Microservices client acknowledgement and Event Sourcing - asynchronous

Scenario
I am building courier service system using Microservices. I am not sure of few things and here is my Scenario
Booking API - This is where customer Place order
Payment API - This is where we process the payment against booking
Notification API - There service is responsible for sending the notification after everything is completed.
The system is using event-driven Architecture. When customer places booking order , i commit local transaction in booking API and publish event. Payment API and notification API are subscribed to their respective event . Once Done Payment and notification API need to acknowledge back to Booking API.
My Questions is
After publishing the event my booking service can't block the call and goes back to the client (front end). How does my client app will have to check the status of transaction or it would know that transaction is completed? Does it poll every couple of seconds ? Since this is distributed transaction and any service can go down and won't be able to acknowledge back . In that case how do my client (front end) would know since it will keep on waiting. I am considering saga for distributed transactions.
What's the best way to achieve all of this ?
Event Sourcing
I want to implement Event sourcing to track the complete track of the booking order. Does i have to implement this in my booking API with event store ? Or event store are shared between services since i am supposed to catch all the events from different services . What's the best way to implement this ?
Many Thanks,

The way I visualize this is as follows (influenced by Martin Kleppmann's talk here and here).
The end user places an order. The order is written to a Kafka topic. Since Kafka has a log structured storage, the order details will be saved in the least possible time. It's an atomic operation ('A' in 'ACID') - all or nothing
Now as soon as the user places the order, the user would like to read it back (read-your-write). To acheive this we can write the order data in a distributed cache as well. Although dual write is not usually a good idea as it may cause partial failure (e.g. writing to Kafka is successful, but writing to cache fails), we can mitigate this risk by ensuring that one of the Kafka consumer writes the data in a database. So, even in a rare scenario of cache failure, the user can read the data back from DB eventually.
The status of the order in the cache as written at the time of order creation is "in progress"
One or more kafka consumer groups are then used to handle the events as follows: the payment and notification are handled properly and the final status will be written back to the cache and database
A separate Kafka consumer will then receive the response from the payment and notification apis and write the updates to cache, DB and a web socket
The websocket will then update the UI model and the changes would be then reflected in the UI through event sourcing.
Further clarifications based on comment
The basic idea here is that we build a cache using streaming for every service with data they need. For e.g. the account service needs feedback from the payment and notification services. Therefore, we have these services write their response to some Kafka topic which has some consumers that write the response back to order service's cache
Based on the ACID properties of Kafka (or any similar technology), the message will never be lost. Eventually we will get all or nothing. That's atomicity. If the order service fails to write the order, an error response is sent back to the client in a synchronous way and the user probably retries after some time. If the order service is successful, the response to the other services must flow back to its cache eventually. If one of the services is down for some time, the response will be delayed, but it will be sent eventually when the service resumes
The clients need not poll. The result will be propagated to it through streaming using websocket. The UI page will listen to the websocket As the consumer writes the feedback in the cache, it can also write to the websocket. This will notify the UI. Then if you use something like Angular or ReactJS, the appropriate section of the UI can be refreshed with the value received at the websocket. Until that happens user keeps seeing the status "in progress" as was written to the cache at the time of order creation Even if the user refreshes the page, the same status is retrieved from the cache. If the cache value expires and follows a LRU mechanism, the same value will be fetched from the DB and wriitten back to the cache to serve future requests. Once the feedback from the other services are available, the new result will be streamed using websocket. On page refresh, new status would be available from the cache or DB

You can pass an Identifier back to client once the booking is completed and client can use this identifier to query the status of the subsequent actions if you can connect them on the back end. You can also send a notification back to the Client when other events are completed. You can do long polling or you can do notification.
thanks skjagini. part of my question is to handle a case where other
microservices don't get back in time or never. lets say payment api is
done working and charged the client but didn't notify my order service
in time or after very long time. how my client waits ? if we timeout
the client the backend may have processed it after timeout
In CQRS, you would separate the Commands and Querying. i.e, considering your scenario you can implement all interactions with Queues for interaction. (There are multiple implementations for CQRS with event sourcing, but in simplest form):
Client Sends a request --> Payment API receives the request --> Validates the request (if validation fails throws error back to the user) --> On successful validation --> generates a GUID and writes the message request to Queue --> passes the GUID to the user
Payment API subscribes the payment queue --> After processing the request --> writes to Order queue or any other queues
Order APi subscribes to Order Queue and processes the request.
User has a GUID which can get him data for all the interactions.
If use a pub/sub as in Kafka instead of Kafka (all other subsequent systems can read from the same topic, you don't need to write for each queue)
If any of the services fail to process, once the services are restarted they should be able to pick where they left off, if the services are down in the middle of a transaction as long as they roll back their resp changes you system should be stable condition

I'm not 100% sure what you are asking. But it sounds like you should be using a messaging service. As #Saptarshi Basu mentioned kafka is good. I would really recommend NATS - although I'm biased because that's the one I work with
With NATS you can create request-reply messages to interface between client and booking service. That's a 1-1 communication
If you have multiple instances of each of your services running, you can use the Queuing service to automatically load balance. NATS will just randomly select a server for you
And then you can use pub-sub feeds for communication between all of your services.
This will give you a very resilient and scalable architecture, and NATS makes it all incredibly easy

Related

How to handle data replication lag and event notification

We have a simple application, who upon every update of an entity sends out a notification to SNS(it could very well have been any other queuing system). Clients are listening to these notifications and they do a get of updated entity based on these notifications.
The problem we are facing is, when clients do a get, sometimes data is not replicated and we return 404 or sometimes stale data(even worse).
How can we mitigate this while sending notifications?
Here are Few strategies to mitigate this with pros and cons
Instead of sending notification from application send notification using database streams
For example dynamodb streams ans aws lambda. This pattern can be useful in the case of multiregion deployment as well. where all the subscriber, publisher will subscribe to their regional database streams. And also atomicity of sending message and writing to database is preserved. And we wont loose events in the case of regional failure.
Send delayed messages to your broker
Some borkers like activemq and sqs support this functionality, but SNS does not. A workaround for that could be writing to sqs queue which then writes to sns. This might be a good option when your database does not support streams.
Send special error code for retry-able gets
Since we know that eventual consistency is there we can return special error code to clients, so that they can retry based on this error code. The retry strategy should be exponential backoff. but this may mean giving away your problems to clients. Also we should have some sort of versioning in place.
Fetch from another region
If entity is not found in the same region application can go to another region or master database to fetch it. NOTE Don't do this. as it is an anti pattern. I am mentioning it here just for the sake of completion.
Send the full entity in message
If entities to be fetched by rest service is small and there are no security constrain around who can access what, we can send the full entity in message. This is ensure that client don't have to do explicit fetch of it every time a new message is arrived.

API vs Event in Microservice approach

What about Smart endpoints and dumb pipes in terms of different type of requests?
After reading that I was thinking that it's enough to subscribe for some events and deal with that. But now I've realised that sometimes you should have opened API (maybe not for the end customers, but for the API Gateway etc). Is this ok? Or you should "eventize" (transform into event) any request which coming to Microservices cloud?
So, for instance, you have Invoice and Order services.
It's clear that when order created you might use an event which might be consumed by Invoice service to create an invoice. It's clear that for receiving list of last user's orders you may use CQRS on Order service side or even just make new service LastOrders which will keep just projection of required data. But should this request transformed into event or LastOrders should provide API for that and listen for events to update it's own DB?
We do it like this:
All commands are issued as messages in durable queues with type-based routing
Processing takes places in isolated handlers
REST POST and PUT are only created for the API that should be accessible from legacy/external systems
These "command"-style REST endpoints only form command as a message and send it via the message bus
REST GET is perfect for fetching the data and we do not use messaging there, although we could have some message handlers to retrieve data for long-running processes that can only use messages
Command (message) handlers always publish events about what they have done or not done
Downstream event processing can do whatever they want by subscribing to these events

Sync external planning with Google agenda private API

We're developing an agenda on our platform. We implemented a feature to sync with Google Agenda which works correctly except that it only works with public calendar and not when it's private.
We implement everything as Google provides and use AuthO2 protocol.
We are migrating to https and we hope that it will solve our issue.
Do you have any idea on the reason it's blocked when agenda is private?
You can implement synchronization by sending HTTP request:
GET https://www.googleapis.com/calendar/v3/calendars/calendarId/events
and adding path parameters and optional query parameters as shown in Events: list.
In addition to that, referring to Synchronize Resources Efficiently, you can keep data for all calendar collections in sync while saving bandwidth by using the "incremental synchronization".
As highlighted in the documentation:
A sync token is a piece of data exchanged between the server and the client, and has a critical role in the synchronization process.
As you may have noticed, sync token takes a major part in both stages in incremental synchronization. Make sure to store this syncToken for the next sync request. As discussed:
Initial full sync is performed once at the very beginning in order to fully synchronize the client’s state with the server’s state. The client will obtain a sync token that it needs to persist.
Incremental sync is performed repeatedly and updates the client with all the changes that happened ever since the previous sync. Each time, the client provides the previous sync token it obtained from the server and stores the new sync token from the response.
More information and examples on how to synchronize efficiently can be found in the given documentations.

loose coupling of notifications in SOA

The solution is composed of an orchestration process services and multiple legacy applications in charge of making CRUD operations on the domain entities.
Every time an update, add or delete statement is executed by these legacy applications a notification is sent by the entity owner application.
In the modeling phase we decided to map the entities fine-grained. In this way every CRUD operation can rise thousands of notifications(up to 20k) resulting to blocking users activity for a while becouse entity persistence and notification sending are combined in the same transaction. This can be inacceptable when it takes more than 120 seconds.
What i wanted to do is separate the user activity in legacy applications from entity persistence and notification sending deferring these to a specific application service(for example). I know the best would be deferring these activities to a background thread in the user application but as i mentioned i'm using very old legacy applications. Is there any SOA design patterns that can be applied to this scenario?
What you want is "Decoupled invocation". You accept the request and put it in a (persistent) queue and send an acknowledgment to the user that the request has been received. Depending on the scenarioYou can send an additional reply (e.g. by email) when the message has been fully processed.
.

Processing large numbers of emails from an asp.net site

The web site I am developing will be sending tens of thousands of emails daily (and that number will be growing) - registration, notifications, alerts, etc. I will have a dedicated server box that will be actually generating and sending emails by request from the asp.net application (asp.net app calls a WCF method on the email box and provides various parameters for an email).
Now, I am trying to figure out what's the best way of queueing those email jobs on the email server. The call from asp.net app has to be async so that asp.net app doesn't wait for email server to create and send actual email.
Originally I was just creating a worker thread for each email job request but number of emails is going to be really high and I'm not sure if creating hundreds of simultaneous threads is a good idea performance wise. My next thought is to use MSMQ but I'm not sure about its performance and scalability.
Any ideas/production examples?
Thanks!
At a previous job, we had to queue messages for delivery, much like you are explaining. We decided to create a database record that represented each message. At message creation time, we created the mail message in .NET and then saved it into the database. A separate process (Windows service built in .NET) would periodically check to see if there were messages to be sent (delivery date was in the past and status was unsent). It would then re-create the mail message from the information it received from the stored procedure and sent the message along its merry way.
The procedure that returned the messages ready for sending also performed throttling logic based on the day and time of the call (we allowed more of our bandwidth to be used at night and the weekends than during the day).
We also had need for tracking bouncebacks, message opens, and click-throughs which meant having a database record that represented the email was necessary so we could relate events (bounce, open, click) with individual emails and recipients.

Resources