MACH TEN Addendum: for companies wanting to use MACH platforms

-

The MACH Alliance

is a consortium of ISVs and SIs that advocate for a particular approach when building/integrating modern platforms. One gap/misunderstanding I keep bumping into is the intent behind MACH. In general, it's a technosophical approach to how PLATFORMS are build, run, deployed, marketed, not really well suited for large organizations who are simply trying to USE these platforms.

Therefor I propose a "MACH TEN" Addendum

TEN is an acronym that adds some context to adopting MACH platforms to use in your organization. These are high level recommendations I enccourage folks to take into consideration before jumping under the bandwagon. :p

Transparent

  • Pricing and contracts are computable, if special terms are negotiated, that's OK, but I shouldn't have to tell you my budget before you tell me how much you cost
  • How I integrate/use your platform is easy to find, I don't need special training, I can just RTFM and begin using your system

Enterprise-Ready

  • I can negotiate contracts/deal terms
  • I can monitor compliance with SLAs, performance, problems, with my APM/management tools...logs are accessible
  • Security is fully audited and I have ability to clearly assess risks.

Neutral

  • No "hidden apis" that only "special partners have access to"
  • No "partner lock-ins" that mandate I use a specific SI to do implementations
  • My data is "MY DATA", I can easily take it with me...the platform is competing only on value delivered, not some "viral lock in" or other fishooks/entanglements

Conclusion

This isn't a comprehensivelist, and I might amend or come up with another acronym or amendments, but is definitely a starting point for folks exploring MACH platforms as a part of their solution.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Push versus pull deployment models

-
There are two deployment models: push and pull. In a "Pull" deployment model, the individual servers contact a master server, download their configuration and software, and configure themselves. In a "Push" model, a master server pushes the configuration and software to the individual servers and runs commands remotely. While neither technique is right or wrong, they both have some specific advantages and disadvantages that you should understand when making a decision. In the ruby hosting world, an example of a "push" deployment is heroku , while Engine Yard is an example of a "pull" type deployment. In the Pull model, each server has information about how to obtain it's configuration, when it boots (or whatever the configuration triggering event happens to be) it can continue to proceed without intervention from the master server. In the Push model, because the master server is orchestrating things, it will typically need to have a c
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

Installing virtualbox guest additions on Centos 7 minimal image

-
I've just spent some time setting up a bare Centos 7 image to support development stripping out as much as possible. While CoreOS is probably a better choice, we run redhat in production at this point and centos is a better fit for the time being. The problem I've found is that many of the instructions available via google were written against prerelease versions or espouse manually installing random rpms instead of just using yum. While I get this "works", I'm not a huge fan of this approach and would rather do everything with the package manager. After a LOT of scouring and trial and error, I finally found the "magic" combination. The winner is courtesy of http://www.pc-freak.net/ . I've taken these instructions and tweaked them slightly for my purposes. The original poster did this on a more "full fledged" version of centos with a windows host and my instructions are for a minimal install using and OSX host (though I'm certa
Read more