CQRS, Microsoft Enterprise Library and Azure

[Angel Java Lopez]

Hi guys!

I just discovered via @NeilRobbins

Enterprise Library Programme FY 12 Roadmap

http://entlib.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=RoadmapFY12&referringTitle=Home

They plan to publish a CQRS Guidance and Guide

A recent post by @ntotten:

http://ntotten.com/2011/10/command-query-separation-on-windows-azure/

Angel "Java" Lopez

http://www.ajlopez.com

http://twitter.com/ajlopez

http://ajlopez.wordpress.com

[jdn]

Oh dear god. Nothing can possibly go wrong with that.

jdn

On Oct 28, 4:01 am, Angel Java Lopez <ajlopez2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi guys!
>
> I just discovered via @NeilRobbins
>

> Enterprise Library Programme FY 12 Roadmaphttp://entlib.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=RoadmapFY12&referringTitle=...

[Adam Dymitruk]

Please search twitter for CQRS for some amusement.

The best was Grigori Melnik telling me how they are promoting loosely
coupled designs and DI to the mainstream. I loved how easily that was
done with the application blocks.

"I've taken over these from Tom Hollander, the father of EntLib, who's
done a fantastic job at taking EntLib to its current high levels of
popularity (over 600,000 downloads in 2 years and a solid base of
customers standardising their development on EntLib)" from 2007 (the
start of the EF fiasco and the "Vote of No Confidence")

Aptly named, here is the blog in all it's glory: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/agile/

I'm just wondering why they expected people to react any differently
when they said they were embarking on the CQRS "pet project". In their
own words, it's something they are going to spike because they have so
many other things on the go. Sounds like a good effort to get it
right?

Believe me, I WANT to be optimistic.

--
Adam

http://adventuresinagile.blogspot.com/
http://twitter.com/adymitruk/
http://www.agilevancouver.ca/
http://altnetvan.grou.ps/

[Clemens Vasters]

I chatted w/ Greg about getting involved and I explicitly talked to Grigori about getting Greg involved (and just had an email exchange about that today) and everyone seems to be willing to make sure that the guidance ends up being solid, so how about you wait how that turns out.

Being dismissive about the prospects instead of trying to set yourself up to contribute in a constructive fashion doesn't get anyone anywhere, IMO.

It's an indisputable fact that the P&P folks have quite a bit of reach, and if you care about the principles that are being discussed here, you should view that as an opportunity to get the principles better known and not leave it at "hahaha, they're idiots" because that won't make the result any better.

Cheers
Clemens

[Kelly Sommers]

+1 for forward progress.

On Oct 28, 3:28 pm, Clemens Vasters <cleme...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> I chatted w/ Greg about getting involved and I explicitly talked to Grigori about getting Greg involved (and just had an email exchange about that today) and everyone seems to be willing to make sure that the guidance ends up being solid, so how about you wait how that turns out.
>
> Being dismissive about the prospects instead of trying to set yourself up to contribute in a constructive fashion doesn't get anyone anywhere, IMO.
>
> It's an indisputable fact that the P&P folks have quite a bit of reach, and if you care about the principles that are being discussed here, you should view that as an opportunity to get the principles better known and not leave it at "hahaha, they're idiots" because that won't make the result any better.
>
> Cheers
> Clemens
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ddd...@googlegroups.com [mailto:ddd...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Adam Dymitruk
> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 11:11 AM
> To: ddd...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [DDD/CQRS] Re: CQRS, Microsoft Enterprise Library and Azure
>
> Please search twitter for CQRS for some amusement.
>
> The best was Grigori Melnik telling me how they are promoting loosely coupled designs and DI to the mainstream. I loved how easily that was done with the application blocks.
>
> "I've taken over these from Tom Hollander, the father of EntLib, who's done a fantastic job at taking EntLib to its current high levels of popularity (over 600,000 downloads in 2 years and a solid base of customers standardising their development on EntLib)" from 2007 (the start of the EF fiasco and the "Vote of No Confidence")
>
> Aptly named, here is the blog in all it's glory:http://blogs.msdn.com/b/agile/
>
> I'm just wondering why they expected people to react any differently when they said they were embarking on the CQRS "pet project". In their own words, it's something they are going to spike because they have so many other things on the go. Sounds like a good effort to get it right?
>
> Believe me, I WANT to be optimistic.
>

[Adam Dymitruk]

No one there is an idiot. They simply have constraints put upon them
that do not let them shine. Or that's my impression of how MS as a
whole operates.

Some thoughts that go through my head:
Who started EF? Why was it started? Who led the team? Who made those
decisions? How much does marketing get involved? Do we need everything
to be "Visual' and have a designer? There are lots of considerations
to think of when the "MS stack" is being sold to an organization,
especially an organization that is going to be spending the public's
money.

It's a complex beast and at times all you are left with is what you
see and impressions of your peers. I'm all for these smart people to
get their smartness through.

If anything, I hope I at least raised awareness that people care and
that people are willing to help.

[jdn]

If Greg gets involved, that would certainly help.

Look at the link to Totten's post. In his example, a command is
issued...and a token returned immediately to the client.

Um......

jdn

> >http://adventuresinagile.blogspot.com/http://twitter.com/adymitruk/ht...

[Rob Ashton]

Not that I ever say anything around here, but +1 for being positive (facetious remarks on Twitter aside), if they actually decide to get involved with the community and have their work validated, then that would be *great*

Rob

[Sharas]

Come to think of it, power of "recommended practice" goes a long way. I remember trying to suggest CQRS for a recent project I was working on (MS tech stack) - response was "we newer seen it done before, so..." So good going P&P!

[Adam Dymitruk]

+1 This is a very good thing.

--

[Peter Ritchie]

I don't think it's productive to compare this to EF.  EF is orthogonal to this.  It's like saying because the XBox division was successful P&P will be successful.  The company is just too big to make that generalization.

The commonality here is the tendency for Microsoft teams to work in isolation.  We need to make sure that doesn't happen here (and anywhere else we feel it's important).

As annoying as it might be; MS engaging the community is a two-way street.  The only reason anyone knows about this is because they *did* engage the community by making their plans public.  It's now our jobs to productively engage with MS in whatever way we can.

There's all sorts of valid reasons why "CQRS Guidance" on a P&P plan is completely innocuous at this point in time.

Cheers -- Peter 

--
"Refactoring with Microsoft Visual Studio 2010": http://bit.ly/c13trs
http://PeterRitchie.com/blog/
http://twitter.com/PeterRitchie
http://facebook.com/Peter.Ritchie/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/PeterARitchie
Skype:Peter.a.Ritchie

[Adam Dymitruk]

True. I wish I had known earlier that Greg /was/ involved. And I'm
happy that it really hasn't started yet. The diagram showing CQRS in
it made it seem like a lot had gone on already. Was this a marketing
driven thing given the latest buzz around CQRS due to Martin Fowler
writing about it and related things like the event sourcing post -
LMAX story, etc? Who knows. With little information to go on and the
company's collective past behaviour, it seemed like CQRS fell into
favor much like ORMs did and we got EF. This is all speculation, but
the overreaction is a good thing. I'm guessing that what Microsoft as
a whole does not want is people no longer caring.

[Clemens Vasters]

Constraints are commonly imposed by available budget and resources. If you think of Microsoft as a wallet with a million people living inside then that's not an accurate picture.

There are parts of the stack that are more useful to me or you and some that are less so. It's a framework -- or, rather, collection of frameworks -- and not a harness. For instance, I personally write all database code as straight up SqlConnection/SqlCommand and I hate having mapping magic between my processing code and my storage. That's a per-project call, though. In other cases I like the simplicity of a technology because it helps me to throw a tactical thing together in a very short time.

The exact same thing is true for architectural patterns. There's an ideal way of doing things, and then there's how people actually do things. Sometimes that is the same, sometimes people are cutting corners, sometimes they just lean on the principles in vague ways. I believe all of that is ok if the result yields a solid software artifact that does what the customer needs it to do. Practical guidance for a particular platform will always stray somewhat from the ideal form because the ideal form is conveniently abstract. The goal here is that it doesn't stray too far from what is considered ideal.

After all, our kind of Architecture is just as much about opinion as the other kind of Architecture; see http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=gehry%20dusseldorf -- if you'd look at these buildings as a staunch believer in Bauhaus style you'd be having a stroke.

If being confrontational is your way of raising awareness then that's a rather unfortunate way of doing it. I've certainly been aware of this having to be done right without the flareups.

[Adam Dymitruk]

Agreed. What I'm hoping is that because MS isn't an infinite wallet,
they can leverage, in a healthy way, an open source approach more so -
and in a healthy manner. This is getting off topic though as it's not
just CQRS - very interesting at any rate.

[Peter Ritchie]

RE: confrontational.

This works two ways though.  I agree that being confrontational isn't the best way to influence people.  But, by the same token, you can't fully dismiss the people being confrontational.  The act of being confrontational is often fuelled by passion.  To not fully utilitize that passion is a loss on both sides.

Cheers -- Peter

[Clemens Vasters]

You should’ve heard my talks 7-8 years ago. I come from that place; I just wised up a bit ;)

[kell.s...@gmail.com]

I'm not sure what the LMAX Disruptor has to do with CQRS guidance from Microsoft P&P. It seems like a lot of unrelated stuff is being associated to this P&P guidance that hasn't even started yet.

Just my opinion but I think too many negative assumptions are going on. I don't think "little information" should automatically become negative assumptions.

Let's ask questions rather than make assumptions.

Just my 2c. I always have a lot of 2c to toss around though :P

Later,
Kell

[Michael Brown]

People keep mentioning EF as a negative example of what Microsoft can produce. Have any of the detractors bothered to look at what 4.1 can do? We are using it extensively on my current project and it melts into the background. I would argue that in many ways it's on par with Nhibernate and in some regards (level of LINQ support) surpasses NH. I argue again that the lack of poco support in 3.5 wasn't a shortcoming of the framework itself but rather that the team didn't have time to add that particular convenience layer. If the first version of Hibernate was judged by the standards the first version of EF was judged, I'm sure it would have received a vote of no confidence as well

Anyway back to the matter at hand. The P&P team has consistently produced quality guidance over the past few years especially the PRISM guidance.

Part of the reason for the quality is that they engaged the community as they made it. If you want your voice and input heard on the new guidance, I suggest signing up for the advisory board. It's easy to criticize someone else's work. Not as easy to put your own work out there for critique

Just my $.02

Sent from my Windows Phone

---

From: Peter Ritchie
Sent: 10/28/2011 5:02 PM

[Adam Dymitruk]

LMAX disruptor is very close to the realtime trading system that Greg
was working on in Vancouver which was based on DDDD or CQRS. My point
was that it all got much more popular all of a sudden with Martin
Fowler writing about Event Sourcing, CQRS and LMAX. Just like
NHibernate became more and more popular, we had EF all of a sudden. I
really don't want to keep going with this argument as it's moot.

The fact is that Greg was contacted about this early on and the P&P
team, and MS in general, are doing a much better job at engaging
people in the community. I just had a call with Glenn Block to clarify
a lot of what has gone on around this. Perhaps visibility could be
better but the engagement was there and will only continue to increase
as will the visibility. MS have a lot of people that care too. Glenn
is taking the time to do this even though it's not part of what he is
working on.

Class act.

[Adam Dymitruk]

The issue was about how EF was started and conceived. The vote of
non-confidence happened for a reason. It /might/ have been misguided
or based upon misconceptions, but it still happened. Microsoft doesn't
operate this way anymore. I don't think it can afford to.

[stacy]

You heard it here first ...

 

CQRS-ES and Sql Service Broker is a match made in heaven :)

[jdn]

FWIW:

I think that any process that involves Greg Young and Glenn Block can
only be a good one.

Having said that, many of us are still having to deal with the level
of P&P guidance that shackles us with Enterprise Library 4.1 as an
ongoing concern, even though P&P has moved beyond it.

My hope is that whatever guidance comes out of P&P regarding CQRS is
accurate, and doesn't require a "hey, look at it 4 years later" mode
that fits DF.

Which is why I point to Totten's link. The example of a command
returns a value. As someone who has blogged about why commands can
return values, I've made it explicit that this doesn't strictly follow
CQRS, so I would hope the official guidance does so as well.

jdn

> > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Clemens Vasters <cleme...@microsoft.com>

> > wrote:
>
> >> Constraints are commonly imposed by available budget and resources. If you
> >> think of Microsoft as a wallet with a million people living inside then
> >> that's not an accurate picture.
>
> >> There are parts of the stack that are more useful to me or you and some
> >> that are less so. It's a framework -- or, rather, collection of frameworks
> >> -- and not a harness. For instance, I personally write all database code as
> >> straight up SqlConnection/SqlCommand and I hate having mapping magic between
> >> my processing code and my storage. That's a per-project call, though. In
> >> other cases I like the simplicity of a technology because it helps me to
> >> throw a tactical thing together in a very short time.
>
> >> The exact same thing is true for architectural patterns. There's an ideal
> >> way of doing things, and then there's how people actually do things.
> >> Sometimes that is the same, sometimes people are cutting corners, sometimes
> >> they just lean on the principles in vague ways. I believe all of that is ok
> >> if the result yields a solid software artifact that does what the customer
> >> needs it to do. Practical guidance for a particular platform will always
> >> stray somewhat from the ideal form because the ideal form is conveniently
> >> abstract. The goal here is that it doesn't stray too far from what is
> >> considered ideal.
>
> >> After all, our kind of Architecture is just as much about opinion as the
> >> other kind of Architecture; see

> >>http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=gehry%20dusseldorf-- if you'd look at

> >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Clemens Vasters <cleme...@microsoft.com>

[Glenn Block]

Hi All

I have been having several recent discussions with Eugenio (lead PM
for p&p) over here around the CQRS guidance and how to make it
successful. My reco, engage the community, bring in the experts, work
together------>"nirvana". Eugenio agreed.

I know plenty of folks feel like they've been burned before. As
Michael mentioned below, there's plenty of recent precendence of p&p
doing the right thing. All I'd ask is for folks to be a bit patient
and if you feel so bold, step in to help the effort be succesful.

Thanks
Glenn

On Oct 28, 2:01 am, Angel Java Lopez <ajlopez2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi guys!
>
> I just discovered via @NeilRobbins
>

> Enterprise Library Programme FY 12 Roadmaphttp://entlib.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=RoadmapFY12&referringTitle=...

[Rinat Abdullin]

The fact that Microsoft joins the CQRS field is only a good thing.

I would just hope that P&P team gets actively engaged in this community to share experience and also gets personally involved in real-world projects before starting to work on any guidance.

Bringing the experts in or doing theoretical research - are obviously a good thing. Yet they will never give you a real feeling of how things turn out 6 months down the lifecycle of the project when you get stuff like versioning, complexity and late Azure scaling problems.

And obviously CQRS without applied DDD can be rather harmful (and I mean more than a few first chapters of Eric's book).

Best,

Rinat

[Greg Young]

+1

I am really happy to see the backing from MS. Things could go very
right or very wrong we should focus on improving the likelyhood of
things going right.

Greg

--
Le doute n'est pas une condition agréable, mais la certitude est absurde.

[Peter Ritchie]

P&P almost always involves the community; but that often is a closed process.

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Rinat Abdullin <rinat.a...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Greg Young]

Community and closed should not be used in the same sentence

[Daniel Yokomizo]

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Greg Young <gregor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Community and closed should not be used in the same sentence

Unless it's a gated community :)

[Peter Ritchie]

P&P is a "gated community"?  LOL

[Peter Ritchie]

Exactly...

I would like to see anything that P&P does organized like an open-source project.  In the past they've often gathered a few people together and proceeded without being open.  

[Rinat Abdullin]

Being open source does not guarantee practical usefulness and acceptance by the community. Successful delivery would require more effort and commitment than than.

Rinat

[Adam Dymitruk]

From talking about it with Glenn, it's going to be more like that. I'll be pushing for feeding all that info here as things are done. Definitely should be a github repo for all to see.

Adam

Http://twitter.com/adymitruk

Sent from my phone. Please pardon any typos or auto-correct rudeness.

[Peter Ritchie]

Of course, but without being open the community can only accept (i.e. can't reject) the end product.

[Adam Dymitruk]

Pull requests ;)

Adam

Http://twitter.com/adymitruk

Sent from my phone. Please pardon any typos or auto-correct rudeness.

[kell.s...@gmail.com]

I'm not sure if code contribution from the community is the goal here. Not saying that it is a bad thing but I think it's far more important the Microsoft people involved understand the topic and implement a significant portion themselves. 

Community involved of course to help them get there. If the community just builds an application for them that won't be of much help because there hasn't been a transfer of knowledge. 

Later,

Kell

[Adam Dymitruk]

It shouldn't hurt to enable people to fork the repo and express themselves through code. They would still reject bad work.

Adam

Http://twitter.com/adymitruk

Sent from my phone. Please pardon any typos or auto-correct rudeness.

[Glenn Block]

Experts in this case doesn't mean theoretical, it means people using
CQRS in the real world. The part about engaging with community is
doing this in an open way.

[kell.s...@gmail.com]

Yup agreed!

[Rinat Abdullin]

Glenn,

Then, I look forward to seeing a lot of practical questions from MS P&P team about applying CQRS in this community group. 

Best,

Rinat

[Glenn Block]

Be patient....you will. Please remember that no work actually was done
yet, the only thing produced was a line item on a roadmap ;-)

> > > > twitter.com/ajlopezhttp://ajlopez.wordpress.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Glenn Block]

I have a bone to pick with that statement. In the past I'd agree, but
in recent years I think it's operated in a much more open manner. Silk
and Liike would be recent examples.

On Oct 29, 8:22 am, Peter Ritchie <pe...@peterRitchie.com> wrote:
> P&P almost always involves the community; but that often is a closed
> process.
>

> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Rinat Abdullin <rinat.abdul...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > The fact that Microsoft joins the CQRS field is only a good thing.
>
> > I would just hope that P&P team gets actively engaged in this community to
> > share experience and also gets personally involved in real-world projects
> > before starting to work on any guidance.
>
> > Bringing the experts in or doing theoretical research - are obviously a
> > good thing. Yet they will never give you a real feeling of how things turn
> > out 6 months down the lifecycle of the project when you get stuff like
> > versioning, complexity and late Azure scaling problems.
>
> > And obviously CQRS without applied DDD can be rather harmful (and I mean
> > more than a few first chapters of Eric's book).
>
> > Best,
> > Rinat
>

> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 7:23 AM, Glenn Block <glenn.bl...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >> Hi All
>
> >> I have been having several recent discussions with Eugenio (lead PM
> >> for p&p) over here around the CQRS guidance and how to make it
> >> successful. My reco, engage the community, bring in the experts, work
> >> together------>"nirvana". Eugenio agreed.
>
> >> I know plenty of folks feel like they've been burned before. As
> >> Michael mentioned below, there's plenty of recent precendence of p&p
> >> doing the right thing. All I'd ask is for folks to be a bit patient
> >> and if you feel so bold, step in to help the effort be succesful.
>
> >> Thanks
> >> Glenn
>
> >> On Oct 28, 2:01 am, Angel Java Lopez <ajlopez2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Hi guys!
>
> >> > I just discovered via @NeilRobbins
>
> >> > Enterprise Library Programme FY 12 Roadmaphttp://
> >> entlib.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=RoadmapFY12&referringTitle=...
>
> >> > They plan to publish a CQRS Guidance and Guide
>
> >> > A recent post by @ntotten:
> >>http://ntotten.com/2011/10/command-query-separation-on-windows-azure/
>
> >> > Angel "Java" Lopezhttp://www.ajlopez.comhttp://
> >> twitter.com/ajlopezhttp://ajlopez.wordpress.com
>
> --

> "Refactoring with Microsoft Visual Studio 2010":http://bit.ly/c13trs<http://lynk.at/c13trs>http://PeterRitchie.com/blog/http://twitter.com/PeterRitchiehttp://facebook.com/Peter.Ritchie/http://www.linkedin.com/in/PeterARitchie
> Skype:Peter.a.Ritchie- Hide quoted text -

[Rinat Abdullin]

Do you imply, that roadmap has been produced without any upfront estimation work?

This is an interesting statement))

Rinat

[jdn]

Sorry, the blob url gets returned to the client.

If this was strict CQRS, should not the register action 'return void'?

jdn

On Oct 29, 2:02 pm, Nathan Totten <nat...@ntotten.com> wrote:
> The token actually doesn't get returned immediately. My sample sends the
> the registration command to a service, the command gets queued and the
> worker process picks up the command and creates the token. The browser
> client polls the blob for the result.

[Glenn Block]

Rinat, with all due respect, I really don't see where you are trying
to go with this / imply.

A backlog of ideas that p&p might explore does not mean that the work
has been predetermined, that is not how p&p operates. Yes I am
guessing there probably was a ball park estimate. In which world is
that a crime?

> > > > > > twitter.com/ajlopezhttp://ajlopez.wordpress.com-Hide quoted text
> > -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Glenn Block]

Who says it has to be just code?

On Oct 29, 10:55 am, "kell.somm...@gmail.com" <kell.somm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I'm not sure if code contribution from the community is the goal here. Not saying that it is a bad thing but I think it's far more important the Microsoft people involved understand the topic and implement a significant portion themselves.
>
> Community involved of course to help them get there. If the community just builds an application for them that won't be of much help because there hasn't been a transfer of knowledge.
>
> Later,
> Kell
>

> On 2011-10-29, at 1:48 PM, Adam Dymitruk <a...@dymitruk.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Pull requests ;)
>
> > Adam
>
> > Http://twitter.com/adymitruk
>
> > Sent from my phone. Please pardon any typos or auto-correct rudeness.
>
> > On Oct 29, 2011 10:45 AM, "Peter Ritchie" <pe...@peterritchie.com> wrote:
> > Of course, but without being open the community can only accept (i.e. can't reject) the end product.
>

> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Rinat Abdullin <rinat.abdul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Being open source does not guarantee practical usefulness and acceptance by the community. Successful delivery would require more effort and commitment than than.
>
> > Rinat
>
> > On Oct 29, 2011, at 20:12, Peter Ritchie <pe...@peterRitchie.com> wrote:
>
> >> Exactly...
>
> >> I would like to see anything that P&P does organized like an open-source project.  In the past they've often gathered a few people together and proceeded without being open.  
>

> >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Greg Young <gregoryyou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Community and closed should not be used in the same sentence
>
> >> On Oct 29, 2011 6:22 PM, "Peter Ritchie" <pe...@peterritchie.com> wrote:
> >> P&P almost always involves the community; but that often is a closed process.
>

> >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Rinat Abdullin <rinat.abdul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The fact that Microsoft joins the CQRS field is only a good thing.
>
> >> I would just hope that P&P team gets actively engaged in this community to share experience and also gets personally involved in real-world projects before starting to work on any guidance.
>
> >> Bringing the experts in or doing theoretical research - are obviously a good thing. Yet they will never give you a real feeling of how things turn out 6 months down the lifecycle of the project when you get stuff like versioning, complexity and late Azure scaling problems.
>
> >> And obviously CQRS without applied DDD can be rather harmful (and I mean more than a few first chapters of Eric's book).
>
> >> Best,
> >> Rinat
>

> >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 7:23 AM, Glenn Block <glenn.bl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hi All
>
> >> I have been having several recent discussions with Eugenio (lead PM
> >> for p&p) over here around the CQRS guidance and how to make it
> >> successful. My reco, engage the community, bring in the experts, work
> >> together------>"nirvana". Eugenio agreed.
>
> >> I know plenty of folks feel like they've been burned before. As
> >> Michael mentioned below, there's plenty of recent precendence of p&p
> >> doing the right thing. All I'd ask is for folks to be a bit patient
> >> and if you feel so bold, step in to help the effort be succesful.
>
> >> Thanks
> >> Glenn
>
> >> On Oct 28, 2:01 am, Angel Java Lopez <ajlopez2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Hi guys!
>
> >> > I just discovered via @NeilRobbins
>
> >> > Enterprise Library Programme FY 12 Roadmaphttp://entlib.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=RoadmapFY12&referringTitle=...
>
> >> > They plan to publish a CQRS Guidance and Guide
>
> >> > A recent post by @ntotten:http://ntotten.com/2011/10/command-query-separation-on-windows-azure/
>

> >> > Angel "Java" Lopezhttp://www.ajlopez.comhttp://twitter.com/ajlopezhttp://ajlopez.wordpr...

[Kelly Sommers]

Good point :)

[Adam Dymitruk]

github can hold other artifacts too. as well as code review facilities.

Then there are other online collaboration tools for sharing diagrams
and other things.

--
Adam

http://adventuresinagile.blogspot.com/
http://twitter.com/adymitruk/
http://www.agilevancouver.ca/
http://altnetvan.grou.ps/

[Rinat Abdullin]

Glen, I was just joking around the planning :)

Obviously I don't have any idea how P&P operates internally. And given the amount of pressure being put on the team, I also don't envy their members at all. Besides, there will be too many challenging constraints (both internal and external ones) for them to deal with while delivering.

Yet, the fact that this talk about CQRS guidance starts about the code, repositories and frameworks - gets me worried a bit. 

Best,

Rinat

[Greg Young]

:)

On Oct 29, 2011 10:43 PM, "Glenn Block" <glenn...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Glenn Block]

I am with you on the framework concern. I shared the same.

[Rinat Abdullin]

Thank you. This sounds reassuring to me.

[Kelly Sommers]

Wait a minute. Don't you provide a framework? ;)

[Rinat Abdullin]

Kelly,

Positioning Lokad.CQRS (for Azure) as an open source framework was one of the early mistakes of mine :) 

Initially, I though it would be awesome to deliver something that would simplify enterprise systems development and even allow to code the system once and then have it working magically against local file system, easily scaled out to any cloud (mostly Azure) etc. It worked out and even created a small community of it's own (Andreas Ohlund and Jonathan Mattheus even provide commercial consulting here).

Yet, this framework approach  turned out to be not the most efficient way to handle the problem (of sharing the knowledge and supporting delivery of solutions portfolio). So Lokad.CQRS v3 is not going to be positioned as a framework. Those who have been listening to my "Practical CQRS in Cloud" talks are quite aware about that :)

Best regards,

Rinat

[Sarunas Mazylis]

yes, tell us where to drag it from and what to drop it on.

[kell.s...@gmail.com]

Rinat,

Very cool for you to say all that. I love learning through other people. Thanks for that insight. 

Are any of those talks available online and in English? I'd love to check one out. 

Later,

Kell

[Rinat Abdullin]

Kelly, there aren't any videos of my talks that I would recommend right now (if you manage to find earlier ones from this year - please ignore them. They could be a bit confusing due to sheer lack of experience in presenting and articulating ideas).

Yet, this Friday I'll be doing a track on "Advanced CQRS for Developers" (part of "Advanced CQRS" event in Vilnius, which is a part of "Event Centric Roadtrip 2011" - see http://abdullin.com/roadtrip-2011). There will probably be a video of that. Hopefully it will even be a meaningful one :)

Best,

Rinat

[Sarunas Mazylis]

yes, and that 15 euro pica better be good too

[Peter Ritchie]

I've seen Liike and it seems like it's heading down a very open path.  I have to be honest I didn't notice the community involvement with Silk.  A quick view of the project seems like there was lots open involvement before release.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying /every/ P&P project since P&P came into existence had little open community involvement.  But, Silk and Liike have been the exception.  I don't know the goals and vision of the team going forward; so, yes, my comments may be contradictory to what will happen in the future.  I certainly hope so.  I love to be proved wrong :)

Glenn, have you thought of moving over to P&P to make sure these things get done right? :)

Cheers -- Peter

[Glenn Block]

not to toot my own horn, but I think Prism was pretty open ;-) we
included a lot of differing perspectives including those that thought
you should 'build your own cab' ;-) those different real world
perspectives is what contributed greatly to its success.

as for p&p, did you forget that's where i started? I left to bring the
values of p&p to the platform.

> >http://PeterRitchie.com/blog/http://twitter.com/PeterRitchiehttp://fa...

[Rob Ashton]

And it all went downhill from there ;-)

(I jest, I jest - I'll shut up, I'm not being remotely useful!)

[Glenn Block]

lol

I can interpret that it so many ways

1. p&p went downhill when I joined.
2. p&p went downhill when I left.
3. the platform went downhill when I left p&p and joined it.
4. None of the above

:-)

> >http://PeterRitchie.com/blog/http://twitter.com/PeterRitchiehttp://fa...
> > > Skype:Peter.a.Ritchie

[Glenn Block]

Really glad to see that you will be involved Greg.

On Oct 29, 1:07 pm, Greg Young <gregoryyou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :)

> On Oct 29, 2011 10:43 PM, "Glenn Block" <glenn.bl...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Tom Janssens]

It is very odd to see such an opinionated and aggressive slowchat on this usually very constructive and welcoming forum. Many of you here are truely experts in the field with years of experience in CQRS; let us try not to judge and be negative, but create an open an welcoming atmosphere for MSFT as well.

I assume that a lot of the persons in this thread are or have been software architects somewhere in the past. Do you still recall how hard it was to convince the others of using this whole new approach? Do you remember the learning process you had to go through - both you and your collegues- ? I made a lot of mistakes, and I assume I will be making lots more of them.

Here is something very appropriate for this thread IMO: one of my mentors always said: "the person saying it can not be done should not interrupt the person doing it".

The guidance is going to be there no matter what, so let us try to make it as awesome as we possibly can.

Tom (ToJans@twitter)

Sent from a phone

[kell.s...@gmail.com]

+1. I could not agree more. I freaking love that quote too. Phenomenal. Thank you :)

[Eugenio Pace]

Hi all!

It's good to see so many familiar names here :-). Many may know me too, but
I'd like to start by introducing myself. I'm Eugenio Pace and I'm a PM in
the p&p team. Most of my work in the last 3 years here has been in the
identity management and Windows Azure spaces. I have fairly recently
accepted a new job here leading all PMs in the team and among other things I
help plan the p&p roadmap for each fiscal year that starts every July. So,
in a way, I’m responsible for adding “CQRS” to our portfolio of projects
this year.

After going through all the tweets and posts, and as someone wrote in this
thread, my reading of all these is that most people care a lot about what
they do and care a lot about quality; and I think that is a good thing.

Here are the facts: a lot of customers were asking us about this and we
figured it would be an interesting topic to explore. So this year, we put a
placeholder in our plan to do more research. That’s all. Our plans at this
point don't go beyond that. Ironically, the reason Grigori posted the
roadmap is because we wanted to be more transparent in our intentions and
proposed investments. Any project you see in the roadmap today that is not
being actively developed is just "an intent".

In terms of what the guidance will be, we don’t know if it will be a book, a
guide, a series of articles, a sample app, a combination of that, or
something completely different. We just don’t know yet. In fact, it is
possible that we might end up not doing anything...One thing that is very
unlikely to be is a framework.

But one thing we do know is that to deliver something of value we have to
involve the right people. That’s why we are reaching out and why I am
writing this email. We’d love to get you involved. There is certainly a lot
of experience and passion in the community that we can learn from. The
opportunity is for us (p&p) to be a conduit of all that experience and
knowledge, so we can multiply its reach and amplify it. We need your help in
defining what this should look like and what the priorities should be.

My commitment to you all is that we will not do anything in isolation from
the world. All our intents, as they become more clear, will be published,
and we will listen to and welcome anyone that is willing and interested to
join us in this project.

In the meantime, and in preparation for that, I’ll start by listening here
in this list.

Look forward to it!

Eugenio

[jdn]

"The guidance is going to be there no matter what"

Yep, sums it up.

jdn

[kell.s...@gmail.com]

Welcome Eugenio!

Thanks for all the clarification in that email and transparency with the roadmap regarding what is possibly coming down the pipe.

I look forward to watching this form and grow :)

Later,
Kell

On 2011-10-30, at 1:03 PM, "Eugenio Pace" <eugeni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Eugenio

[Mark Nijhof]

Hi Eugenio,

It would be good to see some proper guidance from the P&P team as it
would make it a more acceptable pattern to work with within the MS
scene. But I do believe you should do anything in your power to make
it/keep it simple! Involving Greg would be a big key in achieving this
I believe.

Cheers,

-Mark