I have just started learning the workings of R3 Corda and want to create a small CorDapp of Bank in which there will be one bank that will issue cash for users who can then spend or transfer to other nodes.
I want to use cash state as well as the cash contract.So, I am not able to understand how can I use them .
Do I make my own state or contract or directly create flows?
Tokens SDK has all that functionality, you don't have to implement anything yourself. Just use the provided data types and flows; below is a link to the most common tasks that you can achieve with the SDK:
https://github.com/corda/token-sdk/blob/master/docs/IWantTo.md
Take a look at the Corda finance module. It sort of implements the use case you are interested in: https://github.com/corda/corda/tree/release/os/4.5/finance.
Have a look at the CashIssueFlow which is used to issue the Cash and the CashPaymentFlow that is used to transfer the cash to another party.
Though the finance module would be replaced by the TokenSDK in the future, it is a good reference to try and understand how to implement such use case in Corda.
Related
Been reading up on Corda (no actual use yet) and other DLTs to see if we could use it in a project. What I was wondering after reading all the Corda key concepts: what would be the way to share data with everyone, including nodes that are only added later?
I've been reading things like https://corda.net/blog/broadcasting-a-transaction-to-external-organisations/ and https://stackoverflow.com/a/53205303/1382108. But what if another node joins later?
As an example use case: say an organization wants to advertise goods it's selling to all nodes in a network, while price negotiations or actual sales can then happen in private. If a new node joins, what's the best/easiest way to make sure they are also aware of the advertised goods? With blockchain technologies I'd think they'd just replicate the chain that has these facts upon joining but how would it work in Corda? Any links or code samples would be greatly appreciated!
You can share transactions with other nodes that have not previously seen them, but this sort of functionality doesn't come out of the box and has to be implemented using flows by the CorDapp developer.
As the author of ONIXLabs, I've implemented much of this functionality generally to make it easier for CorDapp developers to consume. There are quite a few feature-rich APIs available on GitHub.
In order to publish a transaction, the ONIXLabs Corda Core API contains functions that extend FlowLogic<*> to provide generalised transaction publishing:
publishTransaction called on the initiating-side of the flow, specifies the transaction to be published, and to whom.
publishTransactionHandler called on the initiated-by/handler side of the flow specifies the transaction to be recorded and who it's from.
As an example of how these APIs are consumed, take a look at the ONIXLabs Corda Identity Framework, where we have a mechanism for publishing accounts from one node to a collection of counterparties.
PublishAccountFlow consumes the publishTransaction function.
PublishAccountFlowHandler consumes the publishTransactionHandler function.
What's the best way to maintain/approach contract upgrade of states in terms of flows.
Scenario.
Existing BondStateV1
and the flows are using class type of BondStateV1 i.e queryBy<BondStateV1>
Now. We want to upgrade BondStateV1 to BondStateV2.
How do we change the flows?
Do we keep the old flows, and deploy a new FlowCordappV2?
Or after migrating BondStateV1 to BondStateV2, do we deprecate/delete all the old FlowCordapp, refactor to handle V2 and redeploy?
State and contract upgrades happen independently of flows, by following the approach given here: https://docs.corda.net/upgrading-cordapps.html#contract-and-state-versioning.
But your flow will then need to handle the (potential) presence of both BondStateV1 and BondStateV2 states on the network. You can achieve this by following the instructions here: https://docs.corda.net/upgrading-cordapps.html#how-do-i-upgrade-my-flows.
I have been researching workflow foundation for a week or so now, but have been aware of it and the concepts and use cases for it for many years, just never had the chance to dedicate any time to going deeper.
We now have some projects where we would benifit from a centralized business logic exposed as services as these projects require many different interfaces on different platforms I can see the "Business Logic Silos" occuring.
I have had a play around with some proof of concepts to discover what is possible and how it can be achieved and I must say, its a bit of a fundamental phase shift for a regular C# developer.
There are 3 things that I want to achieve:
Runtime instanciated state machines
Customizable by the user (perform different tasks in different orders and have unique functions called between states).
WCF exposed
So I have gone down the route of testing state machine workflows, xamlx wcf services, appfabric hosted services with persistance and monitoring, loading xamlx services from the databse at runtime, etc, but all of these examples seem not to play nicely together. For example, a hosted state machine service, when in appfabric, has issues with the sequence of service method calls such as:
"Operation 'MethodName' on service instance with identifier 'efa6654f-9132-40d8-b8d1-5e611dd645b1' cannot be performed at this time. Please ensure that the operations are performed in the correct order and that the binding in use provides ordered delivery guarantees".
Also, if you call instancial workflow services at runtime from an sql store, they cannot be tracked in appfabric.
I would like to Thank Ron Jacobs for all of his very helpful Hands On Labs and blog posts.
Are there any examples out there that anyone knows of that will tie together all of these concepts?
Am I trying to do something that is not possible or am I attempting this in the right way?
Thanks for all your help and any comments that you can make to assist.
Nick
Regarding the error, it seems like you have modified the WF once deployed (is that #2 in your list?), hence the error you mention.
Versioning (or for this case, modifying a WF after it's been deployed) is something that will be improved in the coming version, but I don't think it will achieve what you need in #2 (if it is what I understood), as the same WF is used for every instance.
I frequently hear Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) being tossed around as a buzzword among non-technical customers or program managers with little concern or understanding for what it actually entails (example: "Can I buy a SOA?"). There's also a lot of misinformation about SOA (example: "Only web apps can use SOA") and a general lack of understanding for its capabilities (example: "SOA can make your make all of your data work together").
What are some key facts that you, as someone who understand the technical side of SOA, use to educate program managers on the appropriate use and understanding of SOA? What's the best way to set the record straight with non-technical folks?
For non technical people I would use the following concept. The whole professional world is service oriented.
Instead of baking a cookie by
youself, you go to the baker.
Instead of trying to cure yourself,
you go to the doctor.
Instead of writing a program, you
ask a programmer to do this for
you.
This implies two major advantages:
Each one does his job better than if
we all were trying to solve all our
tasks separately.
There is a way, which allows non
professionals to communicate with
those, who will solve our task (in
real world such way is money and
business contracts)
In the world of software such architecture is implemented by defining specialized services (applications) which are dedicated to perform specific tasks and by defining protocols, which are solving problem of communications between such applications.
When such architecture is deployed, you get some benefits, which can be also mapped to the real world:
If doctor is unavailable, you cannot
be cured but at least you can get a
cookie from the bakery! In software this means one failed service does not break the whole system.
Usually doctors and bakers do not share the same room and this allows them to operate better. Just like in software you can place each service on its own hardware.
For software world this means, better availability, maintainability, reuse, and reduced costs.
Good luck!
"SOA is like hiring new employees when the job gets too large for the current team." Each part of the whole system is analogous an employee. Managers understand employees ;)
Maybe you have some applications in your company to use as a demonstration.
Try to show them the big picture with lots of loosely dependent services with some common needs/features created by various teams, and pulling out those embedded but commonly used features and use them as service providers.
The other thing that came into my mind is to show them the various connectors that the services can use to communicate (maybe there are some really old screenscraping legacy apps). Also, the message bus concept with normalizing and transaction handling needs to be clarified. In my opinion, non-technical people should see this whole SOA concept as loosely coupled services talking to each other with any kind of messages, where services are written/managed/governed by different teams (so formal service declarations and SLAs can come handy).
Try to avoid mentioning vendors, if possible. Or mention lots of vendors and technologies for each part in order to show them the various options.
I'm considering an SOA architecture for a set of servives to support a business that Im consulting for, previously we used database integration where each application picked out what it need from a shared MS SQL database and worked with it etc.. We had various apps integrating with the monster database including java, .net and microsoft access, there was referential integrity as everything was tightly coupled.
I'm a bit confused about how to support data sharing between services.
Lets take Product Service which sits on top of a the Product database provided by the wholesaler each month. We build a domain model and sit this on to of the database with Hibernate or whatvever, implentation wise Product is a large object graph given the information provided by the wholesaler about the product.
Now lets say the Review service, Pricing Service, Shipping Service, and Stock Service will subscribe to ProductUpdated, ProductAdded, ProductDeleted. The problem is that each service only need part or some parts of the information about the Product. Shipping might only need the dimensions and weight. Pricing might only need product id, wholesale cost, volume discount, price effective to date. Review might need product id, product name, producer.
Is it standard practice just to publish the whole Product (suitable non-subscriber-specific contracts e.g. ProductUpdated, and a suitable schema - representing all product object graph) and let the subscribers map whatever they need to their domain models (or heck do what they want with, might not even have a domain model)...
Or as I write this I'm thinking maybe:
Product Service Publishes ProductAdded message (does not included product details just an ID of product and maybe a timestamp)
Pricing Service subscribes to ProductAdded and publishes RequestPricingForProduct message
Product Service Publishes ResultForPricingForProduct message
Hmm.. seems a little better... but it feels like I'm building the contract for Product Service based on what other services I can identify and what they are going to need, perhaps in future XYZ Service requires something different. Im going to stop there as I think it's getting clearer where I'm confused... perhaps the above will work because I should expose a way to return whatever that should be public hmmm right.
Any comments or direction greatly appreciated. Sorry if this appears half baked.
I actually think the solution to this problem is to NOT share the data. SOA means that data is owned by a service - it is the technical authority of that data. I suggest reading a few Pat Helland articles, such as Data On The Inside, Data On The Outside.
The only thing that should be shared between these different services is the primary key - the ProductId in your example. Otherwise, for each service, the data that needs to be transactionally consistent goes together.
There does not need to be one "Product". Each service can have a different view of the product in their service. For the Pricing service, you have a productId and a price. For the review service, a productId and a review. And so on.
Where this starts to confuse people is how to display this data in the UI if it's from all these disparate services. How can you show a list of reviews for a product that has the product name from the ProductService and the review text from the ReviewService?
The answer to that is to compose the UI from all the different services. Get the product from the product service and get the review data from the review service and then combine that data in the UI.
I was in your position recently. The problem with directly exposing the underlying object through the service is that you increase coupling between layers, and there becomes little point in using a Service Oriented Achitecture at all. You would not be able to change these objects or business rules without affecting the web service too.
It sounds like you are on the right track. If you are serious about seperating your layers, then the most common pattern is to create a new separate set of message classes just for the web service, potentially each service, and translate your internal objects back and forth.
For an example of how to set up your service layer in this manner see the "Service Interface" pattern. On the client side of the service, there is an opposite pattern called "Service Gateway".
The Application Architecture Guide 2.0 has a whole chapter dedicated to the types of the decisions you are making (http://apparchguide.codeplex.com/Wiki/View.aspx?title=Chapter%2013%20-%20Service%20Layer%20Guidelines). I would download the whole guide.
Here is the portion most relevant to you. Long story short, if you take the time to create new coarse-grained methods, and message-based objects, you'll end up with a much better web service:
Consider the following guidelines when designing a service interface:
Consider using a coarse-grained interface to batch requests and minimize the number of calls over the network.
Design service interfaces in such a way that changes to the business logic do not affect the interface.
Do not implement business rules in a service interface.
Consider using standard formats for parameters to provide maximum compatibility with different types of clients.
Do not make assumptions in your interface design about the way that clients will use the service.
Do not use object inheritance to implement versioning for the service interface.