Radovan Janecek Avoiding S O A Pitfalls
0 likes599 views
This document outlines the BTO Blueprint for an IT organization, with the goal of simplifying big initiatives through a service-oriented architecture approach. It describes establishing governance over the SOA approach, including managing business and IT portfolios, quality, and applications. The blueprint also covers managing the full lifecycle of services from design through operations.
Radovan Janecek Avoiding S O A Pitfalls
- 1. This Presentation Courtesy of the International SOA Symposium October 7-8, 2008 Amsterdam Arena www.soasymposium.com info@soasymposium.com Founding Sponsors Platinum Sponsors Gold Sponsors Silver Sponsors Avoiding SOA Pitfalls Radovan Janecek Chief Architect, BTO, HP Software June 2008 © 2008 Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. The information contained herein is subject to change without notice 1 October 2003 Copyright © 2006 HP corporate presentation. All rights reserved.
- 2. Eight Years of SOA Wins and Mistakes • Co-founded Systinet (2000) − Web Services stacks in C++ and Java − Service Registry − SOA Governance • Led SOA Center in Mercury/HP (2006) − SOA Governance, Quality, Management • BTO Architecture (2008) − Service and Data Models − Integration strategy (SOA based) To Remember • SOA is GOOD as it SIMPLIFIES big initiatives − Business Service Management − Business Service Automation − Service Portfolio Management • Beware of Snake-Oil Architecture − The more EAI the worse SOA • SOA Governance is a must 4 21 October 2008 2 October 2003 Copyright © 2006 HP corporate presentation. All rights reserved.
- 3. BTO Blueprint BUSINESS STRATEGY BUSINESS BUSINESS OPERATIONS IT STRATEGY IT APPLICATIONS Applicatio IT OPERATIONS ITIL Service CIO/Biz/IT n Support Desk Strategic Steering Portfolio and Business Business Financial Quality Management Tests - Monitors IT Service Committee CAB Service Management Demand Management Management • Project Manage QA SLAs and Manage Verify Manage business Manage service proposals enterprise projects and Ensure incidents • New portfolio Manage functional Validate transaction and lifecycle programs application end-user experience applications business quality security performance Resource Continually • New services requirements Automate Manage composite improve services constrained Control and Diagnose • New portfolio enforcement test Vulnerability applications architectures optimization Manage planning, assessments performance and SOA services Federated Manage assets, execution for problems CMDB improve service PMO quality Isolation, Business cost efficiency requirements development, triage impact Analysis QA and Tune Service Discovery Self service of defects production environment Manage portfolio repository + mapping capabilities infrastructure domains, events Change CTO Office ASSEMBLE and services Operations RFCs DESIGN impact and /BUILD Change CAB and Manage SOA NOC incidents collisions notification portfolio Development Publish services SOA Operations Orchestration and manage repository consumption New projects Quality Defects Remediation Business Service and management and Automation Operational enhancements repository issues Automate configuration and change Demand (client, server, network, storage) • Defects Compliance . Manage IT compliance and audit • Enhancements / Security Provision and scale • Operational Baseline environment change requests • Service catalog • Knowledge mgmt. 5 21 October 2008 LET’S TALK ABOUT PITFALLS 6 21 October 2008 3 October 2003 Copyright © 2006 HP corporate presentation. All rights reserved.
- 4. Agenda In scope Out of scope • Organization • Performance • Solutions vs Integrations • Security • SOA vs EAI • Language binding • Point-to-Point vs HUB • Testing • Common Data Model • API granularity • Standards 7 21 October 2008 Organization • Project driven SOA − Perhaps good validation in small scope • SOA Governance − Lack of − Too ambitious • Only technical view − “It‟s a software architecture” view 8 21 October 2008 4 October 2003 Copyright © 2006 HP corporate presentation. All rights reserved.
- 5. #1: Project-driven SOA • SOA is implemented within specific project(s) • Good − Validation of the concept − Starting point • Bad − Silo reinforcement − No proof it will work across silos • Reasons − Alignment with business, Commitment, Experience − Financial: funding, incentives − Trust! 9 21 October 2008 #1: Suggestion • Align with business on the importance − Cross-portfolio (silo) integrated solutions − Identify the most critical solutions (not services!) Funding Model, Commitments • Define SOA Governance model Trust, Experience, Alignment 10 21 October 2008 5 October 2003 Copyright © 2006 HP corporate presentation. All rights reserved.
- 6. #2: SOA Governance • No or wrong governance practices • Good − You can move faster short-term • Bad − JBOWS, poor execution • Reasons − Project scope (hard to find ROI) − Technical view (we already have technical governance!) − Too ambitious model inherited from project experience 11 21 October 2008 #2: Suggestion (part 1) • Create centralized R&D counterpart to business for strategic decisions • Create SOA Center that − Defines processes, best practices, compliance guidelines − Selects appropriate standards − Executes the governance processes − Centralizes Service and Data models creation efforts Expertise, Communication 12 21 October 2008 6 October 2003 Copyright © 2006 HP corporate presentation. All rights reserved.
- 7. #2: Suggestion (part 2) • May centralize Solution Testing and Certification • Keep development decentralized − Creation of centralized “integration team” reinforces “somebody-else‟s-problem” behavior • VISIBILITY − Everything online: plans, compliance reports, experience sharing, service rating, catalogs, blueprints Pragmatic Execution Model 13 21 October 2008 #3: Technical View • SOA seen as software development detail • Good − Focus on technical excellence • Bad − #1, #2 − Over-engineered architecture − Focus on HOW instead of WHAT • Reasons − SOA is driven mainly by architects − Software creation doesn‟t matter anyway 14 21 October 2008 7 October 2003 Copyright © 2006 HP corporate presentation. All rights reserved.
- 8. #3: Suggestion Start with #1! 15 21 October 2008 #4: Solutions vs Integrations • Building integrations without higher-level view − Let‟s move customer entry from here over there • Good − Integration is done fast • Bad − Too many integrations are not reusable − Hard to identify and remove functional overlaps − Service and Data model cannot be reasonably created • Reasons − EAI habits, #1 (project-driven soa) 16 21 October 2008 8 October 2003 Copyright © 2006 HP corporate presentation. All rights reserved.
- 9. Example: Change Management Solution • End-to-end − From discovering a reason for change − Thru planning, approvals, and execution − To verifying the effect of the change − Multiple reasons for change, multiple workflows/processes One of multiple scenarios by BTO Nice and simple ITIL 17 21 October 2008 #4: Suggestion Start with #1! 18 21 October 2008 9 October 2003 Copyright © 2006 HP corporate presentation. All rights reserved.
- 10. #5: SOA vs EAI • EAIin angle brackets • One of the top SOA failure reasons • Good − Leveraging EAI tools and skills • Bad − Everything • Reasons − #1, #2, #3, #4 19 21 October 2008 More on SOA vs EAI EAI SOA a b c e d 20 21 October 2008 10 October 2003 Copyright © 2006 HP corporate presentation. All rights reserved.
- 11. BTO Blueprint BUSINESS STRATEGY BUSINESS BUSINESS OPERATIONS IT STRATEGY IT APPLICATIONS Applicatio IT OPERATIONS ITIL Service CIO/Biz/IT n Support Desk Strategic Steering Portfolio and Business Business Financial Quality Management Tests - Monitors IT Service Committee CAB Service Management Demand Management Management • Project Manage QA SLAs and Manage Verify Manage business Manage service proposals enterprise projects and Ensure incidents • New portfolio Manage functional Validate transaction and lifecycle programs application end-user experience applications business quality security performance Resource Continually • New services requirements Automate Manage composite improve services constrained Control and Diagnose • New portfolio enforcement test Vulnerability applications architectures optimization Manage planning, assessments performance and SOA services Federated Manage assets, execution for problems CMDB improve service PMO quality Isolation, Business cost efficiency requirements development, triage impact Analysis QA and Tune Service Discovery Self service of defects production environment Manage portfolio repository + mapping capabilities infrastructure domains, events Change CTO Office ASSEMBLE and services Operations RFCs DESIGN impact and /BUILD Change CAB and Manage SOA NOC incidents collisions notification portfolio Development Publish services SOA Operations Orchestration and manage repository consumption New projects Quality Defects Remediation Business Service and management and Automation Operational enhancements repository issues Automate configuration and change Demand (client, server, network, storage) • Defects Compliance . Manage IT compliance and audit • Enhancements / Security Provision and scale • Operational Baseline environment change requests • Service catalog • Knowledge mgmt. 21 21 October 2008 #5: Suggestions • Observe warning signs − “Let‟s put these two onto the same database” − “We need distributed transactions here” −… • Be SOA fundamentalist until tightly coupled scenario is needed Understanding of SOA vs EAI 22 21 October 2008 11 October 2003 Copyright © 2006 HP corporate presentation. All rights reserved.
- 12. #6: HUB Better Than Point-to-Point 23 21 October 2008 #6: HUB Better Than Point-to-Point 24 21 October 2008 12 October 2003 Copyright © 2006 HP corporate presentation. All rights reserved.
- 13. #6: HUB Better Than Point-to-Point • Nothing wrong on P2P if Governance is in place • HUB will not help if Governance is missing • Advantages hypothetical − Real dependencies are not that complex • Disadvantages are real − Deployment cost, integration cost (multiple HUBs), evolution issues (multiple places to change) • HUB de-facto implements additional business logic − E.g. content based routing, orchestration, etc. − Who owns it? What about contracts? − Why is this logic not provided by a service? 25 21 October 2008 #6: Suggestion • SOA: Service, Consumer, Contract – no HUB • Use Service Registry for late binding • Strictly use middleware-type HUBs behind service‟s façade • Do contract management (even very simple one helps) Time saving, Right focus, Success 26 21 October 2008 13 October 2003 Copyright © 2006 HP corporate presentation. All rights reserved.
- 14. #7: Common Data Model • False: Strict CDM is a must for SOA success • Good − Common vocabulary and shared data structures help • Bad − Slows down too much − Questionable ROI • Reasons − EAI thinking not realizing SOA has bigger scope 27 21 October 2008 #7: Suggestion • Align on key business taxonomies • Define data model guidelines − Standards, metadata, evolution, customizations • Identifykey use cases (solutions) and key services • Allow for relaxed semantics across them • Again: model is driven by contract Data Model will grow with your SOA 28 21 October 2008 14 October 2003 Copyright © 2006 HP corporate presentation. All rights reserved.
- 15. #7: Suggestion Visual Configuration Management Other Related CMS Core 29 21 October 2008 #7: Suggestion Visual 30 21 October 2008 15 October 2003 Copyright © 2006 HP corporate presentation. All rights reserved.
- 16. #8: API Granularity • Services provide rich „chatty‟ interfaces • Good − Fast legacy API re-use • Bad − Tight coupling − Exploding complexity • Reasons − Services treated as components − Low control over 3rd party software 31 21 October 2008 #8: Suggestion • Refactor existing API − Consider REST • Move as much business logic to the endpoints as possible Less features, More reliability 32 21 October 2008 16 October 2003 Copyright © 2006 HP corporate presentation. All rights reserved.
- 17. #8: Suggestion Visual: Create Incident Event Source Incident Manager lookup ? create update submit lookup BPEL ? create update submit subscribe ? 33 21 October 2008 #9: Standards • Standards are not enough! − Generic envelopes − Industry standards often „tailored‟ when used • Data externalization rules − Mapping to standards • Dates, Versions, References, MIME types, etc. − Identification − Cross references (hyperlinks?) • Businessvocabulary and taxonomies • Look carefully at adoption outside of your company 34 21 October 2008 17 October 2003 Copyright © 2006 HP corporate presentation. All rights reserved.
- 18. Summarizing… • SOA is more about good methodology and process rather than technology − More guidelines than middlewares − More communication than features • Beware of pitfalls − Most of them come from „legacy thinking‟ • Governance is key as we are working on „global‟ level 35 21 October 2008 Q&A THANK YOU 36 21 October 2008 18 October 2003 Copyright © 2006 HP corporate presentation. All rights reserved.