CEO/Principal Consultant at INNOQ, he/him, software architect, RESTafarian, conference tourist. Works at innoq.com. Fediverse: @stilkov@innoq.social

Germany
Joined April 2007
Filter
Exclude
Time range
-
Near
Replying to @VaughnVernon
One of the sad and hard truths of being a speaker at meetups. Although I’ve been to some where the pizza arrives before the talk :)
1
Replying to @DevOpsBob1
That sounds like a reasonable approach, although I’d still like to question whether everything needs to be accessible via an API
Replying to @DevOpsBob1
Unless you are willing to change those systems instead of accepting them as if they were God-given
Replying to @JLunman
I couldn’t agree more
Replying to @Argorak
Yes. It just won’t die.
1
2
Please do not read any love for ESBs or business logic in integration platforms into anything I wrote :)
1
2
Replying to @lxztlr
Completely agreed.
3
Replying to @npenkov
Domain design is a good start to figure out what systems (or applications, if you prefer) to build in the first place. After that, I prefer a use case/UI-driven approach
3
4
28
I was explicitly not talking about SaaS. I’m fact, you could probably sum up a lot of my critique as “your legacy enterprise backend is not a SaaS product”
1
1
Agreed, see nitter.vloup.ch/stilkov/status/1… – that’s not what I’m criticizing
Replying to @stilkov
Unless APIs are the actual product you provide to your outside customers, the horizontal divide created by putting an API boundary between your end users and the business logic (and the resulting Conway’s law effects) will create lots of pain and little value.
1
1
Replying to @soblom
I agree that’s the intent, but my experience is it hits the theory-vs-practice reality walls very quickly
1
16
No disagreement: I don’t object to API-second :)
1
1
Why default to having an API?
1
You need a strategy for modular application delivery, not only including, but starting from, end-user needs. APIs are a meaningful means to an end for that. Starting with them is going to end badly, independently from your choice of protocol or data format.
13
27
2
81
I blame most of the disasters in modern enterprise IT strategy on the fact that it’s people like me – backend architects with way too little focus on UI/UX aspects – who have been put at the controls for far too long.
3
16
7
99
(On the plus side, an API-first strategy works great if you have an API gateway product to sell, or want to legitimize legacy systems that are slowing you down by putting a “bi-modal” or “two-speed IT” sticker on them)
1
1
27
In many cases, an API-centric strategy is a sign of the strategists not wanting to have to deal with actual end users and their needs. It’s much easier to create re-usable services that someone else has to assemble, and even easier to create a meta-strategy for that.
4
17
1
69
Unless APIs are the actual product you provide to your outside customers, the horizontal divide created by putting an API boundary between your end users and the business logic (and the resulting Conway’s law effects) will create lots of pain and little value.
1
9
1
54
An API-first strategy assumes that great applications can be built by “just” “orchestrating” the capabilities exposed through APIs. That’s true for some applications, but not for many, and typically not for great ones.
1
3
34
Most often, APIs are shaped, and almost always restricted, by the capabilities of underlying systems they encapsulate. That’s great if these are great. They typically aren’t.
2
3
44