Introduction to WCF Concepts (Page 1 of 4 )
In this second part of a ten-part series on the Windows Communication Foundation (WCF), aka "Indigo," you'll learn about WCF services and fundamental WCF concepts. This article is excerpted from chapter 1 of the book
Learning WCF A Hands-on Guide, written by Michele Leroux Bustamante (O'Reilly, 2007; ISBN: 0596101627). Copyright © 2007 O'Reilly Media, Inc. All rights reserved. Used with permission from the publisher. Available from booksellers or direct from O'Reilly Media.
Big SOA, Little SOA
The problem with discussing the tenets of SOA in the strictest sense is that levels of compliance may vary based on the scenario. On the one hand, SOA is a big business buzzword tossed into conversations at board meetings, at executive briefings, and in hallway conversations between C-level executives. At this level, however, SOA really refers to connecting disparate systems across application, department, corporate, and even industry boundaries. This is what I call Big SOA. The other use for the term SOA is to describe how applications are designed as chunks of business functionality that are isolated behind explicit service boundaries. I call this Little SOA.
Big SOA is an Enterprise Architect (EA) activity. The EA cares about connecting heterogeneous systems that may originate from different vendors. For example, you can connect HR, Payroll, CRM, and possibly other applications across the organization to achieve a business goal. In some cases, it is even useful to control messaging between systems and track usage with an Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)--a term that also means many things, but in this case I refer to the ability to pass all messaging through a common service for tracking and routing purposes. In short, Big SOA is about connecting entire systems through their respective service boundaries.
Little SOA is a Software Architect (SA) activity. The SA cares about designing a system that may encapsulate functionality behind service boundaries to achieve reuse, maintainability, version control, visibility, orchestration, and other benefits. These services may never see the light of day outside the application to which they belong. On the other hand, some internal application services may also be exposed for public access to facilitate communications and interoperability with other applications. If applications don’t expose public services, it becomes a challenge to connect applications.
Little SOA enables Big SOA.
The distinction between approaches in SOA is important because of the level of strictness in applying SOA tenets. For example, it isn’t always possible to completely isolate business components, business entities, and data tiers between services in the same system. Data is usually highly relational within a system, such that different areas of business functionality share common data stores and entities. Figure 1-10 illustrates an application with three services: Accounts, Customers, and Reporting.
Accounts Service and Customers Service each expose operations to their respective types, but Accounts data is related to Customers in the system; thus, there isn’t a pure separation between the tables required to support each service. At the same time, both Accounts and Customers also provide access to business functionality and CRUD operations (Create, Read, Update, Delete) that can be considered completely independent of one another—thus the need for separate services. The Reporting Service, in fact, needs to access all tables to aggregate results.
Figure 1-10. Sharing data between services is sometimes unavoidable
Service Oriented Architecture
In a pure SOA play, each service would have sole ownership over its data tables, and services would have to communicate with one anotehr to access those tables, even for reporting. This can create unnecessary overhead and complexity within a system. Instead, Figure 1-10 illustrates a way to support sharing relational tables behind the service boundary by coordinating relational results at the database, possibly via stored procedures. This way, the vertical assemblies associated with a service are completely owned by the service, and if a particular service, such as Reporting, requires access to multiple relational tables that are also accessed by other services, the data access layer coordinates this result for the service. While serialized business entities may be shared between services, business and data access components are not. Services can always call other downstream services to share functionality when service isolation is clear cut and the overhead of the service call makes sense--for example when services provides core functions such as document generation or messaging.
The point is that not all four tenets of SOA can be followed to the letter when designing services within an application. When application services are exposed to Big SOA in most cases the entire application is deployed with the service, thus the shared entities and data stores are implied parts of the atomic service.
In this book, I'll be focusing on how you deploy WCF services as part of an enterprise application. In other words, Little SOA.
Next: WCF Services >>
More BrainDump Articles
More By O'Reilly Media
|
 This article is excerpted from chapter 1 of the book Learning WCF A Hands-on Guide, written by Michele Leroux Bustamante (O'Reilly, 2007; ISBN: 0596101627). Check it out today at your favorite bookstore. Buy this book now.
|
|
/ 2 
