Composable Software Architecture

-

Toying with the concept of "Composable Architecture" I'm struck by how many folks get lost on the technology and staring at "how do other people do it?" instead of pivoting to think about "how might this help my business?". Time and time again I roll onto a client that is talking about microservices, API first design, Headless solutions, Cloud Native platforms, but have no idea why any of this might help thier business. Routinely I head "well this is how [netflix, amazon, fill in some other business name] does it, so we're going to replicate their success by doing what they do.

Why this is flawed

The logic behind this thinking is deeply flawed because it's presupposing that the technology architecture by itself makes the business successful. This is, in fact, backwards. Netflix didn't start with a microservices architecture, they started with (and appropriately so) a monolithic architecture. Why? Because their business model and scale (at the time) was best supported by this model (and, in fact, at some point things might swing the other way at some point). They, however, understand this and are not hampered by looking around and wondering "what architecture can I use that will make my business model successful?", they instead think of the problem by asking "what architecture can support my business model best given the things that are strategic to my business objectives?".

How to fix it

The very first step in fixing the problem is acknowledging you have a problem. If the entire organization (especially leadership) is sold on the idea that "getting a good architecture will make our business better" and the approach is to look at how other businesses with different business models model their technical architecture...you will always have a wierd mismatch of expectations versus reality. If instead, everyone takes a deep look at what value the business needs to extract from technology, and the technology teams are aligned and tasked with designing and building systems that deliver this value, you have taken your first step into a much more effective way of delivering solutions.

Comments

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 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

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