Ana içeriğe atla

Data Mesh Principles and Logical Architecture

 Data Mesh Principles and Logical Architecture The great divide of data What do we really mean by data? The answer depends on whom you ask. Today’s landscape is divided into  operational data  and  analytical data . Operational data sits in databases behind business capabilities served with microservices, has a transactional nature, keeps the current state and serves the needs of the applications running the business. Analytical data is a temporal and aggregated view of the facts of the business over time, often modeled to provide retrospective or future-perspective insights; it trains the ML models or feeds the analytical reports. The current state of technology, architecture and organization design is reflective of the divergence of these two data planes - two levels of existence, integrated yet separate. This divergence has led to a fragile architecture. Continuously failing ETL (Extract, Transform, Load) jobs and ever growing complexity of labyrinth of data pipel...
Yorum Gönder

Code Owner ship

 Code Owner ship

There are various schemes of Code Ownership that I've come across. I put them into three broad categories:

  • Strong code ownership breaks a code base up into modules (classes, functions, files) and assigns each module to one developer. Developers are only allowed to make changes to modules they own. If they need a change made to someone else's module they need to talk to the module owner and get them to make the change. You can accelerate this process by writing a patch for the other module and sending that to the module owner.
  • Weak code ownership is similar in that modules are assigned to owners, but different in that developers are allowed to change modules owned by other people. Module owners are expected to take responsibility for the modules they own and keep an eye on changes made by other people. If you want to make a substantial change to someone else's module it's polite to talk it over with the module owner first.
  • Collective code ownership abandons any notion of individual ownership of modules. The code base is owned by the entire team and anyone may make changes anywhere. You can consider this as no code ownership, but it's advocate prefer the emphasis on the notion of ownership by a team as opposed to an individual. (The term collective code ownership comes from Extreme Programming, although in the second edition the practice is called Shared Code.)

Of the three the one I really don't like is strong code ownership. There are just too many situations where something you need to do needs changes to other people's code. Persuading them to make the change and waiting for the change often takes so long that it leads to delays and deeper problems, this is particularly galling when the change is a simple one.

A good example of a simple change that causes trouble is renaming a public method. Modern refactoring tools can do this safely with extensively used public methods. But this violates code ownership if you cross a module boundary. Essentially you've turned all interfaces between developers into PublishedInterfaces, with all the attendant overheads to change.

Even worse is when you want an implementation change, but because you can't get it quickly enough you make a copy of the foreign code into your module, call your copy of the code and make the change. Of course you intend to sort out the mess later.

Weak code ownership is a good way to mitigate these kinds of problems. People can make changes freely, the code owner just has to keep an eye on things.

The choice between weak and collective ownership has more to do with the social dynamics of the team. Both seem to work, and fail, equally well. Personally I prefer the dynamics of a collective code ownership team - particularly in the context of Extreme Programming.

Yorumlar

Yorum Gönder

Bu blogdaki popüler yayınlar

Continuous Integration with Visual C++ and COM

  William E. Caputo ThoughtWorks Oren Miller ThoughtWorks July 2002 The Continuous Integration principles are applicable in many different development environments. While the principles remain largely unchanged from project to project, the implementation of this practice can vary considerably. Variables such as language, platform, team size & team location provide unique implementation challenges. Here we will outline how we've implemented CI in a COM/Windows environment for a project developing primarily in Visual C++. The More Often the Better What Is a Successful Build? Single Source Point Building the Code Self-Testing Code Automated Build Dependency Management What We Could Have Done Better Summing up The More Often the Better As noted in the main article, one of the least intuitive notions about integration is that less often does not result in less difficulty, it results in more difficulty. This is especially true when developing with C++. The build time on a development...
Yorum Gönder
Devamı

Rotation

  Rotation I've spent a lot of time of the last year wandering around ThoughtWorks, talking to lots of people on lots of projects. One message that's come home really firmly to me is the value of rotation. We practice rotation in lots of ways. One of the most notable is rotating around countries. We've put in a deliberate program to encourage people to spend 6-18 months in a different country. Living a good length of time in a different country does a huge amount to widen people's perspective of the world. I've benefitted personally from living both in the UK and USA, even though they are very similar cultures. This mental expansion is even greater for those that spend time in somewhere like India, where the cultural differences are greater. Geographic rotation presents lots of challanges, particular for older people with familes. One of the things we need to figure out is how to make geographic rotation easier for people, so more people do it. Already there's a...
Yorum Gönder
Devamı

Business Capability Centric

 Business Capability Centric A business-capability centric team is one whose work is aligned long-term to a certain area of the business. The team lives as long as the said business-capability is relevant to the business. This is in contrast to project teams that only last as long as it takes to deliver project scope. For example, an e-commerce business has capabilities such as buying and merchandising, catalog, marketing, order management, fulfilment and customer service. An insurance business has capabilities such as policy administration, claims administration, and new business. A telecom business has capabilities such as network management, service provisioning and assurance, billing, and revenue management. They may be further divided into fine-grained capabilities so that they can be owned by teams of manageable size. Business-capability centric teams are “think-it, build-it and run-it” teams. They do not hand over to other teams for testing, deploying or supporting what they...
Yorum Gönder
Devamı