Hoping for a bit of guidance / reassurance on air search and book flow in Sabre (SOAP API) which I'm integrating with for a client website project.
My client is planning to take payment separately via a 3rd party payment gateway and also have a 3rd party ticketing robot.
The details I have been given from the ticketing robot company is that we should create the PNR then queue transfer to "International/Domestic Agent Q50" (with their PCC).
I've got access to and have been reading the Sabre Dev Studio, have access to the Sabre SOAP API (I have my client's credentials and PCC) and have followed the "Low Far Search and Book" workflow here (https://developer.sabre.com/docs/read/workflows/Low_Fare_Search_and_Book) exchanging EnhancedAirBookRQ and PassengerDetailsRQ for CreatePassengerNameRecordRQ as advised on that page and inserting payment before, my proposed work flow is:
Create a token with TokenCreateRQ
Use token to perform a search with BargainFinderMaxRQ
Display results to customer, customer picks an itinerary / flight segments
Collect customer details from customer
External payment gateway take payment for amount returned in BarginFinderMaxRQ
Book the desired flight segments using the orchestrated API CreatePassengerNameRecordRQ, including:
Adding passenger details and flight segments
Specifying that the payment was in cash
Performing the queue transfer?
I've got BargainFinderMaxRQ coded up and working.
I'm starting the integration with CreatePassengerNameRecordRQ and have noticed the price returned can be different to the price returned from BargainFinderMaxRQ. Which makes me question the above work flow. I selected it due to the easier integration (I can use tokens rather than manage a session and it's just one API call).
So, my questions:
Is my understanding correct, is this the correct work flow for the project? Given that my client is taking payment via an external payment gateway and want to display the final figure to the customer before they pay.
I'm struggling to understand how the ticketing robot fits into the process. Hoping for a steer on how that affects the PNR call(s). Do I still set the ticket type to "7TAW" and queue place onto their PCC + queue number?
Thank you for any help, greatly appreciated.
1) Yes, the process is correct, but there are scenarios in which airlines change fares or where the airline does not confirm the availability immediately, so when you price you are actually pricing an IATA fare, which is usually more expensive. For particular scenarios, I recommend you to contact the API support.
2) The "7TAW", which is the ticketing time limit, is meant to have the limit set by the airline until when you can issue the ticket without having the possibility of losing the given price. Some airlines require that to be done on the same day of the booking (which is what you are setting with the 7TAW). Some airlines give you some days and some others can give you just 30 minutes after booking. It is almost impossible for us to respond on how would the robot require this to be provided, so for you to be sure, I would recommend you checking with the owners of that robot and ask them how would they want it, maybe they don't even care.
What is the standard pattern of orchestrating microservices?
If a microservice only knows about its own domain, but there is a flow of data that requires that multiple services interact in some manner, what's the way to go about it?
Let's say we have something like this:
Invoicing
Shipment
And for the sake of the argument, let's say that once an order has been shipped, the invoice should be created.
Somewhere, someone presses a button in a GUI, "I'm done, let's do this!"
In a classic monolith service architecture, I'd say that there is either an ESB handling this, or the Shipment service has knowledge of the invoice service and just calls that.
But what is the way people deal with this in this brave new world of microservices?
I do get that this could be considered highly opinion-based. but there is a concrete side to it, as microservices are not supposed to do the above.
So there has to be a "what should it by definition do instead", which is not opinion-based.
Shoot.
The Book Building Microservices describes in detail the styles mentioned by #RogerAlsing in his answer.
On page 43 under Orchestration vs Choreography the book says:
As we start to model more and more complex logic, we have to deal with
the problem of managing business processes that stretch across the
boundary of individual services. And with microservices, we’ll hit
this limit sooner than usual. [...] When it comes to actually
implementing this flow, there are two styles of architecture we could
follow. With orchestration, we rely on a central brain to guide and
drive the process, much like the conductor in an orchestra. With
choreography, we inform each part of the system of its job and let it
work out the details, like dancers all find‐ ing their way and
reacting to others around them in a ballet.
The book then proceeds to explain the two styles. The orchestration style corresponds more to the SOA idea of orchestration/task services, whereas the choreography style corresponds to the dumb pipes and smart endpoints mentioned in Martin Fowler's article.
Orchestration Style
Under this style, the book above mentions:
Let’s think about what an orchestration solution would look like for
this flow. Here, probably the simplest thing to do would be to have
our customer service act as the central brain. On creation, it talks
to the loyalty points bank, email service, and postal service [...],
through a series of request/response calls. The
customer service itself can then track where a customer is in this
process. It can check to see if the customer’s account has been set
up, or the email sent, or the post delivered. We get to take the
flowchart [...] and model it directly into code. We could even use
tooling that implements this for us, perhaps using an appropriate
rules engine. Commercial tools exist for this very purpose in the form
of business process modeling software. Assuming we use synchronous
request/response, we could even know if each stage has worked [...]
The downside to this orchestration approach is that the customer
service can become too much of a central governing authority. It can
become the hub in the middle of a web and a central point where logic
starts to live. I have seen this approach result in a small number of
smart “god” services telling anemic CRUD-based services what to do.
Note: I suppose that when the author mentions tooling he's referring to something like BPM (e.g. Activity, Apache ODE, Camunda). As a matter of fact, the Workflow Patterns Website has an awesome set of patterns to do this kind of orchestration and it also offers evaluation details of different vendor tools that help to implement it this way. I don't think the author implies one is required to use one of these tools to implement this style of integration though, other lightweight orchestration frameworks could be used e.g. Spring Integration, Apache Camel or Mule ESB
However, other books I've read on the topic of Microservices and in general the majority of articles I've found in the web seem to disfavor this approach of orchestration and instead suggest using the next one.
Choreography Style
Under choreography style the author says:
With a choreographed approach, we could instead just have the customer
service emit an event in an asynchronous manner, saying Customer
created. The email service, postal service, and loyalty points bank
then just subscribe to these events and react accordingly [...]
This approach is significantly more decoupled. If some
other service needed to reach to the creation of a customer, it just
needs to subscribe to the events and do its job when needed. The
downside is that the explicit view of the business process we see in
[the workflow] is now only implicitly reflected in our system [...]
This means additional work is needed to ensure that you can monitor
and track that the right things have happened. For example, would you
know if the loyalty points bank had a bug and for some reason didn’t
set up the correct account? One approach I like for dealing with this
is to build a monitoring system that explicitly matches the view of
the business process in [the workflow], but then tracks what each of
the services do as independent entities, letting you see odd
exceptions mapped onto the more explicit process flow. The [flowchart]
[...] isn’t the driving force, but just one lens through
which we can see how the system is behaving. In general, I have found
that systems that tend more toward the choreographed approach are more
loosely coupled, and are more flexible and amenable to change. You do
need to do extra work to monitor and track the processes across system
boundaries, however. I have found most heavily orchestrated
implementations to be extremely brittle, with a higher cost of change.
With that in mind, I strongly prefer aiming for a choreographed
system, where each service is smart enough to understand its role in
the whole dance.
Note: To this day I'm still not sure if choreography is just another name for event-driven architecture (EDA), but if EDA is just one way to do it, what are the other ways? (Also see What do you mean by "Event-Driven"? and The Meanings of Event-Driven Architecture). Also, it seems that things like CQRS and EventSourcing resonate a lot with this architectural style, right?
Now, after this comes the fun. The Microservices book does not assume microservices are going to be implemented with REST. As a matter of fact in the next section in the book, they proceed to consider RPC and SOA-based solutions and finally REST. An important point here is that Microservices does not imply REST.
So, What About HATEOAS? (Hypermedia as the Engine of Application State)
Now, if we want to follow the RESTful approach we cannot ignore HATEOAS or Roy Fielding will be very much pleased to say in his blog that our solution is not truly REST. See his blog post on REST API Must be Hypertext Driven:
I am getting frustrated by the number of people calling any HTTP-based
interface a REST API. What needs to be done to make the REST
architectural style clear on the notion that hypertext is a
constraint? In other words, if the engine of application state (and
hence the API) is not being driven by hypertext, then it cannot be
RESTful and cannot be a REST API. Period. Is there some broken manual
somewhere that needs to be fixed?
So, as you can see, Fielding thinks that without HATEOAS you are not truly building RESTful applications. For Fielding, HATEOAS is the way to go when it comes to orchestrating services. I am just learning all this, but to me, HATEOAS does not clearly define who or what is the driving force behind actually following the links. In a UI that could be the user, but in computer-to-computer interactions, I suppose that needs to be done by a higher level service.
According to HATEOAS, the only link the API consumer truly needs to know is the one that initiates the communication with the server (e.g. POST /order). From this point on, REST is going to conduct the flow, because, in the response of this endpoint, the resource returned will contain the links to the next possible states. The API consumer then decides what link to follow and move the application to the next state.
Despite how cool that sounds, the client still needs to know if the link must be POSTed, PUTed, GETed, PATCHed, etc. And the client still needs to decide what payload to pass. The client still needs to be aware of what to do if that fails (retry, compensate, cancel, etc.).
I am fairly new to all this, but for me, from HATEOAs perspective, this client, or API consumer is a high order service. If we think it from the perspective of a human, you can imagine an end-user on a web page, deciding what links to follow, but still, the programmer of the web page had to decide what method to use to invoke the links, and what payload to pass. So, to my point, in a computer-to-computer interaction, the computer takes the role of the end-user. Once more this is what we call an orchestrations service.
I suppose we can use HATEOAS with either orchestration or choreography.
The API Gateway Pattern
Another interesting pattern is suggested by Chris Richardson who also proposed what he called an API Gateway Pattern.
In a monolithic architecture, clients of the application, such as web
browsers and native applications, make HTTP requests via a load
balancer to one of N identical instances of the application. But in a
microservice architecture, the monolith has been replaced by a
collection of services. Consequently, a key question we need to answer
is what do the clients interact with?
An application client, such as a native mobile application, could make
RESTful HTTP requests to the individual services [...] On the surface
this might seem attractive. However, there is likely to be a
significant mismatch in granularity between the APIs of the individual
services and data required by the clients. For example, displaying one
web page could potentially require calls to large numbers of services.
Amazon.com, for example,
describes how some
pages require calls to 100+ services. Making that many requests, even
over a high-speed internet connection, let alone a lower-bandwidth,
higher-latency mobile network, would be very inefficient and result in
a poor user experience.
A much better approach is for clients to make a small number of
requests per-page, perhaps as few as one, over the Internet to a
front-end server known as an API gateway.
The API gateway sits between the application’s clients and the
microservices. It provides APIs that are tailored to the client. The
API gateway provides a coarse-grained API to mobile clients and a
finer-grained API to desktop clients that use a high-performance
network. In this example, the desktop clients make multiple requests
to retrieve information about a product, whereas a mobile client
makes a single request.
The API gateway handles incoming requests by making requests to some
number of microservices over the high-performance LAN. Netflix, for
example,
describes
how each request fans out to on average six backend services. In this
example, fine-grained requests from a desktop client are simply
proxied to the corresponding service, whereas each coarse-grained
request from a mobile client is handled by aggregating the results of
calling multiple services.
Not only does the API gateway optimize communication between clients
and the application, but it also encapsulates the details of the
microservices. This enables the microservices to evolve without
impacting the clients. For example, two microservices might be
merged. Another microservice might be partitioned into two or more
services. Only the API gateway needs to be updated to reflect these
changes. The clients are unaffected.
Now that we have looked at how the API gateway mediates between the
application and its clients, let’s now look at how to implement
communication between microservices.
This sounds pretty similar to the orchestration style mentioned above, just with a slightly different intent, in this case, it seems to be all about performance and simplification of interactions.
Trying to aggregate the different approaches here.
Domain Events
The dominant approach for this seems to be using domain events, where each service publish events regarding what have happened and other services can subscribe to those events.
This seems to go hand in hand with the concept of smart endpoints, dumb pipes that is described by Martin Fowler here: http://martinfowler.com/articles/microservices.html#SmartEndpointsAndDumbPipes
Proxy
Another apporach that seems common is to wrap the business flow in its own service.
Where the proxy orchestrates the interaction between the microservices like shown in the below picture:
.
Other patterns of the composition
This page contains various composition patterns.
So, how is orchestration of microservices different from orchestration of old SOA services that are not “micro”? Not much at all.
Microservices usually communicate using http (REST) or messaging/events. Orchestration is often associated with orchestration platforms that allow you to create a scripted interaction among services to automate workflows. In the old SOA days, these platforms used WS-BPEL. Today's tools don't use BPEL. Examples of modern orchestration products: Netflix Conductor, Camunda, Zeebe, Azure Logic Apps, Baker.
Keep in mind that orchestration is a compound pattern that offers several capabilities to create complex compositions of services. Microservices are more often seen as services that should not participate in complex compositions and rather be more autonomous.
I can see a microservice being invoked in an orchestrated workflow to do some simple processing, but I don’t see a microservice being the orchestrator service, which often uses mechanisms such as compensating transactions and state repository (dehydration).
So you're having two services:
Invoice micro service
Shipment micro service
In real life, you would have something where you hold the order state. Let's call it order service. Next you have order processing use cases, which know what to do when the order transitions from one state to another. All these services contain a certain set of data, and now you need something else, that does all the coordination. This might be:
A simple GUI knowing all your services and implementing the use cases ("I'm done" calls the shipment service)
A business process engine, which waits for an "I'm done" event. This engine implements the use cases and the flow.
An orchestration micro service, let's say the order processing service itself that knows the flow/use cases of your domain
Anything else I did not think about yet
The main point with this is that the control is external. This is because all your application components are individual building blocks, loosely coupled. If your use cases change, you have to alter one component in one place, which is the orchestration component. If you add a different order flow, you can easily add another orchestrator that does not interfere with the first one. The micro service thinking is not only about scalability and doing fancy REST API's but also about a clear structure, reduced dependencies between components and reuse of common data and functionality that are shared throughout your business.
HTH, Mark
If the State needs to be managed then the Event Sourcing with CQRS is the ideal way of communication. Else, an Asynchronous messaging system (AMQP) can be used for inter microservice communication.
From your question, it is clear that the ES with CQRS should be the right mix. If using java, take a look at Axon framework. Or build a custom solution using Kafka or RabbitMQ.
You can implement orchestration by using spring State machine model.
Steps
Add below dependency to your project ( if you are using Maven)
<dependency>
<groupId>org.springframework.statemachine</groupId>
<artifactId>spring-statemachine-core</artifactId>
<version>2.2.0.RELEASE</version>
</dependency>
Define states and events e.g. State 1, State 2 and Event 1 and Event 2
Provide state machine implementation in buildMachine() method.
configureStates
configureTransitions
Send events to state machine
Refer to documentation page for complete code
i have written few posts on this topic:
Maybe these posts can also help:
API Gateway pattern - Course-grained api vs fine-grained apis
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/api-gateway-pattern-ronen-hamias/
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/successfulapi-ronen-hamias/
Coarse-grained vs Fine-grained service API
By definition a coarse-grained service operation has broader scope than a fine-grained service, although the terms are relative. coarse-grained increased design complexity but can reduce the number of calls required to complete a task. at micro-services architecture coarse-grained may reside at the API Gateway layer and orchestrate several micro-services to complete specific business operation. coarse-grained APIs needs to be carefully designed as involving several micro-services that managing different domain of expertise has a risk to mix-concerns in single API and breaking the rules described above. coarse-grained APIs may suggest new level of granularity for business functions that where not exist otherwise. for example hire employee may involve two microservices calls to HR system to create employee ID and another call to LDAP system to create a user account. alternatively client may have performed two fine-grained API calls to achieve the same task. while coarse-grained represents business use-case create user account, fine-grained API represent the capabilities involved in such task. further more fine-grained API may involve different technologies and communication protocols while coarse-grained abstract them into unified flow. when designing a system consider both as again there is no golden approach that solve everything and there is trad-off for each. Coarse-grained are particularly suited as services to be consumed in other Business contexts, such as other applications, line of business or even by other organizations across the own Enterprise boundaries (typical B2B scenarios).
the answer to the original question is SAGA pattern.
The project I am working on is moving from an n-tier to a SOA architecture so I have been reading up on good SOA practices. I'm struggling to understand the dynamic between avoiding RPC style services in favor of event driven services, and the requirement of User Interfaces to retrieve data and do it speedily.
So for instance, ideally a SOA architecture would be composed of repeatable business process wherein you could simply publish a message onto an ESB which would handle finding the services that handle that message. So rather than executing a procedure called "Setup New User" which set out to do all the tasks related to new user setup, you would publish a message into the ESB that just contained the new user's details and had the appropriate document type "New User" and then the ESB would find services that handled that event that would then do whatever domain specific new user provisioning was required.
However, sometimes you just need data. Maybe you have a page that shows some list of user associated data. You can't just fire off a message into the ESB because you need data back and you need it now. Also, you aren't really triggering any business processes; you're just retrieving data from previously invoked business processes (the processes that caused the user to be associated with the data for instance). So to give a concrete example, maybe I just want to see the list of 10 Netflix movies a user has watched recently.
How do you reconcile these disparate types of services in a single SOA system?
In an ESB, where event-driven approach is followed, you have all kinds of listeners, that detect events and act accordingly. These listeners may wait for the appearance of direct messages via some protocol at certain endpoint for example. No matter what the trigger is - a purely business event that starts a business process or a technical call that just needs to retrieve some data, it is still an event that is handled by the ESB. So you are not technically breaking the event-driven approach - it is enforced by your ESB solution. Moreover keep in mind SOA doesn't impose such limitation - you do not have to implement everything in event driven manner.
In your case (provided, you don't have a dedicated BPM solution in place), I'd identify and implement two kinds of services on two purely conceptual layers in the ESB:
Technical services (the event is an incoming direct message for retrieval/modification of data), that can be either called directly by another system (via the ESB) or called by other process services.
Process services on the top (business) layer that are being triggered in a event-driven way (using topic queue for example, where process services listen for their triggering event)
However, this may not be the most optimal approach. I've been discussing business processes in a dedicated business process layer versus process services in the ESB in this topic. Feel free to check it out, because it is kind of related with your question.
What is the best way to manage domain specific services? For eg: In a Financial domain, Should I have a global service "AccountCreation" or "CheckingAccountCreation", "CreditcardAccountreation" etc.
I am struggling whether to keep them at global level or keep them at the product level. what is the best approach?
You should probably focus in the data first: what data is there, and what data needs to stay consistent. Then focus on what the behaviours around that data are.
In a Financial domain, Should I have a global service "AccountCreation" or "CheckingAccountCreation", "CreditcardAccountreation" etc.
In this example, I would say that you have an "account" service, because you clearly have some accounts - and you probably have to ensure that, eg, you don't duplicate account numbers, apply anti-fraud rules, manage the workflow of creation, etc.
Your examples identify some behaviours: create a checking account, create a credit card account. Those would appropriately be commands that you send to the service, because they result in mutation of the data that the service owns.
If you add a "customer" service, though, that would be distinct from the accounts service: it doesn't have to be consistent with the account service, just to have a reference from accounts to customers by ID.
You also generally don't have shared behaviour that touches both parts - updating data about a customer shouldn't touch the details of their accounts (directly), and updating an account doesn't change the details of a customer.
You might have business rules in one service that change another, such as the account service listening for "a customer became a student" announced by the customer service, and then doing some internal processing.
Are there any transactions around multiple webservice calls.
Let me start with a commonly used example -- the travel agency. A customer intends to create a travel plan through an online travel agency. To do this, the online travel application calls the following three Web services:
-Air ticket booking
-Hotel reservation
-Taxi reservation
These three services are available from three separate vendors. If any one of these three services fails, the customer does not wish to proceed with the transaction (again, either all three services must succeed or none at all).
My language programming is Asp.net c#.
what's the solution?
No, this is not possible. Transactions cannot go past web service boundaries.
Raymond,
Have you ruled out WS-AT? Link to MSDN
You'll need some form of two-phase commit capability from the other service providers.
Other than that, you'll need a compensating transaction approach.