementing a generic WCF transport for NServiceBus and am seriously going out of my mind. The fact that I have to do crazy reflection over generics to get around some of the channel model is ludicrous. To top it off, I now find out that there isn’t a simple generic way to send messages.

IOutputChannel exposes “void Send(Message message);” while IRequestChannel exposes “Message Request(Message message);”. Of course, they are incompatible having only an anorexic common interface IChannel (which exposes only “T GetProperty<T>() where T: class;”).

I’m doing everything in power to hide the complexity (sorry, flexibility) of WCF behind the simple IBus interface, but it looks like it’s going to bubble up in the configuration anyway.

If push comes to shove, I’ll just implement a bunch of my own transports which will specifically encapsulate each of the WCF bindings.

New release coming soon.

In Nick Malik’s great post, EDA: Avoiding coupling on the name he describes additional “handshakes” to be used to avoid the following problems:

Let’s say I have a system to handle a call center for financial services or telco. When a customer calls on the phone and asks to be enrolled in “Heavily Advertised Program ABC,” there may need to be three or four systems that interact to make that real.

…

Harry asks me to consider using a ‘logical name’ of the receiver. The sender contacts a logical end point, the addressing infrastructure turns that into a physical end point, and we still have decoupling.

Honestly, I like it but I think it is insufficient. What if we need to contact 20 downstream systems in a complex workflow, but I don’t want a single “orchestration coordinator” to be a bottleneck (or single point of failure). I don’t want to hand the orchestration off from my app to a central orchestration hub.

Let me propose a different approach.

When we use SOA/EDA (the same thing as far as I’m concerned), the top-level building block used is the Service. A service may make use of a number of existing systems to perform its work. The business-level events that we publish (and subscribe to) are done by the service, not the existing systems.

If there’s any orchestration/workflow that needs to be done as a result of a service receiving an event, it is done entirely internal to that service. Inter-service orchestrations don’t really exist, as in there is no orchestration coordinator that is not in a service. And the orchestration coordinators within a service don’t touch other services’ back-end systems - if anything, they publish other business level events.

Be aware: when just starting out on an SOA, you’ll find that multiple Services make use of the same backend systems. This may be necessary, but not a desirable state to stay in for too long since it embodies the most insidious and invisible kind of inter-service coupling there is.

I want to go back to Nick’s original question:

So what if no one picks the message up? Is that an error?

The answer is mu.

If a service publishes a business-event (message) and no other services currently care, that’s fine. It’s not an error. Actually, you’d probably have some kind of infrastructure “queue” where messages that haven’t been received more than X time get sent to, so that the event isn’t “lost”. On the other hand, within a service - if an existing system sends out a message that needs to arrive at another system, and that message doesn’t arrive or isn’t picked up “in time”, that is an error.

This is one of the advantages SOA brings to the table in terms of EDA (again, the same as far as I’m concerned). You get simple messaging semantics between services, while within the “sphere of control” of a service you need, and more importantly can do more complex messaging and orchestration.

Bottom line: you need higher abstractions than your existing systems to employ EDA effectively.

You might also want to check out my podcast on this topic: SOA, ESB, and Events.

Via Patrick Logan’s Bits of Wisdom: HOPL III’s History of Erlang:

1989 also provided us with one of our first opportunities to present Erlang to the world outside Ericsson. This was when we presented a paper at the SETSS conference in Bournemouth. This conference was interesting not so much for the paper but for the discussions we had in the meetings and for the contacts we made with people from Bellcore. It was during this conference that we realised that the work we were doing on Erlang was very different from a lot of mainstream work in telecommunications programming. Our major concern at the time was with detecting and recovering from errors. I remember Mike, Robert and I having great fun asking the same question over and over again: “what happens if it fails?”— the answer we got was almost always a variant on “our model assumes no failures.”We seemed to be the only people in the world designing a system that could recover from software failures…

Those of you who’ve had the chance to hear me speak about technology and architecture know that one of my favorite ways to win an argument is by saying, “yeah, but what if the server restarts?”

Almost 20 years later, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Space-Based Architecture (or SBA for short) just might be in your future if your building large-scale distributed systems. By focusing on high-throughput and low latency, SBA joins messaging and in-memory data caching and adds a good measure of load partitioning. However, with the entire industry enamoured with SOA, what place is left for SBA?

Before going too far ahead, you might want to take a look at my previous post “Space-Based Architectural Thinking, or listen to my podcast Space-Based Architecture for the Web. There’s also a 30 minute webcast online describing SBA more fully here. I’m also going to try to stay away from things concerning Jini this time after already discussing the connection between Jini and SOA, and the tradeoffs between two general approaches: Tasks and Spaces vs Message and Handlers.

OK, so the issue of state-management is a big one. Everybody wants to work stateless, because it scales. The only problem is that the business processes that we are automating are long running, meaning that there are external systems or people involved. This makes these processes inherently stateful. So, we need a way to scale statefully - SBA gives us that. For some background on the “Shared Nothing Architecture”, I suggest reading this post on inter-process SOA and this one as well.

Availability also has to be handled, not only in terms of having enough servers online to handle the required load but in having all the data required to process each request be accessible. This has often been handled by the database using ACID transactions - durability being that which solved availability issues, but also hurting latency the most. The problem with saving the state of our long-running business processes/workflows in the database is the load and the responsiveness requirements. In many verticals - telcos, financial, and defense to name a few, we need millisecond level latency on each stage of the workflow. This is what leads SBA to the in-memory, replicated data grid.

Note that SBA only intends to take these workflows out of the database, and not anything else - especially not Master Data. The lifetime of these workflows is incredibly short compared to that of master data like customers and products. It will have much different backup strategies as well. In terms of load, these workflows will be heavy on reads and writes together in the same transactions, but quite low in terms of just reads. If we have workflows that perform work in parallel, we easily end up with concurrency requirements that make DBAs cringe under the barrage of short transactions.

If you’re worried that Workflow Foundation (WF) won’t scale because of the above, you needn’t be. You can (more or less easily) replace the persistence mechanism of WF with your own, saving your workflow instances to an in-memory replicated data grid.

By enabling the objects in the grid to call back into logic on your servers, you have, in essence, done messaging and more. The added benefit that SBA receives from this is a unification of technology between caching and messaging. This translates directly to savings when it comes time to cluster each of those technology’s environments.

Finally, if we can find an attribute in the incoming stream of messages that creates a nice even distribution, we can then partition our load between our servers by that key. This will work up to the point where the load per key increases beyond a single server’s capacity, and then we have to look at re-partitioning, a non-trivial problem. However, if we put objects in our grid that represent the master data, and tie them to our workflow instances with both of those tied to the key of our load, a smart infrastructure can make sure all that data is already resident on the server that is handling that piece of the load. That decreases latency even more since we no longer have to pay network roundtrips to collect all the data needed before we can process it. That’s a substantial advantage for the above verticals.

But all of this has nothing to do with SOA.

Sure, it’ll change how we implement our Services internally, but it has no impact on their interfaces or the top-level service decomposition. In the Java community, the word “service” is often used to describe the logic of a system. Great significance is placed on keeping these “services” simple, as in Plain-Old Java Objects. The fact of the matter is that the logic of the system should be simple and independent of other concerns like data access and communcations (a la Web Services), but that does not make it a service, not in the SOA sense.

For more information on what Services in SOA are like, check out this podcast on Business and Autonomous Components in SOA. Actually, SBA will probably have the biggest impact on the way autonomous components will handle service-level agreements.

So, it appears that even with SOA, SBA has its place. The former dealing with business level agility, the latter dealing with all the technical aspects of supporting that agility. If you’re tasked with the designing the architecture of a scalable, available, high-throughput, low-latency distributed system, I’d strongly advise you to look at SBA - the technical value is overwhelming. Even if you don’t utilize all elements of SBA and choose the Master Worker Pattern instead of load partitioning, you’ll find the technologies supporting SBA to be quite flexible in that respect.

Will Space-Based Architectures be a part of your future? I don’t know for sure, but they’re a most welcome part of my present.