• I’m surprised we haven’t seen a laptop with a flash memory hard drive yet. Given the significant power, heat and performance advantage of flash memory over hard drives, I would have expected the laptop companies to have high-end laptops with flash memory hard drives by now. I’m probably getting a new laptop in the next six months, but I’d hold out until the end of the year if it meant being able to get one with a flash memory hard drive.
• I wrote last month that “The next new language I learn will be F#“. I was wrong. It’s PowerShell.
• I’ve been listening to Scott gush about CodeRush for years now. His post yesterday about the new free version of Refactor! for ASP.NET finally kicked me into action. I installed the CodeRush trial and will be commence bugging my boss to buy it.
• Looks like big news brewing in the online identity space.
• Dale is talking about service heartbeats. I’m pretty stoked that Dale is now spending 100% of his work time (when he’s not blogging about sports, politics or video games anyway) with me building service oriented infrastructure for MSIT.

• I find Jim Kobielus’ “SOA as 50 square miles of fungus” analogy funny and strangely compelling. The “keep in the dark and feed it shit” jokes practically write themselves. (via Joe McKendrick)
• Politics 2.0 Rising: The number of Americans who got “most of their information” about the 2006 midterm elections was double the number from the 2002 elections.
• Do you use external/flash drives? Do you have issues when you try to “Safely Remove Hardware” with said drive? I do, all the time. Apparently, unlocker is the answer. (via Paul Andrew)
• How come there’s no information about LogToTraceListeners in the WF documentation? As far as I can tell, it’s not in the Windows SDK docs at all and the only reference to it on MSDN is this year-old article and this year-old blog post. I only discovered because someone on the internal WF discussion alias asked about it. I’ve added In my SSB/WF work, I subclassed the built-in SQL persistence service in order to add tracing support. If you’re developing a WF host, you need to turn this on. I find it mind-boggling this isn’t included anywhere in the official WF docs.
• Nice to see Soma bragging about Software Factories. As he writes, our current solution – consisting of the Guidance Automation Toolkit and the DSL Tools - are really just a first step. I’m just starting to experiment with the Web Service Software Factory (WSSF). Aaron Skonnard introduces both the ASMX and WCF version in his two most recent Service Station articles.
• Michael.NET makes Programming Promises and Ted Neward swears the Oath of the Conscientious Programmer. Why stop there? How about the Architect’s Affidavit to actually implement the shit we draw on the white board? The Technologist’s Testimony of understanding and belief in all things geeky and gadget? Come on, isn’t this just called “doing your job”? Do we really need to make promises and swear oaths to take it seriously and do it to the best of our abilities?

News was expecting inches, but we only got a dusting of snow last night.

• We had dinner last night with my old friend Matt, who moved to Amsterdam a year and a half ago and is getting to travel the world. Kids didn’t have a nap yesterday, so they weren’t quite on their best behavior, but it was great to see Matt. Hopefully it won’t be another 18 months before we see him again.
• For the second time in four months, the power cable for my laptop failed. I wonder if there is something wrong with the power supply that’s causing the cable to fail? At least this time I wasn’t in Canada.
• There’s a high resolution video of the Xbox 360 IPTV up on Xbox.com’s CES page. They make it very clear this is “something you need to get from your service provider”. Telling quote: “It’s kinda like what I have today, but better”. Doesn’t seem that much better, so far anyway.
• I’m knee deep in WCF security code again. Mucking about with X.509 certificates sucks. I tried to follow these directions to create a dev root CA certificate as well as dev certs signed by said dev root CA, but I get security negotiation errors because the system can’t check to see if the cert has been revoked. I guess I’ll just install Certificate Services instead
• My nominee for best new acronym: JBOWS (Just a Bunch of Web Services), apparently coined by Joe McKendrick. Web services, to date at least, seem like they’re being used primarily for building distributed applications, rather than a loosely coupled services. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, unless you’re fooling yourself (or those holding the purse strings) that you’ll get integration “automagically” or “for free” just because you’re using web services. Joe McKendrick is definitely not an SOA-hole.
• The next new language I learn will be F#. Just not sure when or how.

“The paper sure loves to talk about
Selling out
Some of us never get the chance”
Stick Around by Mr. Jones and the Previous

• Didn’t see that coming. I guess the Buckeyes didn’t either. Congrats to the Gators. That makes at least three championships in a row won by the underdog. For all the complaining about the BCS, it’s hard to argue they got the champion wrong this year. However, with the exception of the Fiesta Bowl, the BCS games weren’t very good this year.
• There’s a video of the new Xbox 360 IPTV service up on 10. I realize it’s a demo and we’re nearly a year away from release, but I’m not impressed. Xbox 360 Fanboy pointed to a blogger who got a deeper look at the service at Microsoft’s CE booth. Frankly, it doesn’t look or sound like it’s much different than standard cable service (though I like the sound of 35Mbps bandwidth at my house). I realize familiarity is good, but do we really have to lock ourselves into the existing TV paradigm?
• I got roped into a webcast today on Optimizing Application Platform Infrastructure. It’s at 11am Pacific time. Stop by and say hi.
• My colleague Dale has a rant about Service Oriented Assholes. His definition: “Any person or team that pontificates on Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) without considering the realities of implementing SOA in a real business environment with real suppliers, customers, and products. These people are great at designing something on a white board or on paper, but couldn’t produce a real workable production ready system if their life depended on it.” Sort of a more specific (and vulgar) version of Joel’s “Architecture Astronauts“. How many SOA-holes do you know?

Tomas Restrepo comments on my recent SSB and WCF posts:

Harry Pierson asks how well WCF supports long running tasks. He suggests that WCF does not support them very well, and says that’s one reason he likes SQL Server Service Broker so much. I’d say SSSB is a good match only as long as the long running tasks you’re going to be executing are purely database driven and can be executed completely within the database. Sure, this is an “expanded universe” with the CLR support in SQL Server 2005, but even so it makes me nervous at times 😄

You could also consider using a custom service with MSMQ or something like BizTalk Server for this if you had long running processes that were not completely tied to the DB (or a single DB for that matter).

Sam Gentile follows up:

In that same post, but I needed to call it out separate, Tomas rightfully says, “I’d say SSSB is a good match only as long as the long running tasks you’re going to be executing are purely database driven and can be executed completely within the database,” in response to Harry liking Service Broker so much. Talk about a narrow edge case. That’s way I never really got excited or cared about Service Broker. Its a narrow solution to a special edge case when everything is database driven and can be executed totally inside the database. That’s the old Microsoft Data-Driven Architecture for sure. Me, I’d rather have a rich Domain-Driven architecture most of the time. Then if you have Oracle databases in your architecture too, where does it leave you? Nowhere.

As you might expect, I have a few comments,  clarifications and corrections.

First, Tomas’ statement that Service Broker only supports service logic “executed completely within the database” in flat out wrong. Service Broker can be used from any environment that can connect to SQL Server and execute DML statements. If you can call SELECT/INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE, then you can also call BEGIN DIALOG/SEND/RECEIVE/END CONVERSATION. This includes Windows apps and services, web apps and services, console apps and even Java apps. Of course, you can also access Service Broker from stored procedures if you wish, but you’re not limited to them as Tomas suggested.

Tomas’ misconception may come from a feature of Service Broker called Activation. Activation is a feature of Service Broker that dynamically scales message processing to match demand. For example, Service Broker can be configured to launch a new instance of a specified stored procedure if messaging processing isn’t keeping up with incoming message traffic on a given queue. This is called internal activation and because it uses stored procedures it does execute within the database as Thomas said. Service Broker also supports external activation where it notifies an external application when activation is needed. You do have to build an application to host your service logic and handle these notifications, but that application doesn’t execute within the database. So while you could argue that it’s easier to execute your service logic within the database (no need to build a separate host app), it’s not required.

Given that you don’t have host your service logic in the database, then you’re also not limited to “a single DB” as Tomas suggests. You don’t, in fact, have to put your Service Broker queues in the same database with your business data. So if you have Oracle in your environment, like the scenario Sam mentioned, you would host your service logic in an external application that processed messages from a queue in a SQL 2005 database while accessing and modifying business data from tables in the Oracle database. Using multiple databases does require using distributed instead of local transactions, but if you’re using MSMQ as Tomas recommended, you’re already stuck with the DTC anyway.

Finally, I didn’t get Tomas’ “purely database driven” or Sam’s “everything is database driven” comments at all. While there are exceptions, the vast majority of systems I’ve ever seen/built/designed have essentially been one or more stateless tiers sitting in front of a stateful database. If it’s a traditional three tier web app, there’s a stateless presentation tier, a stateless business logic tier and a stateless data access logic tier. For a web service, there’s no presentation tier, but there’s is the stateless SOAP processing tier typically provided by the web service stack. Does this mean the vast majority of web apps and services are  “purely database driven” too? If so, then I guess it’s a good thing, right?

In the end, maybe there are two types of service architects – those that believe the majority of services will be atomic and those that believe the majority of services will be long running. For atomic services, Service Broker is overkill. But if it turns out that most services are long running, WCF’s lack of support is going to be a pretty big roadblock.

I’m obviously in the long running camp. I’m not sure, but I get the feeling this is the less popular camp, at least for now. We’ll have to wait to see, but I do know is that whenever someone brings me what they think is an atomic business scenario, it doesn’t take much digging to reveal that the atomic scenario is actually a single step of a long running business scenario that also needs to be automated.

Here’s a question for Tomas, Sam and the rest of you: Which group do you self select into? Are most services going to be atomic or long running in the (pardon the pun) long run?