Guerrilla SOA How to fight back when a vendor takes control of your enterprise

1. Guerrilla SOAHow to fight back when a vendor takes control of your enterprise Dr. Jim Webber Service-Oriented Systems Practice Lead ThoughtWorks http://jim.webber.name

2. Fundamental Premise There are two things money cannot buy: Love(Lennon/McCartney) An SOA(Webber)

3. Roadmap Enterprise Application Integration Approaches Enterprise Architecture, now and future The Appealing Rationale for ESB... Enterprise Architecture Realising SOA with Web Services What this means for you Conclusions Q&A

4. Enterprise Application Integration Approaches Data integration Extract, transform, route, inject data Application level Re-use application APIs, or I/O mechanisms EAI implementation Queues etc Business domain tier Integration at the object level, as typified by CORBA, DCOM etc User interface Screen scraping, revamping, etc. Last resort, when an application offers no other hooks

5. To ESB or not to ESB, that is the question Product vendors are keen to provide product solution for everything Or to supply “consultantware” solutions The Enterprise Service Bus is the latest incarnation of EAI technology that supports a number of useful functions: Transformations; adapters; choreography; reliability; security etc Seems like a good idea...

6. Today’s Enterprise Architecture

7. How did we get here? Tactical decisions Time and technology pressures Path of least resistance for individual applications This is the thin end of the wedge, technical debt can only increase from here Help!

8. Vendor Solutions Appear Business needs to compete IT needs to be responsive SOA gives IT a business process focus Web Services are the most sensible way to implement SOA More proprietary middleware is the answer! 2 + 2 = 5 See: http://www.capeclear.com/technology/index.shtml

9. Integration Two Years Later

10. Skeletons in the Closet...

11. The Appealing Rationale for ESB... Perceived single framework for all integration needs Perceived simple connectivity between systems Some features for security, reliable delivery, etc. All you have to do is agree to lock yourself into a ESB and all this can be yours...

12. ...And the Reality The mess is swept under the carpet The spaghetti is still there, but it’s hidden inside a vendor box But the spaghetti is worse with an ESB Mixing business rules, transformations, QoS etc with connectors What if I wanted to remove or replace my current ESB platform? Vendor lock-in of the whole network! ESBs are proprietary, so no guarantees that the messages transmitted across the bus are actually based on any open protocol Held to ransom by the ESB vendor! Cannot easily replace one ESB with another Can only easily integrate systems for which the ESB vendor provides specific adaptors Or invest your money into extending their product

13. Intelligent Networks, Dumb Idea? Isn't this precisely what we're trying to get away from? Integration should happen on the wire by default, not inside some server The ESB approach eschews the dumb network, smart endpoint notion that underpins scalable, robust systems ESB vendors are the new telcos – telling us that smarts in the network is for our own good But let’s see how ESBs play out over the longer term

14. Integration five years from now

15. Integration ten years from now

16. How did this happen? Same old story: Tactical decisions Time and technology pressures Path of least resistance for individual applications Centralised ownership of the ESB sometimes is an inhibitor Too much effort to get on the bus, technically, politically Individuals always mean to redress hacked integrations But seldom do – it’s too hard when systems are live

17. Spaghetti is a fact of life Businesses change Processes change Applications change Integration changes Need an enterprise computing strategy that: Reflects the changing structure of the business; Is spaghetti-friendly; Commoditised; Robust, secure, dependable, etc.

18. Business-Led Integration ESBs integrate with whatever existing systems expose Green screen, web pages, CORBA objects, XML, etc Integration happens at a low level Mapping of bits and bytes of one variety onto bits and bytes of another format This makes it hard to engage business in such projects Without business benefit no software has value Integration is currently opaque to the business Business must be involved in integration projects – not just initiate them The integration domain must use the same vocabulary as the business domain

19. Spaghetti-Oriented Architecture Fighting against spaghetti is usually unsuccessful This does not mean integration should be undertaken without diligence! SOA is an approach which is spaghetti-agnostic Services are designed for integration with any consumer Integration is decentralised Result: Loosely coupled, re-usable services Focus on business-meaningful process orchestration

20. SOA and Web Services Approach Applications (or subsets of applications) are identified as being service-amenable Or (sub) processes are identified for which there is no existing application/service Web Services infrastructure is layered on top of the application, exposing a SOAP interface to the rest of the network Business meaningful message exchanges Other services consume the functionality via SOAP message exchanges Traditional integration infrastructure is kept within the Web Service implementation, if used at all

21. Building the Service-Oriented Enterprise SOAP becomes the ubiquitous transfer mechanism across the enterprise (or Internet!) In effect, SOAP messages are the “EAI backbone” The underlying transport protocols are arbitrary Applications understand SOAP messages natively True end to end integration, but maintains loose coupling In this context, existing ESB/EAI software becomes a toolkit for implementing individual Web Services But integration happens at the SOAP level Can commoditise what’s underneath SPDB story – can run an enterprise reliably on commodity software IF you plan and execute correctly.SPDB story – can run an enterprise reliably on commodity software IF you plan and execute correctly.

22. The QoS functionality that a Web Service requires is implemented on a per-service basis Not “one size fits all” Implement only those QoS protocols that the service currently needs Push the integration functionality to the edges SOAP + WS-Addressing becomes the “bus” Incremental and autonomous Deliver high business-value services first! Decentralised Integration

23. Application Integration... EAI/ESB frameworks are fine for application integration A framework for development of (distributed) applications Think of the EAI toolkit as a container for your application Application versus enterprise framework

24. ...and Composite Business Processes Processes across the enterprise consume and coordinate lower-level applications Exposed via standards-based services

25. Web Services Standards: The State of Play Not all of the WS-* QoS protocols are ready yet Generally in late stages of standardisation and early adoption WS-Security is ready; WS-ReliableExchange (WS-RX) in standardisation; WS-AT/BA ready on Java platform; WS-AT on .Net Web Services toolkits for the rest will be available in the next year or so WCF, BizTalk, Axis2, XFire, etc Metadata is the key!

26. Metadata, Metadata, Metadata…

27. Policy and Contract

28. Proxy Generation

29. End-to-End Messaging

30. WS-Security Mature, widely implemented, and interoperable WS-I Basic Security Profile too Gives end-to-end security Privacy, integrity Can be used for authentication, non-repudiation

31. Reliable SOAP Messaging Non-interoperable implementations from two competing standards today WS-Reliability WS-ReliableMessaging Single, unified standard (WS-ReliableMessaging) being developed (by WS-RC committee) Not yet widely implemented Cannot achieve interoperable RM at the SOAP level today Instead, use existing, mature, transports MQ, JMS, MSMQ, etc

32. Reliable Transport Alternatives SOAP messages are transport agnostic Change the transport, change the binding Route messages over a reliable channel E.g. MQ, MSMQ, JMS etc

33. Coordinating Services Processes need end-to-end guarantees Manual coordination necessary today Generic coordination soon!

34. “WS-Fabric” HP/Arjuna realisation that WS obviated need for proprietary middleware HP/Arjuna realisation that WS obviated need for proprietary middleware

35. Same Old Architects Business people and application architects design business-centric workflows which consume services Re-using the functionality already deployed into the service ecosystem Service architects and developers build services Using WS toolkits like WCF and Axis Enterprise architects influence QoS at the SOAP level... Using the WS-* specs ...and at the transport level Existing investments can form the underlay for SOA And undertake necessary governance roles NAB/Commbank have lots of investment in all kinds of plumbing – can re-use this to support SOA (and incrementally replace if necessary)NAB/Commbank have lots of investment in all kinds of plumbing – can re-use this to support SOA (and incrementally replace if necessary)

36. ESB or SOA? Investing in proprietary integration systems now is investing in future legacy ESB is not the solution It’s oh-so 1990’s integration glue SOA is the solution Because it focuses on supporting business processes Web Services are a robust and commoditised platform for SOA delivery

37. Conclusions SOA is the right integration architecture going forward SOA can be implemented incrementally Drive SOA from a business perspective Most valuable processes/applications/services first Commoditisation across the board Servers, developers, networking, re-use existing software, etc Migrating towards a successful SOA is not always easy Learning to build dependable SOAs can be difficult ESBs and Wizards cannot help – you need service-savvy geeks and process-aware business people No centralised integration middleware needed Metadata, metadata, metadata!

38. Questions? http://jim.webber.name

39. Reminders Fill in your evaluation forms With heaps of praise! Tech Ed Party this evening @ Home Nightclub