Skip to main content

Microsoft Demonstrates Component Thinking


Loraine Lawson over at the IT Business Edge Integration blog discusses Microsoft’s entry into the MDM space in her most recent post.  She notes that:

“I was also intrigued to learn that the whole thing is API-based. Why does that matter? As Hayler explains, it allows ISVs to build apps on top of MDS. That's a good thing, since the description of MDS sounds pretty bare-bones at this point. The idea seems to be that ISVs will be able to build on better user interfaces and create support for things like version comparison, which, oddly, it does not provide out of the box.”

I was surprised at this bit of thinking.  It’s always nice when a vendor product provides ways of extending it’s functionality.  It’s occasionally useful for enterprise IT shops, and often useful for niche vendor’s or ISV’s looking for opportunities to extend a major vendor’s product(s).  But that’s some old school thinking.

Since the early days of COM (Microsoft’s Common Object Model), followed by COM+ and ActiveX, Microsoft has been exposing component level capabilities of their products.  Thus, not only could their products be used for their primary purpose, but they could be leveraged to provide modular capabilities to other applications.

Take a look here…  This is a presentation slide showing the object palette of the BPM tool from Acentn, Agilepoint:

image

It’s a little hard to see (click for larger image), but notice the Microsoft exposed functionality – Exchange server can be used to create meetings, appointments, and read them later (calendar engine), Excel can be used to read data, write data, and perform calculations (calculation engine), Active Directory can be directly accessed to manage a user base (user management engine), and Sharepoint + Infopath can be access to generate a variety of automated portal functions.  Even Word can be used as a print engine.

So when Microsoft says their MDM tool is exposing it’s functionality via an API layer (SOA based I hope), my thought is how I’ll be able to orchestrate that functionality into business solutions I’m architecting, and how well they’ll fit various BPM processes being created.

Extending the application is nice, decomposing the application into function modules (with an easy to access open standards SOAP API) is Service Oriented Architecture.  In this area Microsoft’s thinking is way ahead of the competition.

Popular posts from this blog

Integration Spaghetti™

  I’ve been using the term Integration Spaghetti™ for the past 9 years or so to describe what happens as systems connectivity increases and increases to the point of … unmanageability, indeterminate impact, or just generally a big mess.  A standard line of mine is “moving from spaghetti code to spaghetti connections is not an improvement”. (A standard “point to point connection mess” slide, by enterprise architect Jerry Foster from 2001.) In the past few days I’ve been meeting with a series of IT managers at a large customer and have come up with a revised definition for Integration Spaghetti™ : Integration Spaghetti™ is when the connectivity to/from an application is so complex that everyone is afraid of touching it.  An application with such spaghetti becomes nearly impossible to replace.  Estimates of change impact to the application are frequently wrong by orders of magnitude.  Interruption in the integration functioning are always a major disaster – both in terms of th

Solving Integration Chaos - Past Approaches

A U.S. Fortune 50's systems interconnect map for 1 division, "core systems only". Integration patterns began changing 15 years ago. Several early attempts were made to solve the increasing problem of the widening need for integration… Enterprise Java Beans (J2EE / EJB's) attempted to make independent callable codelets. Coupling was too tight, the technology too platform specific. Remote Method Invocation (Java / RMI) attempted to make anything independently callable, but again was too platform specific and a very tightly coupled protocol. Similarly on the Microsoft side, DCOM & COM+ attempted to make anything independently and remotely callable. However, as with RMI the approach was extremely platform and vendor specific, and very tightly coupled. MQ created a reliable independent messaging paradigm, but the cost and complexity of operation made it prohibitive for most projects and all but the largest of Enterprise IT shops which could devote a focused technology

From Spaghetti Code to Spaghetti Connections

Twenty five years ago my boss handed me the primary billing program and described a series of new features needed. The program was about 4 years old and had been worked on by 5 different programmers. It had an original design model, but between all the modifications, bug fixes, patches and quick new features thrown in, the original design pattern was impossible to discern. Any pattern was impossible to discern. It had become, to quote what’s titled the most common architecture pattern of today, ‘a big ball of mud’. After studying the program for several days, I informed my boss the program was untouchable. The effort to make anything more than a minor adjustment carried such a risk, as the impact could only be guessed at, that it was easier and less risky to rewrite it from scratch. If they had considered the future impact, they never would have let a key program degenerate that way. They would have invested the extra effort to maintain it’s design, document it property, and consider