Cloud Foundry: Design and Architecture
Derek Collison discusses the goals, the design premises and patterns employed in creating the architecture of Cloud Foundry, VMware’s open source PaaS, unveiling internal architectural details.
The content has been bookmarked!
There was an error bookmarking this content! Please retry.
Posted by Stefan Tilkov on Jun 19, 2006
Michi Henning, who used to be one of the most well-known public figures in the CORBA scene, has written an article for ACM queue describing "the rise and fall of CORBA". Despite its focus on this particular technology, which many view as one of the alternatives for implementing service-oriented architectures, some of his arguments might be considered applicable for the standard and specifications in the Web services space:
By combining features, specifications end up as the kitchen sink of every feature thought of by anyone ever. This not only makes the specifications larger and more complex than necessary, but also tends to introduce inconsistencies: Different features that, in isolation, are perfectly reasonable can subtly interact with each other and cause semantic conflicts.
To be fair, the often criticized closed-door process most MS/IBM-driven WS specifications are created in addresses some of these problems. WSDL 2.0 and XML Schema (part 1, part 2) might be considered canonical examples of design by committee.
Doug Schmidt, another very respected name in the CORBA scene, weighs in with some thoughtful comments and related links in the comp.object.corba newsgroup; another interesting follow-up is by Steve Loughran, co-author of the influential "Rethinking the Java SOAP Stack" report. Whatever one may think about the reasons for CORBA's failure - or in fact, whether one believes CORBA has failed at all - it's certainly worth being aware of mistakes made in the past to avoid them in the future.
It would seem as an observer that the kitchen sink effect is happening in the SOA space with all the WS-* specs.
I have to admit, this is why I often like the 'defacto' standards over the 'designed' standards; they're developed to serve a particular need, they take a viewpoint, and they don't deliver designs that try and please everyone to the benefit of none.
Now that I've had time to read the article in full, I'd say there are some useful lessons for software developers (and product developers in particular), even those not responsible for the creation of standards.
Some more interesting comments have been made by Systinet's Radovan Janecek and IONA's Steve Vinoski.
Derek Collison discusses the goals, the design premises and patterns employed in creating the architecture of Cloud Foundry, VMware’s open source PaaS, unveiling internal architectural details.
Andrew Watson talks about the work of the OMG, where CORBA is alive and well (hint: in your car), UML and UML Profiles vs. custom Modeling languages, DDS and other middleware, and much more.
Sohil Shah discusses creating iPhone and Android enterprise mobile applications based on cloud services using the open source platform OpenMobster.
Paul Sanford presents the transformations supported by data throughout its life cycle, and how that can be better done with Splunk, an engine for monitoring and analyzing machine-generated data.
A common “best practice” for unit tests is to only write a one assertion in each test. I intend to question this advice by showing that multiple assertions per test are both necessary and beneficial.
John Rauser presents the architectural and technological evolution of Amazon retail websites starting with 1994 and ending with adopting Amazon Web Services.
Michael Stal discusses system architecture quality, how to avoid architectural erosion, how to deal with refactoring, and design principles for architecture evolution.
Every developer has had to integrate with another system, API or component. Tis article provides strategies to handle the change and for he separating system boundaries.
4 comments
Watch Thread Reply