SOA Is Not New -- Its Just Easier and "In"

Steve and others have been talking about SOA and it got me thinking that we basically had an SOA architecture where I previously worked (Roche Diagnostics), we just didn't know that was the terminology then.  We had a GUI application that needed to talk to a variable number of medical devices, which typically had a life of their own, so that any given task initiated from the GUI could take anywhere from a second or two to 15 minutes.  They could also start doing things on their own in some cases, and we also needed to be able to easily integrate new devices on the fly as customers bought more devices, or when we came out with new ones.  The first thing we did to solve this was specify that each device could only talk to its own "controller", which knew its own unique features (or problems), that ran in its own process.  Then we defined a set of common interfaces that the GUI and each controller had to do all of their communication through, which we then registered with the COM+ Event subsystem.  This allowed us to add new devices on the fly very easily, or even "test or monitoring controllers, since neither the GUI nor any of the controllers ever talked directly to each other.  We also specified that all communication with the COM+ Events interface was done through MSMQ Queued Components, which allowed everything to occur in its own time asynchronously, without blocking, while still being guaranteed.  Finally, we also had an "aspect" service for event logging and tracing, which was totally configurable to allow us to turn on different levels of logging, for all or just some devices.  This may not have been anything "sexy" by today's standards (no .NET or web services), but it was very much a service-oriented architecture, built on COM and COM+, taking advantage of COM+ Events and MSMQ.  The only thing that I never really liked about our architecture was our data tier, which always felt way too convoluted with its stored procedures that were wrapped by COM+ components, that were finally called by the GUI.  It was too late when I started learning about O/R mappers, which would have greatly simplified things by basically making an entity service.  Of course I would have had a hard time selling the O/R mapping stuff at Roche, but then again maybe not since the business upside would have been that we could have sold our product with any database rather easily.  So in my opinion SOA systems are not anything new, although there are certainly new ways to build them, which are easier than ever, although the downside of this is that many people are building SOA systems that don't need them.  Anyhow, the principles have been around for a long time -- loosely coupled contracts, whether that be interfaces or web services, often with asynchronous independence, possibly with guaranteed delivery, running in different processes or machines, or possibly even different networks.
Published Saturday, January 17, 2004 7:16 PM by PaulWilson

Comments

# re: SOA Is Not New -- Its Just Easier and "In"

Paul, When I first started hearing all the hype surrounding SOA I thought that I must be missing something since it sounded just like a lot of the principles that we use everyday. It took some reading and investigation to realize that there really isn't that much new with SOA. As you mentioned there is new ways to build them, as well as new standards to ensure we build them in an interoperable way, but most of the principles are things we've been doing.
- Steve

Monday, January 19, 2004 8:53 AM by Steve

Leave a Comment

(required) 
(required) 
(optional)
(required)