Dear diary, today is day 12 of my 5-Day Training Course.
I would complain about the energy drain if not for the appreciation that Udi is investing so much of his time. Every day starts at 8:30, and goes well past 6 pm with very limited breaks. It’s a … marathon? (I hope?) We’re now 30 hours in with at least 20 more to go that I can tell, excluding further homework tomorrow.
I am a bit mystified why Udi uses the word “Service” so much when he clearly has a distaste for its nebulous definition and general appropriation. “Authority Oriented Architecture” sounds like a much better descriptor overall, even if Authority isn’t ideally unambiguous either.
IT managed to go through all the good words by the end of last century, re-defining them all into meaninglessness.
The pattern in Udi’s style is abundantly clear by now; cleverly selected examples without singular answers, and a well-honed skill at arguing, together make for a lot of head-scratching around the room. I am enjoying thinking around the provocative propositions he throws out there, but I cannot help but feel there’s a level of empty calories about the exercise.
There will be no technology advice anywhere along the way. That’s an implementation-detail that is case-specific and therefore not something he can (or will) give us. I think some in the class are still hoping/thinking we may end up there, but that’s not the direction this course is following.
There will also be no scientific underpinnings for the theories. De-composing architecture along the lines of his advice is a good thing, because. And by squinting just right I am convinced overall that’s true, but I wish I had something more concrete to hang that on. Case studies. Empirical evidence. A rigid mathematical proof (I can dream…), but that’s also not where this is heading.
It’s a very valuable exercise at stretching the mind, and learning new ways to approach architectural and design decisions though, and that’s not to be sneezed at.
Still no silver bullets, sadly.