Architectural Antipattern: "Through The Looking Glass"

-

An anti-pattern is a commonly occurring pattern that is ineffective.

There is an architectural anti-pattern I like to call "Through the Looking Glass". This is when a system is broken into pieces or layers, but the pieces are cut perpendicular to the direction that the team and the business require. A common example is when a set of screens used to access a database system is split system into "front end" and "back end" components.

This "front end" and "back end" split ONLY makes sense if the back end can identify thier required interfaces before the front end is designed. If the "back end" requirements are being driven by the "front end" screens and/or systems, then this split is either #1 wrong or, at a minimum #2 premature. Most often, new systems need a front end to identify APIs that need to be used... it's more economical to build the system in such a manner that a front end change can quickly be migrated to the "back-end" (like rails) and enable using functioning software to be delivered early. The prudent thing is to then refactor and cut the system into pieces when necessary (or ideally just before necessary :).

I personally believe this problem is primarily caused by two things: over specialization and over engineering. Over specialization can be recognized when, for example, database administrators have no idea how the users will use or interact with the data. This can be combated by mixing DBAs into project teams as contributing members, not just people who sit around and wait for change requests to generate tables. Over engineering can be identified by looking for decorations inside the system design that are "for future growth" or other vague non-functional requirements. This can be solved by repeatedly asking the question "Are we actually gonna need this?"

Comments

Building Inspection West Palm Beach said…
Nice blog with nice post. Keep writing for the same.
February 23, 2012 at 12:32 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Please use ANSI-92 SQL Join Syntax

-
Image
Way back in 1992, a standard was published for SQL. In it, the syntax for specifying joins in SQL Database was finally standardized. This was a good thing because (for folks who've been doing this a while), trying to decode the vagaries of how various Databases handled outer joins could drive you bonkers yielding different results depending on the parse order of things in the from and where clauses. Unfortunately, some DBMS vendors took a while to adopt this standard (Oracle didn't support it until 2001), but at this point if you're using a major RDBMS and NOT using it, you're probably mired in a tradition or habit that bears changing. As an example of what I'm describing, here are some examples of what I mean. Old School (no standard syntax + implementation and evaluation of predicates varied by vendor [and query]): select * from customer, order where customer.customer = order.customerid ANSI way (agreed to standard, predicate evaluation has some rules
Read more

the myth of asynchronous JDBC

-
Image
I keep seeing people (especially in the scala/typesafe world) posting about async jdbc libraries. STOP IT! Under the current APIs, async JDBC belongs in a realm with Unicorns, Tiger Squirrels, and 8' spiders. While you might be able to move the blocking operations and queue requests and keep your "main" worker threads from blocking, jdbc is synchronous. At some point, somewhere, there's going to be a thread blocking waiting for a response. It's frustrating to see so many folks hyping this and muddying the waters. Unless you write your own client for a dbms and have a dbms that can multiplex calls over a single connection (or using some other strategy to enable this capability) db access is going to block. It's not impossible to make the calls completely async, but nobody's built it yet. Yes, I know ajdbc is taking a stab at this capability, but even IT uses a thread pool for the blocking calls (be default). Someday we'll have async databa
Read more

The difference between Scalability, Performance, Efficiency, and Concurrency explained

-
I thought I'd give some explanation of the difference between scalability, performance, Efficiency, and concurrency. To make things more accessible (and because I'm watching a cooking show on TV) I'm going to use a baking metaphor to help explain the differences. In our case, the system in question is baking cookies for consumers. Scalability, is how well something responds to adding more resources. If we can double our capacity by doubling the number of resources, we've got linear scalability. In our baking example, if we add more ingredients, we can scale to a larger number of cookies. To contrast with our other metrics, this doesn't actually increase the performance of creating a single cookie (they still take 10 minutes to bake), and the efficiency is the same (we just have more capacity). We also cannot bake more cookies in a fixed time period, but over a larger time period we can produce more cookies. Performance is how fast something can get done, u
Read more