I've been talking and writing about SOA as "Dependency-Oriented Thinking" for a while now, and have even conducted a couple of workshops on the theme. The feedback after the interactive sessions has always been positive, and it surprises me that such a simple concept is not already widely known.
I'm in the process of splitting (slicing?) my white paper "Slicing the Gordian Knot of SOA Governance" into two, one dealing with SOA ("Dependency-Oriented Thinking" or DOT) and the other dealing with Governance and Management ("Dependency-Oriented Governance and Management" or DOGMa).
Partway through the DOT document, I realised that one of the diagrams in it explains the entire approach at a glance.
Here it is (updated after the release of the Dependency-Oriented Thinking documents). Click to expand.
This is of course the BAIT model of an organisation, with a specific focus on Dependencies. BAIT refers to Business, Application, Information (Data) and Technology, the four "layers" through which we can trace the journey of application logic from business intent to implementation.
[Basic definitions: SOA is the science of analysing and managing dependencies between systems, and "managing dependencies" means eliminating needless dependencies and formalising legitimate dependencies into readily-understood contracts.]
At the Business layer, the focus on dependencies forces us to rationalise processes and make them leaner. Business processes need to be traceable back to the organisation's vision (its idea of Utopia), its mission (its strategy to bring about that Utopia) and the broad functions it needs to have in place to execute those strategies (Product Management, Engineering, Marketing, Sales, etc.). Within each function, there will need to be a set of processes, each made up of process steps. Here is where potential reuse of business logic is first identified.
At the end of this phase, we know the basic process steps (operations) required, and how to string them together into processes that run the business. But we can't just have these operations floating around in an organisational "soup". We need to organise them better.
At the Application layer, we try to group operations. Note that the Business Layer has already defined the run-time grouping of operations into Processes. At the application layer, we need to group them more statically. Which operations belong together and which do not? That's the dependency question that needs to be asked at this layer.
The answer though, is to be found only in the Information layer below, because operations only "belong" together if they share a data model. As it turns out, there are two groups of data models, those on the "outside" and those on the "inside". The data models on the "inside" of any system are also known as "domain data models", and these are never visible to other systems. In contrast, a data model on the "outside" of a system, known as an "interface data model", is always exposed and shared with other systems. In SOA, data on the outside is at least an order of magnitude more important than data on the inside because it impacts the integration of systems with one another, whereas data on the inside is only seen by a single system.
Version churn is a potential problem at the Information Layer, because changing business requirements could result in changed interfaces. With a well-designed type hierarchy that only exposes generic super-types, the interface data model can remain stable even as newer implementations pop up to handle specialised sub-types. Most changes to interfaces are then compatible with older clients, and incompatible changes are minimised.
Version churn is a potential problem at the Information Layer, because changing business requirements could result in changed interfaces. With a well-designed type hierarchy that only exposes generic super-types, the interface data model can remain stable even as newer implementations pop up to handle specialised sub-types. Most changes to interfaces are then compatible with older clients, and incompatible changes are minimised.
Once we have our data models, we can go back up one level to the Application layer and start to group our operations in two different ways, depending on whether they share an internal (domain) data model or an interface data model. Operations sharing a domain data model form Products. Operations sharing an interface data model form Services. (And that's where the "Service" in "Service-Oriented Architecture" comes from.) Products are "black boxes" meant to be used as standalone applications. Services are "glass boxes" with no other function than to loosely bundle together related operations.
Finally, we have to implement our Services. The description and deployment bundles that are used need not correspond one-to-one with the Services themselves. They should in general be smaller, so that the volatility (rate of change) of any single operation does not needlessly impact others merely because they share a description bundle (e.g., a WSDL file) or a deployment bundle (e.g., a JAR file). If we also pay attention to the right types of components to use to host logic, transform and adapt data, and coordinate logic, we will be implementing business intent in the most efficient and agile way possible.
This, in fact, is all there is to SOA. This is Dependency-Oriented Thinking in practice.
The white paper will explain all this in much greater detail and with examples, but this post is an early appetiser. [Update: you can fall to and help yourselves, since the main course is now ready. Grab the two documents below.]
Dependency-Oriented Thinking: Volume 1 - Analysis and Design
Dependency-Oriented Thinking: Volume 2 - Governance and Management
Dependency-Oriented Thinking: Volume 1 - Analysis and Design
Dependency-Oriented Thinking: Volume 2 - Governance and Management
