Sunday, June 28, 2009

On hard coding event processing functionality

Today, again, I did not celebrate my birthday. I don't have a habit to celebrate a reminder to the fact that I am getting older. Interestingly, I got today much more (relative to recent years) birthday greetings in various communication ways -- E-Card through the Internet, phone calls, Email and even Real-time messaging. The reason that I got much more greetings relative to previous year can be attributed to the fact that I made many friends in the last year, but the more realistic reason is that certain social networks send people reminders about birthdays of other people in the network, which makes the knowledge about the birthday more accessible. Well -- none of my family remembered my birthday, here, at least, no change from previous years.

One of the many meetings I had last week was a teleconference with some IBM customers (I shall not expose their identity), my role in IBM is not in sales or sale support, but I am being called from time to time to participate in meetings with customers, by request of the people handling such meetings. The major issue that they wanted me to discuss is the benefit of using a middleware software for event processing (in the large sense) vs. hard coding it into the application code itself, like this customer is used to do.

Indeed, this is not a clear cut issue, there are two cases in which hard coding the event processing functionality make sense: either in the case that it is very simple, and thus it is not cost-effective to purchase, learn and deploy a specific product, or in the case that the functionality is too specific, and not covered by products, furthermore, it does not represent a ubiquitous requirement that makes it cost-effective for vendors to support it.

There are also some cases in which it is reasonable to write some functions in Assembly languages (even I did some of this in the past), but typically (most) people prefer to code in higher level language.

Likewise, in many applications, satisfy none of these conditions, and for these application is cost-effective to use generic software. The reason is that there are various common functions (e.g. filtering, routing, enrichment, transformation, pattern matching) that are repeating. Hard coding them means -- re-inventing wheels over and over again, instead of reusing existing implementations as "services", and enjoy other people's work that is being upgraded and optimized with time. This is similar to the reasoning of using other generic products -- messaging, workflows, databases, adapters, development environments and others.

The reaction of this particular customer was interesting: "what you are saying makes much sense, currently we are not used to think in terms of separating the event processing from the rest of the application logic, and we need to digest the idea". So, there will be a follow-up meeting to continue discuss it. I have seen this kind of reaction before, I think that a challenge of event processing vendors may be the competition with potential customers who do not understand the benefits above hard coding. But, this was also the case for other technologies that succeeded to cross this bridge. The growing number of event processing customers indicate that this thought is getting traction.

I think that this is also a topic for a community effort, that may be pursued by EPTS. More on this topic -- later.


Marco Seiriƶ said...

I have this kind of discussions several times every week. Event processing logic is fun to code, so there's always tons of arguments to do it yourself. The developers that appreciate a COTS product for this kind of problems tends to be those ones which have been involved in trying to maintain a code base with lots of realtime processing. Badly designed multi-threaded apps with lots of tweaks seems to be rather pain to maintain...

Opher Etzion said...

My youngest daughter asked me to correcet this posting -- actually, two of my four duaghters did remember my birthday, but mentioned it to me later that evening... after I wrote this posting... Well -- I decided to record her request as a comment.