Tightly integrated? Just say no!
As I write this, there is a barely audible, irregular thumping noise
emanating from a dusty 386 PC in the corner of the room. I fear a system
failure is on the way.
The noise reminds me of a recent echo cardiograph I undertook in which
the full extent of my advanced addiction to caffeine was transformed
into sound. Thumping sounds caused by palpitations emanating from the
most important muscle I possess. I no longer drink coffee by the way.
If the noises from the PC in the corner get any louder, I can think of a
number of people who work with me who may find themselves experiencing
stress - rather than caffeine induced - palpitations. You see, that
dusty PC in the corner is running a system last touched about seven
years ago. I kid you not. Seven years ago. It has given tireless, 24/7
service during those years with only occasional weeding, mulching and
the odd tender loving warm boot from tender, loving hands.
Sure we have backups. Weekly backups. We even have a machine in hot
backup mode ready to take its place if it goes belly up. Despite all
this, we are still nervous. Nervous because the system has not been
touched in years. Nervous that a number of its hardware and software
components are now antiques in IT terms. Nervous that while some of the
system was built in-house, some of it was outsourced and the people
responsible for its development have long since disappeared to find
themselves in the jungles of South America or snowboarding their way
around the USA.
We are nervous because we know in our hearts and souls, that under that
irregular thumping noise, lies a ball of tightly integrated software
applications.
For 'tightly integrated' in the above sentence, feel free to read 'ball
of mud'[1]. Unless you are extremely lucky, you have some balls of mud
in your sphere of influence too. Can you think of any systems you know
that you are afraid to touch? Systems that have become so tightly
knotted over the years that no one human brain understands it all both
at a conceptual and detail level? I thought so.
Now. Given that balls of mud are the harsh reality of many IT systems
and given that tight integration was the catalyst for creating them,
isn't it odd that the phrase 'tightly integrated' still sounds so
appealing? I have seen many a C-level executive nod approvingly as the
phrase 'tightly integrated' drops from the lips of the system vendor or
the system integrator. Tight is good.
Actually, tight is almost always bad.
To most business people, 'integration' means process integration. That
is, some applications are tightly integrated if they work as one to
perform some business function. It is a very unfortunate fact of life
that the quickest and cheapest way to get started with process
integration is by means of spot-welding systems together. This so called
point-to-point integration accounts for most of the world's "tight
integration" code developed by system integrators.
The downside of tight integration can be severe. First, the costs of
modifying the point-to-point integrations can be significant. With the
inevitability of change, this is more than just of mere academic
interest. Indeed, I have known systems where the point-to-point
integration code
Build your tech library with our book giveaways.
Windows PowerShell 2.0 Unleashed
By Tyson Kopczynski, Pete Handley, Marco Shaw; Published by Sams
Windows PowerShell Unleashed will not only give you deep mastery over PowerShell but also a greater understanding of the features being introduced in PowerShell 2.0–and show you how to use it to solve your challenges in your production environment. Enter now!
Ubuntu Server Administration
By Michael Jang; Published by McGraw-Hill Osborne Media
Realize a dynamic, stable, and secure Ubuntu Server environment with expert guidance, tips, and techniques from a Linux professional. Ubuntu Server Administration covers every facet of system management -- from users and file systems to performance tuning and troubleshooting. Enter now!
