20 August 2009
Warning, this blog entry is as much a rant as a blog, and tends on the somewhat lengthy side. You've been warned. I'm looking for the secret of life, as always, and failing it, I'll settle for the secrets of software. This is a blog I don't know how to write, but have wanted to, for a long time. I suspect getting it out on paper will let me revisit with more clarity later.
Prompted by Brian Sam-Bodden's musing on the subject a week or so ago on Twitter, I've been ruminating on the notion of a "component." I think that the evolutions of modern day software development are embodied in the notion of a component, not a "service," or a "bean," or anything else. Those words don't convey enough.
Thinking about it, a "component" can be broadly defined as a thing which integrates readily into a bigger thing - that is, it's adapted to the thing that uses it, and any other such thing could be made to follow suit, with the same adaptations. The container is composed of components.
Getting more specific, we think about a component in software as a thing that is integrated into a container and that can only function as a subordinate entity to the container. In practice, this vague description manifests itself as class that implements an well-known interface. Sometimes, being a component means is simply a matter of letting the container control when the component starts working and when it is stopped. Here, you might not even need to implement an interface since object creation and destruction or (typically!) built into the language itself, and thus there's no need to codify it further.
This ends up quite often being too much of an abstraction. Something that is everything is also nothing. So, again, in practice it's a matter of establishing a common interface. In recent years, the "interface" for a component has evolved beyond the literal notion of a language interface and can be any number of things now. After all, all the interface does is distinguish an object as being a component in a sea of non-components. Such a distinction can otherwise be made, as with annotations or attributes in the Java and .NET platforms, respectively.
So, a component is something that belongs to a container and that so marks itself as usable in that container with an interface or some other distinguishing feature.
Now, when the component is deployed, it sustains some sort of behavior, perhaps over a period of time. There is often a setup phase and a destruction phase. This implies a lifecycle, to setup state to begin servicing requests and to stop servicing requests. This lifecycle might provide hooks tot he component unique the containing environment.
Because the component exists inside of a container, collisions are apt to occur. Language features like assemblies or packages help isolate a component, but often the container will provide addressing to further isolate a component from its siblings.
At this point, I think, the nuances are what qualify the application of a component. If we agree on the previous points applying to most components, then surely we agree that following aspects apply only to some components. The specification is where the term component is starts being prefixed, i.e., "web component," "service component," etc.
Analyzing these definitions, a HUGE number of things could be consider a component.
The list goes on and on, but you can see plainly that the idea of a "component" is not new. A component by any other name...
These various notions of a component - though not all of them - share several more concepts which we might describe as key to any description of a component.
In this discussion I've lumped both events and properties as goals by which to achieve the same thing, and though these concepts are not present everywhere, they're key for good components in this author's experience.
In this respect, Delphi, C# and Scala and other languages that embrace these concepts and codify events and properties have the edge. Software development can't be about being able to bundle state and functionality, it has to be about components that play nicely with each other, not in a box but in an ocean. Promoting the ideas behind a component promotes decoupled, and well behaved, software.
Indeed, the trends in software development themselves beg for components. Grids, with many concurrences and actors at play, are very well suited to components -services exposed behind a publish/subscribe mechanism. Services so exposed publish functionality that other actors in the system can consume if they can address them. This sort of dynamism is already alive and well in things like Jini or GridGain. The components themselves comply with a life-cycle for their respective containers.
The very idea of a component - things out of which something bigger is composed - implies composition. The biggest thing to come out of SOA is the push towards service reuse and composition, which components encourage.
Clearly, I'm thinking this through as I write it, and so any input's appreciated (good, bad, or indifferent.)
The addressability part is key. Brian mentions the notion of a REST-ful component. In the specific, he was talking about a component on a page amight be addressable, but the question is equally well put to how to expose distributed components uniformally.
Is there an ideal way to build components and to model these concepts - what's the next generation of software going to bring us? Clearly, functional languages are here to stay, but they don't preclude the idea of a component, in fact I imagine it might work for it.
What do you think? What's the most succinct way to model software? Is your architecture composed of objects and services? Of global variables and functions? Or of components? What will the architectures of tomorrow look like?