David Chappell

  • September 2020
  • November 2017
  • April 2017
  • October 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • August 2015
  • April 2015
  • December 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003

Opinari

Get the Feed! Subscribe

What's Really Important About SCA  
# Tuesday, January 23, 2007
 
Service Component Architecture (SCA), the new technology under development by IBM, BEA, and others, provides two main things. One of them is a new programming model for building service-oriented business logic, a model that's mostly defined in a document called the Client and Implementation Model Specification for Java. The other is the ability to assemble business logic created using this new platform and/or existing platforms such as EJB and Spring into composites. How this is done is described mainly in SCA's Assembly Model Specification. Both are interesting reading, but so far, the latter spec has gotten much more attention. To the casual observer, in fact, assembling logic is what SCA is all about.

This is fundamentally wrong. True, the assembly aspects of SCA may well be broadly useful at some point. The idea of grouping diverse software into a single logical component allows creating graphical tools for defining and deploying this component, along with other interesting things. This approach has value, especially for the more service-oriented world we're heading into.

Yet does SCA's assembly capability address a major problem in the enterprise Java world today? I'd argue that the answer is no. The biggest challenge enterprise Java developers face is the complexity of their platform. There are too many APIs, each with too many options. Providing a simpler and more unified foundation for creating business logic would have real merit.

And this is exactly what SCA's new programming model does. Just as Microsoft's Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) provides a unified approach to the problems addressed by .NET's Enterprise Services, .NET Remoting, and ASPX, the SCA programming model covers the great majority of the useful scenarios currently addressed by EJB, Java RMI, and JAX-WS. Business logic built on SCA's new programming model can still use JSPs, JPA and other aspects of Java EE 5--SCA doesn't replace all of the enterprise Java APIs. Still, a common foundation for business logic certainly would simplify life for developers.

This aspect of SCA doesn't get the attention it deserves. The reason for this might be political, as promoting a replacement for key parts of Java EE 5 is bound to be contentious. It might also stem from people's natural enthusiasm for new technology, such as SCA's assembly mechanism, over a simplification of things that are already available. Yet Microsoft has successfully promoted WCF primarily as a better way to do things that are already possible with .NET. There's no shame in making significant improvements to what already exists.

It’s always fun to innovate, and SCA's assembly technology has potential. But given the very real complexity challenge that the enterprise Java world faces, embracing SCA's unified programming model makes a great deal of sense. At the very least, everyone should understand that there’s more to SCA than assembling services.


0 comments :: Post a Comment

 


Comments:

Post a Comment


<< Home