March 31, 2008
@ 10:00 AM
While I personally don't like the Singleton pattern too much (it is essentially an OO mask for Global Variables, it makes it harder to unit test etc.), I still need to use them now and then. Anyway, I saw a post by Jack Altiere about "Using the Singleton Pattern" in .NET and since it presents an implementation that leaves a lot to be desired I decided to comment on that

For one, he presents a solution which locks every time the singleton is accessed (see below). The reason this is flawed is that singletons are instantiated once, but they are accessed a lot of times and with this implementation you pay every time you try to access the singleton

//bad implementation - don't use
//also note some initialization etc. is omitted for brevity
public static Foo Instance
{
get
{
// This lock allows thread safety.
lock (_mutex)
{
if (_instance == null)
_instance = new Foo();
return _instance;
}
}
}

There's a better "standard" way to do that which basically means you check if the the instance is null, lock, check again (in case more than one thread got past the first check ) and only then instantiate (you'd also need to mark the instance volatile in this case)
.NET has a better way to create thread safe singletons by merely using a static readonly declaration as in:
public  sealed class singleton
{
public static readonly MySigleton Instance = new MySingleton()
}



This implementation is not as lazy as the implementations above - but it is thread safe an efficient (you can get more laziness if you use a nested class as described here)

But that's not all- see, one of the problems of the Singleton pattern (besides the ones mentioned above) is that it is also a violation of the Single Responsibility Principle (SRP see OO primer). You can solve this problem if you use Generics and create something like C++'s template based Singleton class:
namespace ConsoleApplication5
{
class Singleton<T> where T : new()
{
private static readonly T inst = new T();

public static T Instance
{
get { return inst; }
}
}
}


and then use that simply by doing something like Singleton<MyClass>.Instance
[update]
Eran points out that Jack's code is not only inefficient but also not thread safe (see Eran's post on the subject) - basically you need to make the instance variable volatile just like in the double check scenario

Reshef points to the "Static Gateway Pattern" as an alternate  way to get the singleton effect. While we are talking about other possibilities, I should have probably mentioned that the usual way I handle situation where I need a single instance is instantiating one instance on the main/loader thread and then just using dependency injection... :)


 
Tags: .NET | Design

March 30, 2008
@ 11:07 PM
I never really understood would I want to use sticky notes/cards  in my agile projects rather than use a software tools. After all we write software for others - how can we say that software is not a good enough solution for us ?
For instance, in our team we use Mingle by Thoughtworks. I think it is one of the best tools for project management I've ever used.  Its serves us well for sprint planning, daily scrums etc. Among other things it gives you "digital" sticky notes which you can drag around to move between statuses or whatnot - just perfect.

And yet, last week when we were pushing for completing our first major milestone I decided to try real sticky notes, and finally I understood the difference - constant visibility. Computerized tasks seem to be just as accessible as physical cards but in fact they aren't. Yes, everyone can see the status whenever they want. But the fact that you can doesn't mean that you do. Digital cards don't have the "in-your-face" kind of effect that always visible notes has. I've seen a notable  difference in maintaining the dev team's focus and making managers (the CEO in my case) feel they are in the loop and that progress is constantly made.
My conclusion is clear. While I still use electronic tools, I guess, until we'd have large enough e-ink boards to allow us to get the same effect physicals cards give us I'll just have to keep restocking my sticky notes inventory :)


 
This post is part of a series of posts trying to define SOA as an architectural style. In the previous post I talked about SOA and the Layered architecture style (which generated a couple of follow-ups - one on layered architecture in general, one on its importance for SOA and on on layers in enterprise architecture vs. solution architecture)

The next architectural style SOA builds on is Pipes and Filters, Unlike Layers and Client/server which I described in previous installments, Pipes and Filter is not also a base style for REST. This basically, this style is where SOA and REST begin to diverge.
The pipes and filters architectural style defines two types of components - yep you've guessed it, Pipes and Filters.
Filters -  are independent processing steps they are constrained to be autonomous of each other and not share state, control thread etc.
Pipes - are interconnecting channels


Each filter exposes a relatively simple interface where it can receive  messages on an inbound pipe, process tthem and produce  messages on outbound pipes. The idea behind this is to allow easy composability thus allowing greater usage (also known as "reuse" - I'll discuss the difference in another post). Systems are composed of several filters working together, filters can be replaced with newer version (provided they keep the same interface) etc.
On the downside the overall latency is increased , since to accomplish a task you have to move from filter to filter.

The pipes and filters style brings to SOA things like the autonomy of services, the sense of explicit boundaries. For instance, this is the basis for why you wouldn't want to do distributed transactions across service boundaries, which I blogged about several times before.

The pipes part of the "pipes and filters" also means that the wiring can be taken care of outside of the services themselves and that you can control them externally, this works well with ithe use of middleware (service bus). Additionally Fielding (you know, the REST guy) also mentions that
"One aspect of PF styles that is rarely mentioned is that there is an implied "invisible hand" that arranges the configuration of filters in order to establish the overall application. A network of filters is typically arranged just prior to each activation, allowing the application to specify the configuration of filter components based on the task at hand and the nature of the data streams (configurability). This controller function is considered a separate operational phase of the system, and hence a separate architecture, even though one cannot exist without the other."
Which is the harbinger of the orchestration/choreography aspects of SOA.

So as you see, pipes and filters is one of the important pilars of SOA, in the next part (unless I'll have to clarify things about this post) I'll talk about the last architectural style SOA builds upon "Distributed Agents".


 
If you recall what I currently work on is a type of a visual search engine. In a nutshell when we get a request (image) we allocate a bunch of algorithmic engines in a grid like manner to process the image  (e.g. try to perform OCR or whatever). As it happens, we are developing the different components using several different environments(*) - e.g. the control bits run on windows (.NET) and most algorithms run on Linux (mostly C++).
The need for easy cross-platform communications and extensibility, the resource nature of the solution and a few other tidbits led us to design our solution in a RESTful manner.

If you are a .NET developer/architect and wanted you may know that to implement a RESTful application in Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) you really have to jump through hoops.For instance  you have to go back to basics and use the HttpRequest and HttpResponse, handle the breakdown and parsing of URI hierarchies yourself not to mention  fight  with the  bindings .

Fortunetly this all changed with WCF 3.5. True, .Net doesn't have (to my knowledge anyway) something like RESTlets, but at least building REST on http is pretty straightforward.

Consider for example the following excerpt:

    [ServiceContract(Namespace = "http://paperlnx.Contracts/2007/12", Name = "ISessions")]
public interface ISessions
{
[OperationContract]
[WebGet(UriTemplate = "/Sessions/{sessionId}")]
[ServiceKnownType(typeof(Atom10FeedFormatter))]
SyndicationFeedFormatter ListSessionStatus(string sessionId);
.
.
.

With these 6 lines of code you see the essence of  the .NET 3.5 REST goodies
  1. Integrated support for HTTP verbs  - The sample above shows the support for GET. You can get the other verbs almost as easy with the WebInvoke Attribute. To do that simply specify the verb you want e.g.   [WebInvoke(Method = "PUT")] , [WebInvoke(Method="DELETE")] etc.

  2. Support for URI templates -  In a way not too far from Joe Gregorio's IETF draft , WCF supports the notion of providing a way to describe families of URIs. This is done using the UriTemplate class. The WebGet and WebInvoke attributes also accept URI templates as variables and map the variable values (the curly brackets ones {}) to parameters of methods.
  3. Support for standard  formats - you can use plain XML or you can choose to use RSS and ATOM syndication formats. In its most basic form you just create a syndicationfeed and format it to atom feed. Which is what we do for error messages:

    public static SyndicationFeedFormatter GenerateAtomError(string errormessage, string description,Uri location)
    {
    SyndicationFeed feed = new SyndicationFeed(errormessage, description, location);
    return new Atom10FeedFormatter(feed);
    }
    Naturally you can also add items and element extensions to all elements (e.g. the feed or items)

All in all, I am a happy camper :) After all, when you make an architectural decision, you always need to review it once you opted for an underlying technology. Even when a decision is right. The friction caused by a  technology which doesn't accommodate it well can both make your life miserable and make a good decision bad. .NET 3.5 with its newly added support for REST increases the architectural freedom and that's always a good thing




* Among other things, it helps us avoid the "Network is homogeneous" fallacy - but that's another story :)


 
Tags: .NET | Design | REST

March 6, 2008
@ 09:14 PM
Jack Van Hoof has a different view than I have on the difference between Tiers and Layers. I am not sure I agree with his view, but it still provides an interesting read. I think  the main difference between our respective views is that Jack takes a look form the enterprise-architecture angle which gives him layers like
  • Technical infrastructure - OS, directory Services etc.
  • Application infrastructure - Apps, Portals, DBMSs
  • Application Landscape - SOA, EDA
  • Bushiness Processes - BPM
Jack uses the term tier for layers within the same level of abstraction. for instance he gives the following examples:
"E.g. the layer of business services may be arranged in the tiers: front-office, mid-office and back-office. At the next lower layer, the application layer, services may be arranged in the tiers: UI, business logic and data persistency. The interaction of services between two tiers may be bidirectional (but may also be constrained to unidirectional). "
The perspective I have (or at least try to maintain in this blog) is the solution/product line architecture - basically living within Jack's application layers. So in my view I want to know and differentiate between the difference of having a UI and business logic live on the same machine vs. having them distributed in the world. So I guess in the end both perspectives need to have their place and the problem is, like many other times,is  overloaded terms


 
Great news. Two of my friends and fellow DDJ bloggers, Eric Bruno and Udi Dahan have agreed to join my (now ours) SOA Patterns book which will be published by Manning.

Both Udi and Eric are competent and experienced architects who have experience designing SOAs . On the technology side -  Udi (“The software simplest”) specializes in .NET development e.g. his nServiceBus framework – which is a very good example for an endpoint-ware ServiceBus (vs. middleware ServiceBuses which is what most ESBs do).And  Eric, on the other hand, is a Java and C++ expert . Eric is the author of Java Messaging (one of the best books on JMS and web services ) and has also has a lot of experience in Financial systems. Together, the three of us bring a lot of real-life experience of building large and complicated system into this project.

The current game plan is for Eric to focus on the SOA pitfalls (“anti-patterns”) part of the book, Udi to provide a “putting-it-all-together” chapter , and for me to cover what’s left. I am sure however, that their experience and insight will also help make the other parts of the book (even? ) better.

If you are not familiar with the book - you may want to take a look at the first chapter and/or some of the published patterns like Saga, Service Firewall, Gridable Service, Edge Component and (a very early draft of) Aggregated Reporting pattern . Also you can take a look at the slides from my "SOA Patterns" presentation at Dr. Dobb's Architecture & Design world last year, which illustrates some additional patterns