Microsoft Patterns & Practices Summit 2007 - Day 1
The topic of Day 1: Architecture.
Keynote - Anders Hejlsberg
Anders showed a great demo of LINQ. Not having had time myself to do much with LINQ, it was nice to see several of the features working and learn a little more about how LINQ works from the inside as well as seeing some of the C# 3.0 features.
The idea behind LINQ is that we’ve pretty much run the gamut of possibilities in imperative programming - declarative programming still has a lot of new ground to cover. Rather than spending time imperatively writing out not only what data you want but how you want to get it, LINQ lets you declaratively write what data you want and let the framework take care of the work. Easier to write, easier to maintain.
The biggest source of conflict I have with LINQ is that age-old argument of whether you write SQL in your code and query the database tables directly or whether you use stored procedures. I’m a stored procedure guy. (Which, peripherally, explains why I’m not a big fan of the Active Record pattern - I don’t want my database schema extended into my code. A class per table? What happens when my schema changes? No, no, no.)
Luckily, Microsoft officially abstains from this battle. You can use LINQ that generates SQL or you can use stored procedures. Everyone’s happy. I’m looking forward to this.
A Software Patterns Study: Where Do You Stand? - Dragos Manolescu
This was more of an interactive presentation where Manolescu brought to our attention (via polling the audience) that while we all claim to use software patterns, most of us don’t really know where the resources are to read up on new pattern developments and contribute to the community. Publicity is a problem for the patterns community and that needs to be fixed.
Architecture of the Microsoft ESB Guidance - Marty Masznicky
I’m not sure if it was intended to be this way, but this was less a presentation on enterprise service bus guidance than it was a sales pitch for BizTalk server. We learned a lot of how BizTalk handled things like exceptions and logging… and that’s about it.
Pragmatic Architecture - Ted Neward
Neward’s talk was sort of a reality check for folks who claim to be architects. He started out by talking about the Joel On Software “Hammer Factory” example - “Why I Hate Frameworks.” The danger: following patterns for the sake of following patterns. Doing things in a purist fashion for the sake of idealism. While it’s important to have a good system architecture, you can’t ignore the end goal - working software.
Architects need to understand project goals and constraints and reassess these when change happens. Architects need to evaluate new tools, technologies and processes to determine their usefulness to a given project. Don’t just implement something because it’s new and cool or because it’s “best practice” - do what makes sense.
Architecting a Scalable Platform - Chris Brown
This was a discussion of things to think about when you’re working on a scalable platform. Things like using content distribution networks and unified logging were touched on.
The biggest point here was the notion of building in fault tolerance. One example is the “gold box” on the Amazon.com web site. The “gold box” is actually an independent service that has a certain amount of time to respond. If it doesn’t respond, the page will render without rendering the “gold box” feature - it gracefully degrades. Scalable systems need to consider how to handle fault tolerance and appropriately degrade (or report to the user) when things go wrong.
Grid Security - Jason Hogg
The discussion here was on SecPAL - the Microsoft Research “Security Policy Assertion Language.” It’s basically a query language that allows you to easily write queries to determine if a user is authorized to do something. Using a common language and infrastructure, you can fairly easily implement things like delegation in a system. There are even visualizers and things to help you determine how authorization decisions were made - very cool.
I won’t lie - some of this got a little above my head. There’s a lot here and I can see some great applications for it in our online banking application, but the concrete notion of exactly how I’d go about implementing it and what it means is something I’m going to have to noodle on for a while and maybe do a couple of test projects.
Moving Beyond Industrial Software - Harry Pierson
Pierson’s idea is that we need to stop thinking about software in a “factory” sense - cranking out applications - and start thinking about software in a different sense. Put the user in control. Stop trying to directly address ever-changing business needs and enable business people to address their own needs. Think outside the box.
The canonical example offered here was SharePoint - it’s not really an application so much as an infrastructure. Users create their own spaces for their own needs in SharePoint and it’s not something that needs interaction from IT or the application developers. It puts the users in control.
This is another one I’m going to have to think about. This sounds like it applies more to IT development than it does with “off-the-shelf” style product development. How we, as product developers, think outside the box and how we can change for the better is something to consider.