Lille, sinatra is WAAAY better than rails for building a web service API - I've built two API's in sinatra in the past week, one of them took only 1.5h (this w/ oauth, get/put/post/delete, etc.). Compare this to when I tried to build an API in "The Rails Way" , which at the time was ActiveResource (which has since gone fallow), which took weeks.
If you're using something like amazon's S3 or SQS or SimpleDB, then congrats, you're doing SOA. My understanding is that the culture inside Amazon was always very heavily SOA-oriented, and top management frowned on efforts that involved reinventing commodity functions like storage or queueing - and this led to their cloud business. The S is SOA is Service - if you want to provide a service, then SOA may be a good idea. If you want a nice clean separation between API and everything above, and if you think your web service API might some day be used by other business units, partners, mashups, etc., then sure, you can think of it as a service and you're doing SOA. AFAIK the only connection between SOA and performance is that you can focus on optimizing your service, and if you provide a really good service you could perhaps have economies of scale - but on the other hand you can focus on optimizing any section of code. m On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Lille <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey folks, > > I allow that I likely mangled the use of the term 'performance', but I > think the question stands, because anyone consciously refactoring > their Rails app to accommodate an SOA approach would surely know it: > models now implemented as services would respond to HTTP requests or > messaging services like RabbitMQ. > > Before I list the purported benefits as I have read them, let me set > context. A part of my Rails app could possibly succeed as its own app, > while its existence also benefits the rest of the app I have underway. > Shouldn't I want to develop this independent piece as an autonomous > service while also allowing for its use by the rest of the app? > > It is said... > > + organizational efficiency - services are isolated, so development > teams focus on their assigned service(s) alone > + robustness - services have their own data stores and modifications > to them is independent from other services > + scalability - rather than optimize the common Rails data store to > meet all cases entailed by use of the app, each service and its > associated use case entails its own particular database optimization > > Lille > > On Aug 2, 4:09 am, Chris Kottom <[email protected]> wrote: > > SOA and performance are two of the most abused terms in IT, so > definitions > > matter a lot. I take the first to mean a set of principles applied to > the > > design and development of systems and complex solutions (go to Wikipedia > or > > Google define:SOA for a list) and the second as the ability of a system > or a > > component of a system to do its work efficiently (more operations in the > > same amount of time, the same number of operations in a shorter time). > That > > being the case, I have a hard time understanding the original question > > because all of these concepts seem to be more or less orthogonal to one > > another. Architecture and implementation technology are certainly going > to > > have an effect on performance, but they don't determine performance or > > scalability (related term, though not the same, also badly abused) as > much > > as how they're applied which is largely determined by application > complexity > > and the skill of the development team. > > > > Seehttp://railslab.newrelic.com/scaling-railsfor an introduction to > things > > that do matter when designing and testing a Rails application for speed. > > > > I have the feeling that none of the answers you've received are really > > answering your question though. Could you further specify what you've > heard > > and what you're looking to find out? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Colin Law <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > On 29 July 2011 16:02, Lille <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hey folks, > > > > > > I like what I'm reading about improved performance via Service > > > > Oriented Architecture for my Rails app. > > > > > I don't see how SOA improves performance, have you some references for > > > this assertion? > > > > > Colin > > > > > > Stepping in that direction > > > > will require some code reorganization, though. Has anyone regretted > > > > the time invested in Rails SOA or suffered any other drawbacks that > > > > might -- from a business perspective -- have disinclined them from > > > > going SOA? > > > > > > Lille > > > > > > -- > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > > "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. > > > > To post to this group, send email to > [email protected]. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > [email protected]. > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > >http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en. > > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > > "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > . > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > [email protected]. > > > For more options, visit this group at > > >http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
