Roy Ogborn, Orbonyx Corp.

SOA, New?

Roy Ogborn — Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:45:00 GMT

Is SOA something “new” that supersedes OO concepts (as some from MS and elsewhere are proclaiming), or is it that SOA forces us to throw away our OO concepts due to it’s limitations? Think about it, SOA can't possibly be, with the current state of technology, Object Oriented. If we want to use SOA (and it’s too compelling not to consider it), we’re forced into the limitation of data messaging and work requests only. OO is not part of SOA because of a technological or standards limitation. SO

The letter that Rory Blyth read and answered in his "Ask Rory" segment of DotNetRocks ...

Roy Ogborn — Wed, 17 Nov 2004 21:12:00 GMT

Update -- Hey, you don't have to read this! You can listen to Rory read it first hand ... and you'll never, not even if you had a million years to ponder it, guess his answer. See Carl Franklin's post below for the link.

Dear Ask Rory,

This is probably asking too much, but I need you, now that you're working for the richest man in the world, to spy a little on the deep dark Microsoft R & D laboratory that's probably 8 miles underground somewhere, to tell me how he does it. So that's the question actually, "How the frick does he do it?". I'm talkin' about you know who ... Bill.

Ok, so I want to get rich too (and I'll bet you do to you techno dweeb!).

I started my own research lab myself to see if I can do what MS does (even if it's at a smaller scale, hey, it's a start). I even went to Edmunds Scientific.COM and bought me a couple pair of them chromium tipped tweezers that are like, what I've heard through the all mighty grape-vine, that they're the exact same chromium tweezers that the "Microsoft Software Engineers" use. (Yes, the grape-vine still exists, and no, Al Gore didn't invent that too, despite what he says). Problem is, I've not had much luck with 'em yet (well unless you count the time when I was able to yank that 1 1/2 inch nostril hair out'a my head. Boy'd that put a big 'ol tear in my eye!)

So, who woulda thunk that a person could become the richest in the world because everybody's gone crazy about Ones and Zeros? I mean, people can't get enough of 'em, can they? I liked the DNR talk you guys had with Mr. Petzold, but man, is he on the wrong trail these days. Analog computers? Doesn't he get it, it's ones and zeros man! Well, maybe Charles isn't in it for the money.

Fact: The richest man in the world made, and continues to make, his fortune by selling to the rest of the world ones and zeros. I can picture these so called "software engineers" in the Microsoft R & D lab, probably 50 or 60 of them standing there around this master CD with their chromium tipped tweezers arguing about which should come next, after they argued for two or three hours about the preceding digit, a one or a stinkin' zero. I think that's how they do it in the human genome project too, except those idiots don't get it either. It's ones and zeros that makes the world go 'round! Not genes (unless they're made outa' denim).

I figure that's why it takes so friggen long for a new OS to come out, or the next version of Office, cause these guys keep fighting over if its a one, no, it's a zero that comes next. So, is the next sequence 10011000111 or 1011100011? It goes on and on. And then there's this tester guy. He keeps making a quick copy of the Microsoft Master CD and the rest of 'em ask him "Does it boot now?" He shakes his head. They re-arrange the last couple of ones and zeros that they've been arguing about for the past 3 hours. Then again, they ask "Does it boot now?" When the computer produces some sort of screen and begins starting, they all cheer like at a NASA Mars landing, knowing they've got the last sequence right. Then they go back at it and add a few more digits.

The rest of us dummies have been brainwashed by Microsoft into making computers actually do something useful the hard way ... using tools like Visual Studio.NET, VB.NET, C#, that frameworky thing and God fobid, UML modeling ... oh, wait, that was someone else. Anyways, boy don't they have us fooled! It's the freekin' ones and zeros! Anyone at Intel or AMD will tell you that!

So I need you to find out, like, do they write all those ones and zeros on a white board first, then argue for a few hours, erase and rearrange, then place each one carefully on the Master CD with the chromium tipped tweezers? How many of those highly secret guys are there? Do they run like continuously with 3 shifts of workers? Or is it just Bill himself, with his buddy Steve that place the ones and zeros. Is it THAT secret that they're the only ones allowed near the chromium tweezers and the ones and zeros? And are their tweezers really chromium tipped? And how do they put the ones and zeros on DVDs? And where in hell do they get all them ones and zeros? Are they like shipped in from some secret mine in South Africa? (That's what I've heard). Now what ABOUT DVDs? Are the tweezers for them like really really tiny, or what? Do they actually have to put the zeros ON the DVD, or do they forget about 'em 'cause they're already there so they just worry about where exactly to plop each and every one? And once they get all them ones on there, how do they rewind the friggen' things without having all the ones fall off? I'd bet Bill would be pissed if that happened!

Sorry, I just have a lot of questions about this stuff. I figure, if Bill can do it, then why can't we?

What's kinda' maddening though, if you think about it long enough, is that if you figure a randomly even distribution of both ones and zeros that Bill sells to the world, at least when you get a one, you're gettin' sompin'. But the stinkin' zeros, what are they? Nothing. So go figure, half of what Bill makes his fortune on, and we, like idiot's buy 'em like there's no tomorrow, is absolutely nothing ... zero ... zip ... nodda. The guy's a freekin' genius. Absolute genius! Half of Bill's Billions comes from selling nothing at all! Genius, genius genius! It makes me sick! Why didn't I think of that? It's so stinkin' simple! What an ingenious scheme! Who woulda' thunk?

Anyway, I see you guys at Franklin's Net, (Hey to Carl and the oaf in the sound room!), are trying to get on the same bandwagon. I noticed that when I listen to your show, that all you guys are doin' is sendin' down the wire to my PC here the same friggin 2 things. A bunch of ones and a bunch of zeros. Nothin' else, just a bunch'a ones and zeros. And the same goes for you guys, half of what I get from you is stinkin' nothin' (OK, arguably, Nothing != 0 and null is null and null is nothing, but null != 0 either, but technical, schmechnical, I don't care who you ask, a zero ain't nothin' ... well wait a minute, now I'm freekin' confusin' myself ... but you get the point, I mean if the friggen bank says I have zero in my account I'm in trouble, right?)

I'm thinkin' you guys at Microsoft (hey, I know you're the "new guy" and all, but still...), and especially you guys at Franklin's Net could take the higher path (I mean it really really pisses me off to no end to know that Larry freekin' Ellison is scamming lot's of idiots on the same one and zero thing ... I don't mind that Bill does it ... I like Bill, 'cause he's just a likable kinda' guy, but Larry? No way!). So, I was talkin' about the higher path. I mean, how 'bout you guys stream down, not all the time, but just once in a while, like a 2 or somethin'. I think the world would really appreciate a 2 now and then. And who knows, maybe there's a market for 2's out there and you can be rich like Bill. In fact, I know a lot of folks who'd go just nuts to buy a 2 right about now. People are gettin' tired of ones, not to mention that other low-life number. And like once a year, hey, send us a stinkin' 3 why don't ya?

So, that's my question for you tonight Rory. What do they do in those underground Microsoft labs with those chromium tipped tweezers and how do they get all them' ones and zeros on those CD's that everyone's clamoring to give Bill money for? And how long do they argue about it before they place down the next one ... or is it a zero? What's their big secret???

Roy

PS. Dot Net does indeed rock! And so do your wireful radio program's stinkin' ones and zeros!!! (But you really should stream a 2 now and then.) And hey, the music is great too! (even though I've noticed the one/zero pattern thing continues with that as well, go figure). And I ain't sayin this just to get schwag either. You guys rock! Now answer my stinkin' question Rory! You 'da man.

Guinness with Rockford Lhotka

Roy Ogborn — Tue, 05 Oct 2004 13:10:00 GMT

My personal-professional highlight last week (Sept. 29, 2004) was having a pint of Guinness with Rockford Lhotka after his presentation at the Denver Visual Studio User Group Meeting.

Rockford was in town (Denver, CO) via the INETA folks to present architectural concepts surrounding his work on creating the CSLA.NET application development framework. I didn't have time to present my Anaconda/Ostrich theory of object serialization to him because we were too engaged in talking about more serious things like micro-machines that you can sprinkle in your hair, and each night when you go to bed, they wake up, climb up to the top of each hair and snip a bit off, then climb back down and wait 'till tomorrow night, putting the entire barber industry out of business. When I said micro, I meant really really micro. I tied this concept into our discussion of SOA Analysis and Design (Services Oriented Architecture), and how it compares to Object Orientation. I have a feeling Rocky didn't buy the connection of SOA to these micro-machines. I'm not exactly sure why ...

Roy

CSLA.NET Study Group - Week 2

Roy Ogborn — Fri, 01 Oct 2004 01:35:00 GMT

This week's CSLA study group sessions went nicely (see earlier post). I started off with a white-boarding session describing distributed objects and the trade-offs that must be considered before deciding when to split logical layers into physical tiers. We discussed network latency, “chunky“ vs. “chatty“ interfaces, how to turn a “chatty“ object interface into something more “chunky“ using a UI layer inside of a web service ... things like that.

Now Rockford has a great knack for explaining how things work in his books and that's a great talent. But I managed to take things down a step lower (or three) by explaining, not how, but why object serialization must occur. If objects could travel through a CAT5 Ethernet cable intact, the cable would have to expand with a lump much like you could imagine a large Anaconda who has just eaten an Ostrich. You can picture that lump slowly moving down the length of its body (not to mention feathers everywhere).

The plastic jacket that covers the actual wire inside a CAT5 cable is, actually, quite stretchy, so, in fact, business objects could indeed travel across the wire without requiring serialization. The problem is that some of our objects are quite large, and the lumps going through the wire would be quite like our now satisfied Anaconda friend. The difference being that our object lumps travel much, much faster.

The reason why Microsoft decided to create mechanisms to serialize objects into streams of teeny-tiny ones and zeros is because their lawyers (who are very smart) advised them against creating these object lumps. Plasterboard, the stuff that makes up much of the walls in our homes and offices is, as you know, very brittle. When big object lumps start flying down those wires at nearly the speed of light, the damage caused, and potential loss of life, from our walls exploding from the pressure of the expanding wires within, would bring lawsuits that would take the firm to its knees.

And so, the SOAP protocol was invented along with Binary Serialization so that our traveling, distributed, business objects wouldn't wreak havoc on known civilization.

OK, I jest. CAT5 cable does not expand, so objects can't really travel over the wire unless they're serialized first.

We made it through that discussion, and a discussion about UI in Charge, Class in Charge, Object in Charge ... though I think this last “in Charge“ topic is one we're going to have to revisit so all are quite clear on the differences. Some individuals in this group are very new to OO programming.

Next week, we shall continue on our journey through CSLA architecture concepts. I get to kick the week off with a discussion of Relational vs. Object Modeling; ERD's vs. Static Structure Diagrams and Object to Relational mapping.

I love this stuff!

Roy

CSLA.NET Study Group - Week 1

Roy Ogborn — Fri, 24 Sep 2004 23:49:00 GMT

The group decided to meet two days a week for two hours starting at 8 AM. This schedule is working quite well. Ninety minutes per session would have been a bit too short to complete the interesting discussions that are coming up. There are about six individuals in our group plus myself (I'm the facilitator). Before our first meeting, I asked the group to read 8 pages from Chapter 1 of Expert C# Business Objects: Distributed Architecture; p. 1 Logical and Physical Architecture; pp. 2-3

CSLA.NET Study Group

Roy Ogborn — Thu, 16 Sep 2004 21:39:00 GMT

Next week I begin facilitating a study group consisting of C# .NET software developers. We'll be focusing on Rockford Lhotka's CSLA.NET application framework for C#. I plan on tracking the progress of the group here, posting how we wind up organizing and distributing tasks, how well folks are participating, and our overall progress.

My intention is to have this team of software developers (who are employed by the same firm) be more productive when building custom business software by using a common application framework for each application they design.

Case in point: I've used Lhotka's pre-.NET version of CSLA on several large web applications. One of them is in use at Qwest (at least it was when I last looked) by nearly 2000 Qwest employees. Qwest was pleasantly surprised at how quickly and how bug-free I created this custom work-flow system for them. It was the underlying CSLA application framework that helped produce the great results. [That system also used what I consider to be the precursor to ASP.NET, which was VB6's webclasses, aka "IIS Application", but that's another story.]

For a multi-person team, the benefits of using a standard application framework are even greater. When everyone on the team is building different applications using whatever method each chooses, there's a huge ramp-up time for anyone joining the project. Plus the folks who later have to maintain the software systems will have no clue how any particular application works inside. When a common framework is used for every new application built, this situation improves drastically.

So stay tuned ... You'll get to follow our progress (if you so desire). Hey, and if you have any constructive comments based on your experiences, please drop me a note!

Roy