Archive for April, 2008

In Conversation

April 24th, 2008  |  Published in Consumer-Driven Contracts by Ian Robinson

You’d be forgiven for thinking I’ve got nothing else to talk about…

In preparation for the launch of the ThoughtWorks Anthology, each of the authors recorded a short podcast in which they discuss their essay. Mine is online now. It’s four minutes tops – the perfect aural companion as you huddle outside with a cigarette.

If you like that, you might like this: a couple of years ago, Martin Fowler and I did an interview with Microsoft’s Ron Jacobs on the Evolution of Architecture. As per usual, I’m a one-note band…

Atom   RSS 2.0   Email

A Contract Vocabulary: Part 3

April 20th, 2008  |  Published in Consumer-Driven Contracts by Ian Robinson

This is the last of a three-part series of posts discussing the contract vocabulary aspects of my article Consumer-Driven Contracts. The other posts are here:

In this post I’m going to address a few questions and puzzles:

  • Does Consumer-Driven Contracts really achieve a separation of concerns?
  • Are consumer-driven contracts applicable only in point-to-point scenarios?
  • Never mind the theory, is all this feasible in practice?

A Separation of Concerns?

Is the triumvirate of provider, consumer and consumer-driven contracts a true separation of concerns? The goal of any separation of concerns is to allow functions [to] be optimized independently of other functions. Mark Baker suggests that we will have successfully separated concerns if variations in [concern] A do not induce or require a corresponding change in [concern] B (and usually, the converse). Do our three contracts pass this test?

By distinguishing between provider and consumer contracts we make explicit the fact that one half of the provider-consumer relationship ought to be able to change without inducing a corresponding change in the other half – within limits. Providers ought to be able to evolve their contracts without obliging their consumers to change – just so long as they continue to satisfy existing obligations. Consumers ought to be able to modify their consumption of a provider’s existing services without requiring either that their peers change or that the provider itself be updated – up to the point they require new functionality of the service provider.

These limit cases suggest that our concerns here are not so much separated as separating. What prevents an absolute separation is the very thing that constitutes some measure of success for any distributed system: good services are used, and in being used, become a “victim” of their own success. These limits to the separation of concerns are surfaced as a third type of contract: the consumer-driven contract. Such contracts measure the success of a service, insofar as they catalogue its obligations, whilst at the same time describing when and where a variation in concern A (the provider contract) will induce a change in concern B (one or more consumer contracts).

Service Indirection

Another question I sometimes get asked is: aren’t your three contracts really only applicable in point-to-point scenarios, where consumers communicate directly with a service provider?

It’s important here to distinguish between the accountability of a service and its location. As a consumer of services, I tend to want to delegate my business to providers I trust, even if I don’t quite know where the specific person, department or office dealing with my request is located. Accountability in this instance is really shorthand for my ability to determine whether a provider is capable of satisfying my functional and quality-of-service requirements, and thereafter to demand traceability of it in respect of any requests I make. I’d be foolish to delegate my interests to some anonymous party I know nothing about, and from whom I can’t secure a guarantee of accountability, which is why I tend to draw back from an SOA-ad-absurdum that encourages me to fling messages into the “cloud,” to be satisfied by “something,” “somewhere.”

The key point here is that consumer-driven contracts require a site of responsibility or accountability. Mediated, brokered and routed messaging scenarios are perfectly amenable to consumer-driven contracts just so long as they don’t diminish service responsibility. It may be that I delegate some of my due diligence activities to a broker, which then matches my requirements against trusted providers; but even here, where I don’t know who exactly is satisfying my requests, I have a trust relationship, an expectation-obligation relationship, with at least one party – the broker – and therefore a potential site for consumer-driven contracts.

Theory into Practice

I ended my last post with the suggestion that in many cases it’s useful for a service provider to know something of its consumer-driven contract. Assuming you do want to know more about a provider’s current contractual obligations, we then need to ask: can you in fact discover what those obligations are? Can you identify a service’s consumers?

The answers to these questions will vary according to the environment in which a service provider is situated. In an enterprise environment, one in which the landscape is well known, it is often possible to identify all consumers of a service. Outside the enterprise, things may be more difficult. Services on the Web, for example, may have a largely anonymous clientele, making it near impossible to discover “existing” contractual obligations.

That’s not the end of the problem. Even if you can identify a consumer, it may still prove difficult to establish whether a relationship between that consumer and the provider is in fact currently in force. Whilst many such relationships are long-lived, particularly in the enterprise (I’m not talking about long-lived instances of a connection or transaction, merely the fact that for some period of time we can confidently say that service X is likely to collaborate or have some relation with service Y to satisfy such-and-such a business process), others are more ad hoc and less easily identified – a function of an agent crawling a service inventory, perhaps. In these circumstances, a snapshot of contractual obligations, even if some such thing could be generated, may well have some fuzzy edges.

The twin issues of the liveness and lifetimes of consumer-driven contracts and the consumer contracts from which they are derived are of renewed interest to me today. When does a consumer-driven contract begin? When does it end? When does it change?

I’ve no doubt that all three kinds of contract – provider, consumer and consumer-driven – are more or less in play in every distributed interaction, irrespective of the architectural and implementation decisions that have helped shape that interaction. But it’s clear to me now that the separation of concerns described in my original article was influenced heavily by the relatively static nature of the Web Services stack’s contract mechanism. WSDL is an upfront (partial) declaration of a provider contract. Clients activate an application protocol – engage in a conversation with a service – by invoking the operations that have been published in the WSDL (the protocol’s not inherent in the contract, only the levers by which it can be activated). By contrast, more RESTful services allow for a certain dynamism in the conversational aspects of a provider contract: representations in and of themselves advertise the levers by which a client can advance the application protocol, and they do this without reference to some pre-existing static contract map. Provider contracts in such services are “for the now,” and are exhausted in being consumed.

How do the forces at play in a RESTful interaction affect our understanding of consumer-driven contracts? If they make it more difficult to describe consumer relations outside of a specific instance of an interaction, do they not also make it correspondingly less important to know something of the consumer relation? My thinking is not settled on these issues. Sometimes I’m inclined to think of a consumer-driven contract as a resource, as a promise to provide such-and-such, to be provisioned by the provider for a certain period of time; at other times I prefer to see it as a function of per-request content negotiation. More on this another time.

Summary

In summary, Consumer-Driven Contracts describes in some detail the forces in play in any loosely coupled relationship. It does this by proposing that three types of contract exist between service providers and consumers. Real-world implementations of distributed systems exhibit all three types of contract, but the degree to which we can describe each contract, and the need to do so, varies according to the context.

Atom   RSS 2.0   Email

Events in April

April 4th, 2008  |  Published in Events by Ian Robinson

I’m going to be speaking at a couple of events towards the end of April:

Microsoft Architect Insight Conference

On the 29th April I’ll be presenting at the Microsoft Architect Insight Conference on the topic of Enterprise Web Integration Using .NET 3.5. The talk illustrates how Web-friendly integration methods helped a large company with over 60 systems solve their more serious integration and process agility issues. Traditional enterprise integration approaches having been tried and found wanting, the company adopted Web-based syndication to supply timely events to the systems implementing its key business processes.

Faced with an expensive, complex and tightly coupled database integration strategy, the integration team decided to take a consumer-driven approach to identifying the significant interactions between business functions. The team identified the minimum set of business-meaningful interactions necessary to implement a distributed business process, and then surfaced those interactions as first-class citizens of the systems estate in a Web-friendly, resource-oriented manner.

The session includes code samples that show how the solution surfaced business interactions as Atom feeds using the syndication features built into .NET 3.5.

Some of the key advantages of this approach:

  • Web-based integration approaches require minimal upfront infrastructure investment
  • Business-meaningful interactions become first-class citizens of the service estate, rather than being buried inside a database replication strategy or middleware platform
  • Interactions with well-defined business semantics drive out the minimum of functionality required to satisfy a business capability
  • Consumer expectations imported into a service provider in the form of tests or assertions comprise the contract between the provider and its consumers
Event
Microsoft Architect Insight Conference
Description
Enterprise Web Integration Using .NET 3.5.
Date
29th April
Time
12 pm1 pm
Location
Beaumont House

Burfield Road
Old Windsor
Berkshire
SL4 2JP

ThoughtWorks Anthology Calgary Launch

The next day, 30th April, I’ll be on the other side of the planet, attending the ThoughtWorks Anthology launch in Calgary. Also in attendance will be Stelios Pantazopoul and ThoughtWorks’s CTO, Rebecca Parsons. We’ll talk a little about our contributions to the book, snaffle the wine, and then head off to the James Joyce for a quick “standup.”

Event
Calgary launch of the ThoughtWorks Anthology
Date
30th April
Time
5.30 pm7 pm
Location
McNally Robinson

120 8th Ave SW
Calgary
AB T2P 1B3

Add to your calendar

Atom   RSS 2.0   Email

A Contract Vocabulary: Part 2

April 1st, 2008  |  Published in Consumer-Driven Contracts by Ian Robinson

In my last post I described Consumer-Driven Contracts as an attempt at a contract vocabulary with three core terms: provider contracts, consumer contracts and consumer-driven contracts. In this post I’ll flesh out each of those terms.

Provider Contracts

These are the contracts with which many of us imbued with service-oriented concepts will be most familiar. They’re the contracts identified in that hoary old tenet, “Services share schemas and contracts, not classes and types.” Provider contracts mark services as king of their own domain – “this is what I am, what I offer, take it or leave it.” They’re the first-line defence in the struggle to preserve service autonomy. As I suggested in my previous post, in the WS-* world provider contracts typically comprise some or all of WSDL plus XML Schema plus WS-Policy.

Consumer Contracts

These kinds of contract are really a private affair, particular to a specific consumer – to the way in which that consumer uses a service. In short, a consumer contract is a description of the parts of the service in which the consumer is really interested, the parts upon which it really depends. These might be interfaces, parts of an interface, operations, schemas, parts of schemas, quality-of-service characteristics, etc.: all those things I cheerfully labelled “a logical set of exportable business function elements.” More often than not, these specific usage characteristics remain implicit, and can be gleaned only be diving into the implementation of the consumer.

Some consumers need everything a provider exports: schemas, operations, endpoints, policies, and so on. More often than not, however, a consumer really only needs a subset of what the provider offers. Some consumers import only what is absolutely necessary, and ignore or tolerate changes in all the rest, but others will import or bind to everything, irrespective of its usefulness. Binding to everything might be appropriate in some circumstances, but at other times it’s a real barrier to evolution.

Oddly enough, I get the feeling that when people refer to consumer-driven contracts, they’re actually talking about consumer contracts. Most of the practical work in the area of service evolution seeks to reduce the amount of knowledge a consumer must have of a provider, whether it’s knowledge of a provider’s implementation (almost always a bad idea), or knowledge of parts of a provider contract that really have no bearing on the consumer. After all, knowledge is a dependency, isn’t it? Reduce the consumer’s knowledge of the provider – limit the scope of the consumer contract – and so achieve just enough coupling, no more.

I suggest it’s useful for consumers to know what their consumer contracts are.

Consumer-Driven Contracts

In the original article I also called these derived contracts, but I don’t often use that term: “consumer-driven contracts” was suggested to me by Robin Shorrock, and I much prefer it – though if you’ve been test-, behaviour-, budget- and whatnot- driven to a frenzy, you might prefer “derived.”

Consumer-driven contracts bring the contractual forces back home to the provider. Assume for a moment that you could identify all the current consumers of your service; assume also that for each consumer you could know its consumer contract. A consumer-driven contract is the aggregate of all these consumer contracts. It’s a snapshot of existing contractual relations: it’s what the provider has to do to really satisfy existing dependencies, as opposed to what it started off offering. On the one hand, the provider offers a provider contract – “all that I am” – on the other, based on some set of current consumer expectations, it’s obliged to maintain only some portion of this contract. (Note that in some cases this “some portion” might in fact be everything that a provider offers under its provider contract, in which case its provider and consumer-driven contract look similar.)

Whilst we can say that a weak form of consumer-driven contract is implicit in all provider-consumer relations, Consumer-Driven Contracts took the idea a little further, suggesting that consumers might wish to import their consumer contracts into the provider, thereby surfacing an explicit consumer-driven contract.

Now the thorny question is: should you really seek to identify a provider’s “real” contractual obligations? After all, isn’t this extra knowledge, and isn’t extra knowledge an extra dependency, a tightening of the coupling screw?

My first response is to point out that these consumer expectations, and the provider’s obligation to satisfy them, exist whether we like it or not. Change something upon which a consumer currently depends, and you might very well break that consumer. Wouldn’t it be useful to know what you can and can’t change about a provider’s exported functionality, its provider contract, based on a “current” view of consumer relations? Wouldn’t this perhaps help you plan and govern the evolution of your service in response to changing business requirements?

I suggest that in many cases it’s useful for a provider to know what its consumer-driven contract is.

Atom   RSS 2.0   Email