I remember way back when, in 2000, when EJBs were first hot. Everyone wanted to use EJBs in projects, mostly for the resume value. But there was also a fair bit of justified curiosity in this new technology that was being hyped so much. What did they do? Why were they cool? How did they help you?

I did some reading, and some research, and even implemented one or two toy EJBs. I remember talking to a more experienced colleague, saying “Well, all EJBs provide you is life-cycle assistance–just automatic pooling of objects, a set of services you can access, transaction support, and maybe SQL code generation.” Now, I’m young and inexperienced enough to never have had the joy of doing a CORBA application, but my colleague, who I believe had had the joy of doing one or three of those, must have been rolling her eyes when I said this. ‘Just’ life-cycle assistance, eh?

I just looked at Amazon’s web services, and I’m beginning to understand how she felt. Sure, all web services provides you is easy, (relatively) standardized access to the resources and data available in a web application. Sure, I could get the same information by screen-scraping (and many an application has done just that). But, just as EJB containers made life easier by taking care of grimy infrastructure, so do web services make life easier by exposing the information of a web application in a logical format, rather than one dependent on markup.

Using perl and XSLT (and borrowing heavily from the Developer Kit, I built an application using Amazon’s web services (the XML over HTTP API, not the full SOAP API). I was amazed at how easy it was to put together. This was partly due to the toy-like nature of the application, and how much it leveraged what Amazon already provided, but it was also due to the high level of abstraction I was able to use. Basically, Amazon exported their data model to me, and I was able to make small manipulations of that model. It took me the better part of three hours to put together an application which allows you to search on a keyword or ISBN and gives all the related books that Amazon has for that book. You know, the ‘Customers who bought this book also bought’ section.

I’ve always felt that that was the most useful bit of Amazon, and a key differentiator. This feature, as far as I can tell, leverages software to replace the knowledgeable bookstore employee. It does this by correlating book purchases. This software lends itself to some interesting uses. (I wanted to have a link to an app I found a while ago, where you entered two different artists/authors and it found the linkage between the two. But I can’t find it!)

I like this feature, but it also sucks. The aforementioned bookstore employee is much better than Amazon. Buying a book doesn’t mean that I’ll enjoy it–there are many books I’ve purchased that I wonder why I did so, even one hour after leaving the store–so that linkage isn’t surefire. In addition, purchase is a high barrier, and will probably cause me to not branch out as much as I should–rather than waste my money picking a random book, I’ll pick a book from an area I know. The book store employee, if good, can overcome both of these faults, because the process is more interactive, and the suggester has intelligence. But he doesn’t scale nearly as well as cheaply, nor does he have the breadth of Amazon’s database. (And he hates staying up all night responding to HTTP requests.)


© Moore Consulting, 2003-2019