Martin Fowler has put up a link to an IEEE Software Design Column article by Rebecca Parsons called Components and the World of Chaos (pdf).
In part, the paper argues that assembling large numbers of components could potentially lead to behavior that would be hard to predict ahead of time: the interaction of these simple components could lead to complex (or emergent) behavior. Components could interact in ways not foreseen by their original designers.
The paper suggests that this might be a bad thing: it would be hard to predict the exact behavior of these component-based applications in advance, and so they would be risky to deploy.
I can see that argument: even without worrying about the distribution of heterogeneous, multi-vendor, high-level components, I know that I’ve been bitten in the past by different parts of systems interacting in ways that I hadn’t expected.
But at the same time, a part of me wonders if there isn’t some potential magic to exploit here. Say we can find ways of specifying the stuff we definitely don’t want to happen, perhaps by specifying business rules as invariants or mini-contracts, stuff such as “you can’t sell something if it isn’t in stock,” and “you can’t refund more that you were originally paid,” that kind of thing. These rules define a kind of business baseline: something that the application must do. We implement the rules at some kind of meta-level; some are associated with individual components, and others, specified in the component assembler/aggregator layer, apply to the component’s interactions. They give us our safety net.
But we don’t try to box the application in totally. Instead, we wait to see if other, potentially unexpected behaviors emerge. Our business rules act as some form of guarantee that the new behavior won’t hurt us, but they don’t prevent us from benefiting from any new and valuable behavior that might pop up.
Can we really produce working systems where we don’t know all the ways in which it will behave up-front? Just look at The Sims (or Lemmings, for those feeling nostalgic). Look at the way folks are using scripting languages to produce small component-like interfaces for existing applications, and then using those interfaces to combine the applications in unexpected ways. Clearly at some level we can. Right now we can’t do the same kind of thing for business applications: we don’t know enough about specification techniques to be able to plug all (or even most of) the holes up-front. But in the next few years, perhaps we will. And perhaps systems such as Naked Objects suggest how some of lower-level building blocks might work.
All the truly interesting behavior is emergent (if for no other reason that if we can predict it ahead of time, it really isn’t too interesting when it happens). And this emergent behavior has an amplifying effect on our productivity as developers: combine simple things using elementary rules to produce a whole that has complex and rich behavior. So I’d argue that having component-based architectures produce systems with emergent properties is not a risk: it’s a requirement. We’re just not there yet.