I just returned from the Microsoft Patterns and Practices Summit 2009 which may be my favorite Microsoft conference. Great for exposure to customers with real applications and to the wonderful, dedicated Microsoft developers who aspire to serve them. More on this in another post. I have another point to make here, which is …
Patterns are not Frameworks. We should draw a bright line between Patterns and their Implementations. A pattern only becomes a pattern if and when there are multiple implementations. You don't know a pattern well until you've seen more than one implementation. If there is a single, canonical implementation, the thing is not a pattern, it’s a framework.
“Duh” you say. We know this. And yet it eludes us in practice.
I had numerous conversations about this with folks who work in PnP. The conversation goes something like this:
The Conversation
“We are not a product group. We don’t want to be a product group.
“We’re trying to provide guidance to consumers of Microsoft development products. We are reluctant even to say ‘best practices’ anymore. It’s just the best guidance we can give today, built with time, and commitment, and our access to experts inside and outside Microsoft.
“We’re answering the customer call for Microsoft to demonstrate how to use its own products in real applications.
“This bleeds inevitably into more general questions about how to build applications and soon (and properly) we investigate and describe general design and implementation patterns that go beyond the particulars of Microsoft products.
“It’s not enough to talk about the patterns. We need to demonstrate those patterns … express them in real code that works with Microsoft technology.
“That is when it starts to get away from us. Our guidance, as it becomes code, starts to cover more and more customer cases. It begins to harden and the pattern becomes harder to see behind the bells and whistles. Customers say ‘wow, can I use that in my application?’ and we say ‘sure’. They say ‘it would really help our particular situation if it also did this’ and we say ‘sure’ again.
“Then they want us to give it a name, package it up, support it, develop a roadmap. They want us to productize it … and we start to do that because serving customers is also our mission. And, in our (not so) secret hearts, we all want to ship products … we’re wired that way.
“Then we start worrying about backward compatibility … because customers get angry at us if we change anything
“Then others in the community, especially the Open Source community, get on our case for having sucked the oxygen away from alternative implementations that may be better in many scenarios. They say we have imposed, de facto, a particular implementation of the pattern; people can’t tell the difference between the pattern and what Microsoft did to it. And I see their point.
“And now we have old code (e.g., CAB) that no longer represents our current thinking … that, in fact, embodies practices we would counsel against today … and we cannot walk away from it.
--
I don’t know that there is an easy answer to this one. I’m not willing to place all the blame on PnP either. The customer should know better.
“Best Practices” do not sit still. They evolve, leaving behind a trail of “formerly best practices” to which millions of dollars and entire careers are firmly attached. PnP is pulled in one direction by its responsibility to offer the best current guidance … and by its responsibility to customers who have placed big bets on its past guidance.
Perhaps we need some different rules of engagement.
Explicit Shelf Life
What if PnP put a “Sell By” date on their code? What if it had a shelf life and warning label: “Use with caution. Do not expect support beyond 3 years”. Stamp this at the top of every piece of code and every web page.
Then mean it. If you need to break, you break. Customers need to know that you are serious about your commitment to giving them the best advice you can and you do them no favors by clinging to outdated code.
This happens in OSS all of the time. Dead bodies are strewn everywhere.
You can do this. Microsoft can’t but you can. I think you can wean your customers away from thinking of you as a product group. If that means fewer customers served … that may be for the best … for everyone: your customers, you, and Microsoft itself.
Play Well With Others
My thesis again: a pattern is independent of any one implementation. You don't know a pattern well until you've seen at least two implementations.
What if PnP routinely called out the other implementations of the patterns they describe? Front and center, not as an afterthought. Openly encourage customers to look at these alternatives … if only to gain a contrasting perspective on the PnP guidance.
One of the best ways to learn about the Composite Application Block (CAB), for example, was Jeremy Miller’s “Build your own CAB” series. I assure you I had no intention of following Jeremy’s advice and building my own CAB. It didn’t even occur to me. But that series was the best (unintentional) documentation of CAB I ever found, It introduced me to different ways of thinking about each issue (e.g., Event Aggregation and Dependency Injection). I learned indirectly what CAB was doing and the consequences of my choice. I’m not saying the consequences were all bad either; but there were consequences and I only recognized them in the oblique light cast by Jeremy’s series.
PnP might do more to highlight these alternatives and to encourage discussion about the contrasting choices. People who come to Prism should learn … right there on the home page … that a Caliburn exists. When they come to the Unity home page, they could learn that there are 5 to 10 other popular IoC containers to choose from and find links to learning more about IoC practices.
[I was just on the Unity page. It’s a fine product home page; it is not fine for guidance about Dependency Injection and IoC in general.]
I don’t think that PnP should endorse Caliburn or anything else for that matter. I’m not suggesting that PnP’s output is inferior or that PnP should express less than abundant enthusiasm for its own work.
I am saying that PnP is presenting itself as a product purveyor in a manner that conflicts with its role as a trusted source of guidance. This ensures that it will be trapped into long term support commitments, the kinds of commitments that some people there tell me they do not want.
PnP could say in some unambiguous fashion, “my dear customer, we offer a wonderful implementation of this pattern. HOWEVER … you ought to look at some alternatives, not only when first choosing your approach but also throughout your application development; there’s gold in seeing how others approach these same problems.”
True Open Source
What if PnP could accept contributions from the field? I don’t mean through “Contrib”; I mean directly into the guidance itself.
What if PnP developers actually read some of the Open Source code out there?
I’m pretty sure the legal guardians won’t permit it … in which case “Contrib” is the best they can do.
Conclusion
They call it "Microsoft Patterns and Practices", not "Microsoft Tool and Die".
It is time for customers to pull back from unrealistic expectations of Patterns and Practices. They are not your application infrastructure outsourcer. They are a trusted source of guidance. Rejoice if they provide more but do not expect or demand it.
Patterns and Practice doesn’t need to change what they build. I do think PnP can rethink its commitments to prior output. It can do a much better job of promoting the spirit of exploration and directing its community to external resources that offer contrasting implementations and points of view.
And now I descend from this soap box … in search of another.
