Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Microservices is SOA, for those who know what SOA is.

Ok so its started a bit of debate on Twitter and now there have been emails, but in the spirit of openness I thought I'd better blog.  Now its good that Martin has now added a side bar on SOA to his article on Microservices but that really makes it worse in many ways.  I'll get to that at the end but first off lets explain why Microservices is just another SOA implementation pattern.  Its SOD for SOA

Lets break down the key precepts of Microservices and compare them against the OASIS SOA Reference Model (published 2006)

Componentization via Services

There follows a long text that can be reduced to

"Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) is a paradigm for organizing and utilizing distributed capabilities that may be under the control of different ownership domains. " 
There is an awful lot of words about deployment and process models in the Microservices piece but this single sentence at the start of the OASIS SOA RM is much more powerful because
  1. It means that IT and non-IT services can be represented in a single approach
  2. It immediately includes the major challenge - that of politics and ownership
OASIS then goes nicely into WTF actually is a service,
  • The capability to perform work for another 
  • The specification of the work offered for another 
  • The offer to perform work for another
Again this is not a tech requirement which means your architecture can actually start from a business perspective rather than process threads.  In Fowler's microservices textual description (no bullet points here) we have

  • services are out-of-process components who communicate
  • explicit component interface
  • ..... nothing on this bit 

OASIS then adds the kicker
in SOA, services are the mechanism by which needs and capabilities are brought together.
Remember that phrase 'mechanism' its going to be important....

Here is where Martin begins to get it wrong.  The OASIS SOA RM defines a capability as 
A real-world effect that a service provider is able to provide to a service consumer
The point here is the difference between a capability (the bit that does the work) and the service (the organising construct) is really important.  What we found when doing SOA in the wild for over a decade, and all the people on the OASIS SOA RM had lots of experience doing this, was that the organising framework was separate from the actions themselves.  The reason this is crucially important is that people started often making services where service = capability so you ended up with lots and lots of services (ummm if I was being insulting I'd call them microservices) here are some posts from 2006 and 2007 that explain why its really not great to confuse the two concepts and it made it into the SOA Antipatterns as well.  Now the actual text is pretty much ok, but again its lack of reference to the past and making a crucial mistake does not help people learn how things are evolving and what can be improved.

New?  Hell even I wrote a book which talked about how to model, manage and set up teams around this approach. The SOA Manifesto (2009) talks about key principles behind SOA (I still prefer the RM though) from a big group of practitioners.  The point here is that there are two problems, first the confusion of service and capabilities and secondly the lack of recognition of hierarchies importance in governance.

Products not Projects

Here it goes  beyond the OASIS SOA RM which doesn't talk about delivery models... however fortunately it goes beyond absolutely nothing that was said before.  A quick hit on Google just shows how many pieces there are in this space, some better than others and some products better than others but really this is not new.  I used to use the phrase 'Programs not projects' and always talked about assigning architects for the full lifecycle 'to make them accountable'.    Again its not that this statement is in anyway wrong, its just that its in no-way new.  We've known that this has helped for years but it has a significant issue: cost.

Lets say you have a service that requires some amazingly smart analytics, some hard core coding and some wonderful UI design.  You hire the very best, they cost a fortune and your service is awesome.  Do you really want those folks sitting around waiting for requirement changes?  No.  This is why for me the concentration is at the architecture and ownership level that consistency must be maintained, not at the developer level.  For companies where software development is their business you can include development but for most organisations in the real-world economics prevent the 'you built it you run it' mentality.  Again its a lack of learning that undermines the message.

Here I'm not disagreeing, it would be super ideal to have the same team always maintaining the code they write, its just not practical but thinking in terms of discreet pieces with their own heartbeats is a good thing.  Most decent SOA programs I've seen have recognised this and had different delivery schedules for different services.  What becomes important is the integrity of the service and its ability to be independently maintained, within the context of its management hierarchy, relegating this to 'keep the same developers' misses some of the power of SOA.  Again this emphasises that Microservices is just another SOD approach, a potentially good one in some circumstances but not something that will work for everyone and every circumstance...

Smart endpoints and dumb pipes

I really agree with this, but I think its better put in a different way.  In the OASIS SOA RM there is the concept of an 'execution context'.  Which is the bit that lets a service be called and its capability invoked.  Clearly the end-point is 'smart' as its what does the work, hence the phrase 'mechanism' used above.  The 'pipes' may or may not be dumb (the 'pipes' talking to those Rovers on Mars are pretty smart I think) but what they are is without value.  This was a crucial finding in SOA and is well documented in the SOA RM.    The execution context is where all of the internal plumbing is done but its the Service that provides the access to the capability and its the capability which delivers the value.

So its not wrong to say 'smart endpoints and dumb pipes' but its better to say that the end-points have the value and the pipes are just infrastructure, this gives a better guidance on why you shouldn't be focusing on the pipes.

Now it does make a good point about not having smarts in the information fabric, but again this isn't new or unusual in decent SOA implementations.  I collaborated with the folks from Progress Software back in 2007 on the Business Service Bus concept which is just about having mediation (security, basic transformation) in the Bus.  There are good reasons why these things go there, cross-referencing between different ontologies is one.  This also plays into the 'always proxy' pattern that most decent SOA folks did.

So its again not wrong, its just that its not new, and it further underlines the inherent SOA nature of Microservices.
This really is another bit that I really do agree with, I've talked about the People's Democratic Republic of IT for years at conferences and finally got around to blogging on it.  The whole principle of business driven SOA is that the governance model better matches the business.  So again I think its not bad advice its just that SOA gives so much more than Microservices in terms of governance.  SOA as described in the OASIS SOA RM allows these principles to be applied to all IT assets not just those implemented with a specific implementation style and indeed to just to IT assets meaning its an approach that business schools are teaching.
The last thing I'll cover here is how the SOA sidebar is really a red herring, its not a true definition of SOA instead rolling out the old 'big' ESB and WS-* trope that was so loved by the RESTafarians when explaining why their way was better.  The claim is that this article 'crisply' describes the Microservices style and thus is valid in comparison with SOA as 'SOA means so many things'.  This I fundamentally disagree with, firstly because Microservices would be better served as an implementation approach if it could explain how it fits with non-Microservices approaches, something that SOA does a great job of doing, and second that it can't even say what makes a service 'micro' with services ranging from decent sized (12 person) teams down to individuals.

Conclusion

This for me is why Microservices is just a Service Oriented Delivery approach for a well architected SOA solution.  SOA provides the contextual framework, provides most of the rules that Microservices aims to adhere to but more over gives a broader context within which Microservices fit within a complex enterprise.  Calling out WS-* for the one millionth time or 'big' ESB and talking about massively complex projects is simply a shot at a different challenge.

Additionally the fact that one of the references that is used is that of Netflix who actually use the term 'fine-grained SOA' as recognised in the footnotes sort of underlines the fact and the fact that another (Amazon) also says its SOA.

I think its great that SOA is now coming back to the fore in the market as the hype around the plumbing (WS-* v REST) dies down and that the learnings of companies who have been doing this for over 10 years is now being talked about.  But that is the way to talk about it: what is the state of the 'now' in Service Oriented implementation and architecture?

4 comments:

Loraine Lawson said...

Agreed. The explanation on the Microservices site doesn't really explain how it's not SOA, other than to say the term SOA has been misapplied or "means many different things," (it doesn't, actually). This violates the Fallacy Fallacy. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/pdf/LogicalFallaciesInfographic_A3.pdf

Steve Jones said...

Loraine, that is a superb Infographic, thanks for the link.

Kico (Henrique Lobo Weissmann) said...

Can we say that all this talk about Microservices is the same thing we saw happening when people started to talk about REST?

I mean: can we say that all this Microservices movement (if we can call it a movement) is a response to SOA as REST was a response to WS* webservices? I mean: the attempt to reach a more lightweight solution for the same problem (or at least the attempt to get rid of the ESB)?

By the way: your posts about this subject are simply great. Thank you!

Steve Jones said...

It could be like REST v Web Services, in that it really doesn't matter what you call it. For me the analogy is quite strong as what matters is whether you are creating your architecture in terms of services (SOA) which is what Microservices also says.

Arguing a new name is required because of WS-* and ESB for me misses the point of what SOA actually is (a contextual and mental shift in how you architect both IT and the business) and thus renders the concept of Microservices as 'not SOA' mute.

SOA != Web Services, it was the chant from the very start. Many companies, including those who are said to be doing Microservices (Amazon, Netflix) describe what they do as lightweight SOA or SOA without web services. Which to me therefore is the point

Lightweight isn't bad, but that doesn't mean Microservices isn't about Service Orientation.