Loosely coupled may not be a term of endearment
What follows is a true story. I promise.
I had some business to transact with a financial institution in my local
town. Simply put, a transaction that should have happened ages ago had
not yet happened and I needed to chase it up.
The manger consulted the computer system and confirmed that SNAFU[1] was
the order of the day. My transaction had still not completed.
The apologetic manager looked up from the computer screen at me and
intoned gravely:
"Sorry, but our system is terribly loosely coupled".
At that point, I had one of those Matrix moments. The kind where all the
action stops but the observer does a 360 degree loop looking at the
suspended action from all sides.
As readers of this newsletter know, I'm a big fan of loose coupling. In
fact, I'd go so far as to say that it is the focus of my professional
interests this decade the way that XML was in the last decade. For me,
loose coupling is a *positive* thing, a term of endearment. It's an
excellent way to build reliable, flexible, long lived IT systems.
So, confronted as I was, by a situation where the term "loosely coupled"
was being used with a negative connotation, I was naturally taken aback.
What could be going on? Perhaps this financial institution manager is a
'closet techie' and an avid reader of ITworld articles? Perhaps he has a
technorati watchlist[2] and avidly follows everything I blog about?
That self-aggrandizing fantasy remained credible in my head for about a
picosecond before sanity returned. The interesting truth of the
situation is that to a non-technical viewpoint, 'loosely coupled' sounds
like a good way to describe a disorganized system. Moreover, 'tightly
coupled' sounds like a prescription for order and control.
Hmnnn. Interesting. I must remember these nuances of language the next
time I'm customer facing. Proponents of loose coupling, myself included,
need to be cognizant of the disorganizational overtones inherent in the
loose coupling terminology we find so alluring.
Now, lest you feel aggrieved that I have not finished the story about
the loosely coupled IT system in the financial institution, a few
parting facts.
The system in question, is, in fact, very tightly coupled. It's a
minicomputer-based system with PCs acting as green screen terminals.
Whatever vagaries are (to this day!) holding up my transaction have
nothing to do with loose coupling of component pieces.
[1]http://www.google.ie/search?q=SNAFU+situation+normal&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
[2]http://www.technorati.com
Read more about opinion in ITworld's Opinion section
» posted by ITworld staff
ITworld
Sign up for ITworld's Daily newsletter
Follow ITworld on Twitter @IT_world
Brian Proffitt
Microsoft/Novell: Breaking Down the Coupon Numbers
Esther Schindler
Drupal's Dries Buytaert on Building the Next Drupal
Tom Henderson
Top Ten General Operating Systems Rants
pasmith
PS3 motion controller delayed; goes up against Project Natal
sjvn
Neolithic Windows security hole alive and well in Windows 7
claird
Perl source code comparison makes for good reading
mikelgan
Cell phones don't create stress or interrupt much
Sandra Henry-Stocker
How to: The Unix Interview
Where Google Chrome security fails: the password
I heard mention that the Chrome OS will have some sort of encryption available a la bitlocker. If it's possible to encrypt personal data using another password or key, then it may have potential for very secure data.... And Ubuntu has an 'encrypt home directory' option, perhaps google should follow suit.
- Dann
Join the conversation here
Quick, practical advice for IT pros. Made fresh daily.
- Ubuntu advances: Why Ubuntu server installations will surge in 2010
- Social media marketing: How to make friends with benefits
- More...
Want to cash in on your IT savvy? Send your tip to tips@itworld.com. If we post it, we'll send you a $25 Amazon e-gift card.






