Skip to content
Switch branches/tags
Go to file
Cannot retrieve contributors at this time
12 lines (11 sloc) 2.29 KB
layout: post
title: Update on the Two-Tier Service Application guidance
date: '2009-02-09T13:45:00.001Z'
tags: [practices]
modified_time: '2009-02-09T13:45:12.724Z'
comments: true
<p>Following my recent analysis of the <a href="">Two-Tier Service Application Guidance</a>, the P&amp;P group contacted me and others to ask if we’d be interested in giving a hand to fix the guidance. Contrary to what I wrote on the original analysis, it’s not a beta 2 (the AppArch guide is, but this is not part of it).</p> <p>So far, it looks like three different options are going to be pursued:</p> <ol> <li>Fix the existing document and keep the proposed architecture <br />I&#160; am contributing what I can to get the specifics of REST fixed so the REST bits are accurate. I however disagree with the general architecture (this guidance is not a resource-oriented architecture but a service-oriented one on which a REST-friendly facade is added) and won’t recommend following that guidance.</li> <li>Create a new guidance that is compatible with best practices that promotes <br />This part is about using a different solution, which I hope will have a strong resource-first vibe. I’ll probably provide a version using OpenRasta. </li> <li>Create a DDD-specific guidance for Domain-Driven-Design approaches <br />This part I won’t take much part into.</li> </ol> <p>That’s the current thinking. P&amp;P has been fairly responsive and open to criticism on the document, which has been positive. There’s been a lot of discussions ar0und terminology, and I believe those discussions are important to have, because terminology is what we use to communicate with one another.</p> <p>We’re working towards getting the main issues fixed, and I’m hopeful that, once this is all done, we’ll have made those documents useful and accurate. Hopefully, next time there will be an outreach before publishing a draft. I’d also rahter the word <em>draft</em> was used instead of <em>beta</em>, but that’s splitting hair so I’ll stop there :)</p>