|
|
| Service Oriented Enterprise |
|
|
Saturday, September 27, 2003 7 Things Great Software Architects Have 1. Friends that are also great architects 2. Loyal associates that are great designers and programmers that will work with them no matter what the project is 3. Extensive experience on at least 3 platforms (mainframe, J2EE, .net, CORBA, TOGAF, etc.) 4. A bookshelf that is about to topple over and a mechanism for demoting bad books 5. 3 or more candidate architectures or software architecture documents (SAD's) on your hard drive 6. Your personal ontology of non-functional requirements 7. 'Success Patterns' - things you know which have worked on previous engagements posted by jeff | 11:06 AM Thursday, September 25, 2003 Lou Dobbs - Exporting America WOW - I just watched Lou Dobbs. He is running a special series called, "Exporting America". He is spot lighting the overwhelming move of American jobs to low wage countries like India and China. Lou is one of only a small handful of people that have had the balls to stand up and fight for the American I.T. worker and the current unfair trade policies that exist. Tonight, he had Adam Smith, congressman from Washington on the show. Adam has initiated a study with the GAO to look into the effect of the multi-national corporations decision to fire American workers and hire cheap offshore labor. What was extremely disturbing was that Adam Smith seemed to already have his mind made up. He commented that he didn't have any issues with the H1B program, and thought that there *might* be some issues with the L1B program. Adam Smith are you nuts? The American I.T. worker has taken it up the ass. Last week my company had some job openings and I did the interviewing. I had three candidates in a row all come in who were on an L1B program, hadn't had a job in months, continued to stay in America and were commenting that they would work for "whatever I wanted to pay". I asked them who sponsored their visa and they all told me names of different Indian based 'body shops'. Naturally, I asked if the shops that brought them in employed them. They then explained to me that the Indian shop provided them a plane ticket. In exchange for the ticket, the individual would have to pay the sponsor 20% of all of their wages while in the U.S. It was the individuals responsibility to go and get a 'real employer'. In essence, they were indentured servants to the company that bought their ticket. Adam Smith this is reality. Don't believe me? Get an employers account on Monster.com, do a search for "Java" - you pick the city, call the first ten results and ask the individuals their situation. I dare you. Here is the contact page for Adam Smith: http://www.house.gov/adamsmith/contact/contact.html# Take the time and fill out the form. Please. posted by jeff | 9:27 PM Wednesday, September 24, 2003 The 2-pin theory. Sean McGrath wrote a thought provoking piece. I caught myself responding on one of the news groups & thought I'd share... =================================== Wow - nice piece from Sean. Thought provoking. Is the *magic* of the interface related to the *2-pin* theory (i.e., do(x)) or it related to advancements in protocol negotiation? Does USB work better because of the number of pins or because of the structured negotiation between participating components? What about BlueTooth? WS-* is moving into a world where dynamic protocol negotiation for non-functional requirements will be able to happen on the fly. An example of two web services talking to each other (think consumer:producer) : Service 1: Can you do encrypted? Service 2: Yes, I do TripleDES, Do you? Service 1: Yes, let's do it! Service 1: Do you do Reliable Messaging? Service 2: No, not for this operation. Service 1: Can you treat this operatin as part of a transaction? Service 2: No, I can't, but I do have a compensating mechanism, see URI:xxx.wsdl Service 1. Great, I'm going to use it. Now, an interesting question is how did databases servers get away with a small number of interfaces / operations? The answer is that they created languages which could be shipped across a wire to perform more complex functionality. Thus, the database has the notion of the do(x) - or if you'd like, you could say that it had: do(DDL) do(ANSI SQL 92) do(stored procedure), etc. Back to the conversation: Service 1: Now, it is time for us to do some real work, I need some data, do you support XQuery 2.0? Service 2: Of course! Send your query on over! Service 1: Ok, here it is: (query blah, blah, blah) Service 2: Great! Here is your result (some data, ....) Now, of course, you wouldn't want the conversation to be anywhere near this verbose... but you get the idea. Simplicity in interface doesn't just happen by creating a magic "do(x)" - you have to actually have some meat behind the operation. Web service protocol designers are attacking both of these fronts (NFR protocol negotiation and ubiquitous, shippable languages like XQuery). IMHO, looking for simplified interfaces is good - just be careful not to throw away your meta-data just to make a clean WSDL. Jeff posted by jeff | 2:03 PM |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
 |
|||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
