3 ms·
It sounds more like someone actually sat down and thought about what to do before doing it. I read danish. I have experience with it. I did not understand what
by peheje 7y ago
It sounds more like someone actually sat down and thought about what to do before doing it.
I read danish. I have experience with it. I did not understand what the page was trying to say.
Providing your data through APIs are often a better way than rolling your own manual delta sync through reports every Sunday uploaded to your company FTP server with 5% downtime.
Not duplicating your data throughout various systems is not architecture it's just common sense.
- moksly 7y ago> Not duplicating your data throughout various systems is not architecture it's just common sense. I wish you were right about that, I really do. Unfortunately only 7 of our 300 IT systems do this today. As rammearkitektur compliance is now a required part of public procurements that number is going to go up, but only because we’re forcing this architecture upon the private tech houses. If we didn’t we would never see 95% the APIs we so desperately need, and the last 5% would cost us half a million each. That’s how it’s been for 30 years, and it’s only changing because of enterprise architecture.
- PeterisP 7y agoLook from this from a perspective of a vendor. If a municipality orders development of a new system that does X, then from the perspective of a vendor, it's much cheaper to plan a 'fresh' system that has all the data to do X (and nothing else), structured in a way that makes it simple to do X. If you want to actually understand all the other municipality systems that hold that data and integrate with them (instead of duplicating the data), then your proposal is not going to be the winning lowest-cost bid.