LiteBytes from Lustratus Research

Morgan Stanley goes SOA

Morgan Stanley was recently talking about its major SOA investment spanning the last 18 months.  Implemented in its Global Wealth Management division , the justification for SOA was to give advisors and clients an integrated view of more accurate information, more quickly.  As with most SOA projects of this scale, SOA isn't the whole story.  Morgan Stanley had to first upgrade the network infrastructure to give its branch network the bandwidth required, then implement SOA on top and finally use ETL to convert the data flowing through their service bus into the dashboards the advisors look at (and a customer portal).

Interesting aspects of the coverage include:

• The programme was a strategic initiative to make this division competitive now and into the future.  Technology is simply the enabler to that goal.
• A best of breed approach was taken to the technology: IBM for the SOA layer, Informatica for the ETL.
• Web Services were used extensively (In the drive to distinguish between SOA and Web Services, it is easy to dismiss Web Services.  They can and often are part of the SOA technology stack)
• The project included major rewrites of existing applications - to consolidate where possible and also to update so that they could be plugged into the SOA framework.
• The common problem of changing the development culture away from write-it-all-ourselves was stressed.

Ronan

Is your legacy integration just a veneer?

Summer seems to be a time for reading through that huge pile of interesting articles and magazines that you can only find time to look at on vacation. On flicking through my own mountain of stuff, I came across the Q2 edition of Financial-i, a magazine targeted at the Financial Services industry. One point to jump out at me was a comment from Paul Joynt of Nordea, a Scandinavian finance house.  Paul was pointing out that SOA does not necessarily solve the problems associated with legacy integration.

The article, 'SOA - is it worth the effort', is available from the Financial-i site if you register, but Paul comments that covering a legacy system with a wrapper "so it looks like what you want" still leaves problems with the next level of change, because "it's only a veneer".

I think Paul has hit on an important point here. Different vendors in the SOA space have different approaches to addressing the problem of integrating legacy systems. Some will simply 'hand off' the request for legacy information to a tool from the legacy supplier - in the case of IBM mainframes this might mean using WebSphereMQ as the bridge, for instance. Others might approach the problem in some sort of screen-scraping or other interface simulation approach, where the legacy application is fooled into thinking it is running in its normal mode of operations. Yet more may generate code-based wrappers for each individual need, to be executed whenever a particular service is required.

To me, this all sounds too much like veneer in Paul's terms. Although this might address immediate needs, future changes will continue to generate substantial additional work and the generation of more and more 'special-case' code and wrappers.

Instead, the best of breed legacy integration solution should embrace SOA and integration rather than try to fool it with wrappers designed to seal off the legacy world from the outside. Legacy integration should be about making the legacy system a full and active participant in the service definition and execution. For example, orchestration should be possible both outside and within the legacy environment. Services should be built with full participation from both sides. By taking this approach, the best of breed legacy integration tool will ensure that future changes will become easier, quicker, cheaper and more reliable.

For more information on the whole subject of legacy integration, specifically in the case of mainframe systems, Lustratus offers a free paper on the subject.

Steve

SOA for the scientific community - a practical example

I was intrigued to discover a discussion paper from the University of Southampton in the UK about how SOA is helping the scientific community. The paper, entitled 'A Collaborative Orthopaedic Research Environment', describes how SOA has been used to enable a Virtual Research Environment for orthopaedic researchers to collaborate in the design, analysis and dissemination of experiments.

What I found most interesting were the reasons for using SOA as the base architecture for this environment. The key objective, based on input from the specialists who will use the system, was to provide an easy way to share scientific data and results from collaborative research. However, it was deemed essential that the system could also evolve based on the changing requirements of the user community. One example of change that the paper gives is that of knowing which of a wide range of protocols will be followed for a particular clinical trial. Not only do these vary considerably, but it appears they are also susceptible to changes in regulations.

The solution decided to utilize a coarse level of services, essentially using just four - to manage the trial-related data, analyse it, submit and disseminate related research articles and support discussion forums. However, through the reliance on SOA, these services are flexible and extensible, making it much easier to address the changing needs of this particular scientific discipline. In addition, the services are reusable, and some could therefore be usable for other scientific areas.

It's good to see SOA being used to effectively address clear user needs in this way.

Steve

Microsoft moves into SOA as a Service

Microsoft recently made two SOA related announcements:  The next version of Biztalk will have a SOA veneer (commented on by Joe McKendrik ) and more interestingly Microsoft will lauch a  Software as a Service(SaaS) SOA offering. 

I blogged previously about how SaaS itself increases the requirement for integration as multiple SaaS based applications must be integrated together.  This has the potential to derail SaaS initiatives – particularly in smaller organisations without sufficient IT skills and budget to deliver on an integration strategy (SOA based or otherwise). 

Microsoft is taking a different angle on the SOA and SaaS story by focusing on cross-department integration and attempting to solve particularly painful aspects of the problem with SaaS offerings that will be called collectively Biztalk Services.  In essence, each service hits a specific integration issue which would otherwise require a potentially large investment in infrastructure.  The first two are:

• Identity: allowing management of users across departments and organisations and
• Connectivity: providing enterprise style message (pub-sub for instance) across the internet with appropriate security – thus making ‘safe’ exposure of a SOA service across multiple organisations.

Their picks of identity and connectivity for the first two services is smart as both are inevitably part of any cross-departmental SOA project.  The strategy is also smart as it neatly leverages where Microsoft is already strong (at the department level and in SMB) and where the SOA skills shortage is hitting hardest. 

As such I don’t think it is necessary to look at this announcement through Google-tinted glasses and disagree with Ron Schmelzer of Zapthink who is quoted as saying:

"I think Microsoft is really rethinking a lot of their server infrastructure because Google is a competitive threat,"

Microsoft is not doubt thinking hard about Google but it is only fair to point out that this is not a market where Google is relevant as yet and it is not a new departure for Microsoft or even Biztalk:  Biztalk was originally about internet-based integration as this article from 2000 shows.

Ronan

WS-Madness

OK, I think it is time to stop all the WS-Madness. Web services standards have become a complete joke. As far as I can see, there are now at least 70 (seventy) web services standards and drafts - more than anyone could humanly want, and enough to create chaos, and completely negate the advantages of standards in the first place. Standards are supposed to increase choice, but with so many the likelihood is it will actually REDUCE choice (do you support standards 27, 39 and 40? no, I support 23, 42 and 63 though, any good?).

So, who is to blame for this debacle? Well, the blame is pretty evenly spread. Perhaps the most obvious target is the vendors, who have unashamedly used WS standards as a battleground to try to create differentiation from competition. So, by creating a standard that fits in with ones own design, it is then possible to use this as a reason for rejecting other players. However, vendors are easy targets - but are they really the villains here? After all, you could argue that they are just doing what they have to do - trying to compete, to win business and pay their employees / shareholders. The next obvious choice is the standards bodies themselves. Sadly, there are many 'professional' standards body members who get intellectual kudos from defining standards - whether they are worth anything or not. But even this may be missing the point.

Perhaps, instead, blame should be turned on users. The vendors have stepped in because of two things - the opportunity created by the desire for standards in the SOA space, and the vacuum resulting from the failure of users to take an active role. Similarly, standards bodies have leapt into the void because in a way they have to generate standards to have any worth in the world. But the real accusation is that the standards are rubbish - most are immature, many are useless or pedantic. In other words, they do not add value for SOA users and implementers. And isn't this a case of users getting what they asked for? If users don't want to get involved to ensure the RIGHT standards are created, that really mean something to users, then they cannot complain when others jump in to fill the vacuum.

My advice to users on web services standards is to ignore all but the important ones - SOAP, WSDL, WS-Security, and maybe WS-Addressing although this is not as mature as the other three. Then take a more active role to ensure these standards mature into what you actually NEED.

Steve