Bick Group

David Linthicum

Subscribe to David Linthicum: eMailAlertsEmail Alerts
Get David Linthicum: homepageHomepage mobileMobile rssRSS facebookFacebook twitterTwitter linkedinLinkedIn


Related Topics: Java EE Journal, SOA & WOA Magazine

J2EE Journal: Article

Understanding Coupling in the Context of an SOA

Comparative Architecture

Since the beginning of computing we've been dealing with the notion of coupling, or the degree to which one component is dependent on another component in both the domain of an application or an architecture. Lately, the movement has been towards loose coupling for some very good reasons, but I'm not sure that many architects out there building SOAs understand the motives behind this.

Breaking this concept down to its essence, we can state that tightly coupled systems/architectures are dependent on each other, thus changes to any component may prompt changes to many other components. Loosely coupled systems/architectures, in contrast, leverage independent components, and so can operate independently. However, it's not as simple as all that.

Keep in mind that how loosely or tightly coupled your architecture is is a matter of requirements, and not as much about what's popular. Indeed, architects need to understand the value of SOAs and loose coupling, and make the right calls to insure that the architecture matches the business objectives. So it's helpful to walk through this notion of coupling as you approach your SOA.

Hang Loose!
With the advent of Web Services and SOA we've been seeking to create architectures and systems that are more loosely coupled. Loosely coupled systems provide many advantages including support for late or dynamically binding to other components while running, and can mediate the difference in the component's structure, security model, protocols and semantics, thereby abstracting volatility.

This contrasts to compile-time or run-time binding that requires that you bind the components at compile-time or run-time (synchronous calls) respectively, and also requires that changes be designed into all components at the same time due to their dependencies. As you might imagine, this kind of coupling makes testing and component changes much more difficult.

The advantages of loosely coupled architectures, as found in many SOAs, are apparent to many of us who have built architectures and systems in the past, at least from a technical perspective. However, they have business value as well.

First and foremost, a loosely coupled architecture allows you to replace components, or change components, without having to make reflective changes to other components in the architecture/systems. This means businesses can change their business systems as needed, with much more agility than if the architecture/systems was more tightly coupled.

Second, developers can pick and choose the right enabling technology for the job without concerning themselves with technical dependencies, such as security models. Thus, you can build new components using J2EE, which will work and play well with other components written in Cobol or perhaps C++. Same thing goes for persistence layers, middleware and protocols. You can mix and match to meet your needs, even leverage services that may exist outside of your organization without regard for how that service was created, how it communicates, or where it's running.

Finally, with this degree of independence components are protected from each other and can better recover from component failure. If the SOA is designed correctly, the failure of a single component shouldn't take down other components in the system. Thus, loose coupling creates architectures that are more resilient. Moreover, this also lends itself better to creating a failover subsystem and moving from one instance of a component to another without affecting the other components in the SOA.

It should be noted, however, that not all tight coupling is bad. Indeed, in some cases it makes sense to more tightly couple components, such as when dependencies are critical to the design. An example would be two services that can't work apart, and must function as one, and so are better tightly coupled. You have to look at your requirements, and then determine the degree of coupling needed in your architecture, and it may not always be loose coupling.

Testing for Loosely Coupled Architecture
So, now that we know the basic differences between a tightly and loosely coupled architecture, as well as the advantages, perhaps it's a good idea to break down loose coupling in to a few basic patterns: location independence, communication independence, security independence and instance independence.

  • Location independence refers to the notion that it doesn't matter where a service exists. The other components that need to leverage the service can discovery it in a directory, and leverage it through the late-binding process. This comes in handy when you're leveraging services that are consistently changing physical and logical locations, especially services outside your organization that you may not own. Your risk calculation service may exist in L.A. on Monday and in New York on Friday, and it should make no difference to you.

    Dynamic discovery is key here, meaning that calling components can locate service information as needed, and without having to bind tightly to the service. Typically, these services are private, shared or public services as they exist in the directory.

  • Communications independence means that all components can talk to each other no matter how they communicate at the interface or protocol levels. Thus, we leverage enabling standards, such as Web Services, to mediate the protocol and interface difference.

  • Security independence refers to the concept of mediating the difference between security models in and between components. This is a bit difficult to pull off, but necessary to any SOA. To enable this pattern, you'll have to leverage a federated security system that's able to create trust between components, no matter what security model is local to the components. This has been the primary force behind a number of federated security standards that have emerged in support of the loosely coupled model and Web Services.

  • Instance independence means that the architecture should support component-to-component communications, using both a synchronous and asynchronous model, and not require that the other component be in any particular state before getting the request, or message. If done right, all the services should be able to service any requesting component, asynchronously, as well as retain and manage state no matter what the sequencing is.

    The need for loosely coupled architecture in your SOA is really not the question. If you have a SOA, you should have a loosely coupled architecture if done correctly. However, analysis and planning are also part of the mix. Understanding your requirements and how each component of your architecture should leverage the other components of your architecture. With a bit of up-front work, you'll find your coupling loose and your SOA successful.

  • More Stories By David Linthicum

    David Linthicum is the Chief Cloud Strategy Officer at Deloitte Consulting, and was just named the #1 cloud influencer via a recent major report by Apollo Research. He is a cloud computing thought leader, executive, consultant, author, and speaker. He has been a CTO five times for both public and private companies, and a CEO two times in the last 25 years.

    Few individuals are true giants of cloud computing, but David's achievements, reputation, and stellar leadership has earned him a lofty position within the industry. It's not just that he is a top thought leader in the cloud computing universe, but he is often the visionary that the wider media invites to offer its readers, listeners and viewers a peek inside the technology that is reshaping businesses every day.

    With more than 13 books on computing, more than 5,000 published articles, more than 500 conference presentations and numerous appearances on radio and TV programs, he has spent the last 20 years leading, showing, and teaching businesses how to use resources more productively and innovate constantly. He has expanded the vision of both startups and established corporations as to what is possible and achievable.

    David is a Gigaom research analyst and writes prolifically for InfoWorld as a cloud computing blogger. He also is a contributor to “IEEE Cloud Computing,” Tech Target’s SearchCloud and SearchAWS, as well as is quoted in major business publications including Forbes, Business Week, The Wall Street Journal, and the LA Times. David has appeared on NPR several times as a computing industry commentator, and does a weekly podcast on cloud computing.

    Comments (2)

    Share your thoughts on this story.

    Add your comment
    You must be signed in to add a comment. Sign-in | Register

    In accordance with our Comment Policy, we encourage comments that are on topic, relevant and to-the-point. We will remove comments that include profanity, personal attacks, racial slurs, threats of violence, or other inappropriate material that violates our Terms and Conditions, and will block users who make repeated violations. We ask all readers to expect diversity of opinion and to treat one another with dignity and respect.