“Good enough” Architecture

In this presentation, we’ll take a look at some of the ways we can determine whether the development efforts we’re undertaking suffer from too much or too little focus on architecture. We’ll examine a number of real-world examples that are intended to inspire either admiration or terror, and try to find some recipes of how we can get more of the former and less of the latter in our own projects.

Transcript

1. “Good Enough” Architecture Stefan Tilkov stefan.tilkov@innoq.com @stilkov GOTO Berlin 2019 "Tegel Airport TXL Berlin May 2012 - 19" by andynash is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0
2. @stilkov (Software) Architecture Definitions Fundamental concepts or properties of a system in its environment embodied in its elements, relationships, and in the principles of its design and evolution (ISO 42010) Whatever the architect considers important enough to merit their attention Architecture represents the significant design decisions that shape a system, where significant is measured by cost of change (Grady Booch)
3. @stilkov Architecture is not an upfront activity performed by somebody in charge of telling everyone else what to do
4. @stilkov Architecture is a property of a system, not a description of its intended design
5. Pick the best car:
6. @stilkov Quality https://iso25000.com/index.php/en/iso-25000-standards/iso-25010
7. Scaling Dimensions Logic Load written in a day depends on German tax law a dozen users half of the planet Netflix Twitter Insurance Policy Management Facebook Amazon Random CMS
8. @stilkov There is no “good” or “bad” architecture without context; architecture needs to take specific quality attributes into account
9. Cases
10. @stilkov Context: • … Observation(s): • … Lesson(s) learned: • …
11. #1: Non-extensible Extensibility
12. @stilkov Context • E-Commerce (retail) provider • Global customer base • Catalog/CMS/Shop/Fulfillment • Multi-tenant • Highly customizable
13. @stilkov Large customers
 (“strategic”) Small customers
 (“long tail”) Specific General High Low (Acceptable)
 Cost Customization
 (Need) The Solution
14. @stilkov If your design attempts to satisfy everyone, you’ll likely end up satisfying no one
15. @stilkov Highly specific code is often preferable to sophisticated configuration
16. #2: Perilously fine-grained
17. @stilkov Context • Large-scale B2B food retailer • New company-wide shop and logistics system • >200 developers
18. @stilkov Team 1 Team 3 Team 2
19. @stilkov Order Service Support Fulfillment Billing Checkout
20. Why would you cut up your system into tiny, distributed, hard-to- manage fragments?
21. @stilkov Everybody wants to be Netflix, but nobody is
22. @stilkov
23. @stilkov …
24. @stilkov Order Service Support Fulfillment Billing Checkout
25. @stilkov Support Fulfillment Billing Checkout Order Service
26. @stilkov Lessons learned • Small is not always beautiful • Refactoring within team boundaries much easier than globally • Ignore organizational parameters at your own risk
27. #3: Your system WILL be dynamic
28. @stilkov Context • Large-scale insurance system • Model-driven development • > 100 developers • 2 Releases/year
29. @stilkov Modeling Business Concept 0 3 6 4 5 2 1 Technical Concept Implementation Module Test Integration Test Rollout Vision What if you miss your slot? Modeling
30. @stilkov Policy Holder Clause - id - value - dueDate - name - address - status - text - validity - taxClass * * regionCode Model Name New Name (Meaning) Description Release Introduced taxClass regionCode … 10.3 …
31. @stilkov Lessons learned • Centralized responsibility hurts • Faced with too much rigidity, a way around the rules will be found • Just because you’re used to it doesn’t mean it’s acceptable
32. #4: Free-style architecture
33. @stilkov Context • E-Commerce/Online shop (Retail) • 100-120 developers • ~10 self-contained teams
34. @stilkov number of developers strength of decoupling methods modules components μservices systems
35. @stilkov From a layered system … System Logic Data UI Module Module Module
36. @stilkov … to a system of systems System System System Logic Data UI Logic Data UI Logic Data UI
37. @stilkov In-page Cross-page JavaScript method calls Links & redirects Shared abstractions & frameworks Micro-architecture Common language runtime HTTP HTML 5 JS platform Standard Browser
38. @stilkov But … • Lack of standardization led to inefficient UI integration at runtime • Vast differences in API style, formats, documentation created needless extra work • Despite no centralised frontend, a central frontend team created a new bottle neck
39. @stilkov You cannot decide to not have an architecture; if you don’t actively create it, be prepared to deal with the one that emerges
40. @stilkov There’s a fine line between diversity (that adds value) and chaos (that doesn’t)
41. @stilkov Extremely loose coupling requires very few rules, but they need to be enforced strictly
42. #5: Cancerous Growth
43. @stilkov Context • Financial services provider with independent brokers as clients • ~30 developers • 20 years of company history
44. @stilkov Oracle DB Oracle Forms App
45. @stilkov Oracle DB Java/JSP Web App Lots of PL/SQL
46. @stilkov Oracle DB Java/JSP Web App Lots of PL/SQL .NET Web Service .NET Web Service .NET Web Service .NET Web Service
47. @stilkov Oracle DB Java/JSP Web App Lots of PL/SQL .NET Web Service .NET Web Service .NET Web Service .NET Web Service Oracle DB Java/JSP Web App Lots of PL/SQL .NET Web Service .NET Web Service .NET Web Service .NET Web Service Company A Company B
48. @stilkov Java/JSP Web App Lots of PL/SQL .NET Web Service .NET Web Service .NET Web Service .NET Web Service Oracle DB Java/JSP Web App Lots of PL/SQL .NET Web Service .NET Web Service .NET Web Service .NET Web Service Company A Company B
49. @stilkov Java/JSP Web App .NET Web Service .NET Web Service .NET Web Service .NET Web Service Oracle DB Java/JSP Web App .NET Web Service .NET Web Service .NET Web Service .NET Web Service Company A Company B Mongo Couch/Pouch Mongo MySQL
50. @stilkov Java/JSP Web App .NET Web Service .NET Web Service .NET Web Service .NET Web Service Oracle DB Java/JSP Web App .NET Web Service .NET Web Service .NET Web Service .NET Web Service Company A Company B Mongo Couch/Pouch Mongo MySQL C++ Encryption Lib
51. @stilkov Lessons learned • Successful systems often end up the worst architecture • Unmanaged evolution will lead to complete chaos • Don’t be afraid of some light architectural governance
52. #6: Improve with less intelligence
53. @stilkov Context • Bank with multiple CotS systems • Highly proprietary integration solution phased out by vendor • Project launched to replace commercial product with open source solution
54. @stilkov Magical Integration Broker Custom App CotS DB External Partner Other Group Company Parent Company External Partner Custom App Custom App CotS
55. @stilkov Magical Integration Broker Custom App CotS DB External Partner Other Group Company Parent Company External Partner Custom App Custom App CotS Magical Integration Broker Routing Conversion Transformation Transcoding Transport Error handling Business logic …
56. @stilkov Custom App CotS DB External Partner Other Group Company Parent Company External Partner Custom App Custom App CotS Pub/Sub Messaging
57. @stilkov Custom App CotS DB External Partner Other Group Company Parent Company External Partner Custom App Custom App CotS Pub/Sub Messaging Pub Sub Messaging Pub/Sub routing Transport Error handling Adapter (Docker Container) Conversion Transformation Transcoding Error handling Business logic
58. @stilkov Lessons learned • Smart endpoints, dumb pipes (cf. Jim Webber) • Value of specific over generic solutions • Micro architecture with blueprints
59. Takeaways
60. @stilkov 1. Don’t be afraid of architecture
61. @stilkov 2. Choose the simplest thing that will work
62. @stilkov 3. Create evolvable structures
63. @stilkov 4. Manage your system’s architectural evolution
64. @stilkov 5. Don’t build road blocks – create value and get out of the way
65. @stilkov Stefan Tilkov @stilkov stefan.tilkov@innoq.com Phone: +49 170 471 2625 innoQ Deutschland GmbH Krischerstr. 100 40789 Monheim am Rhein Germany Phone: +49 2173 3366-0 innoQ Schweiz GmbH Gewerbestr. 11 CH-6330 Cham Switzerland Phone: +41 41 743 0116 www.innoq.com Ohlauer Straße 43 10999 Berlin Germany Phone: +49 2173 3366-0 Ludwigstr. 180E 63067 Offenbach Germany Phone: +49 2173 3366-0 Kreuzstraße 16 80331 München Germany Phone: +49 2173 3366-0 @stilkov That’s all I have. Thanks for listening!
66. @stilkov www.innoq.com OFFICES Monheim Berlin Offenbach Munich Hamburg Zurich FACTS ~150 employees Privately owned Vendor-independent SERVICES Strategy & technology consulting Digital business models Software architecture & development Digital platforms & infrastructures Knowledge transfer, coaching & trainings CLIENTS Finance Telecommunications Logistics E-commerce Fortune 500 SMBs Startups
67. @stilkov Growing architectural maturity means less guidance and rules are needed
68. @stilkov The more experienced you are at (active and passive) architectural governance, the less you can do of it