as a software engineer I want to tell your system when something needs to be done. I want to provide the implementation code of what needs to be done. I want your system to call into my code and execute my implementation. I want my code to execute in its own processing space and probably on my own infrastructure and servers. As a software engineer, I favor convention over configuration.
I need this feature because often times I work on service agreements for customers to deliver specialized, one off solutions, and I dont want to build this plumbing all of the time for each new client.
I simply want to write some code that does some work using my resources, and I want your system to begin the execution of my code.
NSB should be able to meet your needs. You will be able to get messages from external systems that don't talk to an MS platform by exposing your endpoint(s) as WCF services(built-in). NSB also supports Pub/Sub as well as many other message patterns. As long as the exchanges can be unidirectional, you should be off to a good start. NSB will handle all of the underlying plumbing you speak and will ensure that messages don't get lost.
Related
We are designing a new system, which will be based on microservices.
I would like to consult, whether it is considered an anti-pattern to produce and consume from the same queue.
The service should be a REST-based microservice.
The backend microservice should handle large-scale operations on IoT devices, which may not always be connected to the internet, the API must be asynchronous and provide robust features such as the number of X retries before final failure, etc.
The API should immediately return a UUID with 201 responses from the POST request and expose 'Get Current Status' (pending, active, done.. etc.) of the operation status of the IoT device, by accepting the UUID in the get request.
We've thought about two solutions (described at a high level) for managing this task:
Implement both API GW Microservice and the logic handler Microservice.
The API GW will expose the REST API methods and will publish messages via RabbitMQ that will be consumed by multiple instances of the logic handler microservice.
The main drawback is that we will need to manage multiple deployments, and keep consistency between the APIs exposed in service A, to the consumer in service B.
Implement one microservice, that exposes the relevant APIs, and in order to handle the scale and the asynchronous operations, will publish the request to own queue over RabbitMQ, being consumed by the same microservice at a background worker.
The second solution looks easier to develop, maintain, and update because all the logic including the REST API's handling will take care of the same microservice.
To some members of the team, this solution looks a bit dirty, and we can't decide whether it is an anti-pattern to consume messages of your own queue.
Any advice will be helpful.
I would like to consult, whether it is considered an anti-pattern to produce and consume from the same queue.
That definitely sounds suspicious, not that I have a lot of experience with queues. But, you also talk about microservices and "producing" & consuming from those - that sounds fine, there's no reason why a microservice (and by extension, it's API) can't do both. But then I'm a bit confused because in reading the rest of the question I don't really see how that issue is a factor.
Having some kind of separation between the API and the microservice sounds wise, because you can change the microservices implementation without affecting callers, assuming it's a non-breaking change. It means you have the ability to solve API / consumer problems, and backend problems, separately.
Version control is just a part of good engineering practice, and probably not an ideal reason to bend your architecture. You should be able to run more than one version in parallel - a lot of API providers operate a N+2 model, where they support the current version, plus the last two (major) releases. That way you give your consumers a reasonable runway for upgrading.
As long as you keep the two concerns modular so you'd be able to separate them when it would make sense it doesn't matter.
I'd think in the longer term you'd probably want to treat them as two aspects of the same service as they'd probably have different update cycle (e.g. the gateway part may need things like auth, maybe additional api in gRPC, etc.),different security reqs (one can accessible to the outside where the other consumes internal resource) different scalability concerns (you'd probably need more resources for the processing) etc.
I was reading through Nevatech Sentinet the last week and I'm currently asking myself the following question: "When NevaTech Sentinet exists, with all these named features, why should anyone use BizTalk with ESB Toolkit and extend it with Sentinet?"
Does I see there something wrong, but Sentinet is able to handle everything and more what BizTalk with ESB Toolkit is also able to do?
Essentially you are talking about 2 very different products here.
Sentinet is a very good tool if you are thinking about centralized API management. It is very good in what it does in that niche.
BizTalk on the other hand is a ESB, using a publish/subscribe architecture. BizTalk also has various ways of connecting to non-trivial systems like SAP, DB2, Siebel, MSMQ, etc... It can also do EDI/AS2/X12, flat file parsing and so on.
You can set it up as a ESB and/or message broker/hub/etc...
In your specific case (I'm guessing web services related?) it might seem that BizTalk and Sentinet are similar, yet the two are very different and actuallly complement each other rather nicely.
As you see these are 2 completely diverse products and together they actually might be a perfect match in your case.
Some more clarification after your comment:
Using BizTalk does not necessarily mean you have to use ESB Toolkit. BizTalk can perfectly act as an ESB without the ESB Toolkit.
The benefits of using Sentinet is definitely API management. What you are focusing on when "doing" API management with Sentinet is to form a single layer of API's within Sentinet. Often you would point all your clients (both internal or external) to Sentinet, where you would host all of your services virtually. You gain a lot of control that way and can add security, versioning, load balancing, SLA reporting, etc... to your existing services without any hassle.
Another thing Sentinet is quite good at is low-latency services. This is something BizTalk is not particulary good at, since it will persist everything to it's database to prevent losing messages. (I once used it in a POC and setup a virtual service calling an existing, external service with additional enrichment and easily covered 200+ trx/seconds).
BizTalk on the other hand is middleware. That's a whole other playing field.
It's very good in connecting different systems to each other using different protocols, mapping messages to other formats (xml, flat file or EDI), adding business logic to your flows, integration patters, long running flows, loose coupling, etc... you wouldn't want to use it as a virtual service since it will persist everything to it's message box!
Hopefully now you see they are both quite a different tool set.
They do play along nicely next to each other though: hosting your BizTalk web services in a virtual web service on Sentinet has a lot of advantages, especially in a fast-paced environment.
One addition to #Peter's great answer:
I almost always install the ESB ToolKit, if nothing else for the centralized exception handling (EsbExceptionDb). You may or may not want to use the itinerary and other services in the toolkit, but the exception DB is very handy when trying to debug and potentially resubmit messages.
Our client follows SOA principles and have design web services that are very fine grained like createCustomer, deleteCustomer, etc.
I am not sure if fine grained services are desirable as they create transactional related issues. for e.g. if a business requirement is every Customer must have a Address when it's created. So in this case, the presentation component will invoke createCustomer first and then createAddress. The services internally use simple JDBC to update the respective tables in db. As a service is invoked by external component, it has not way of fulfilling transactional requirement here i.e. if createAddress fails, createCustomer operation must be rolledback.
I guess, one of the approach to deal with this is to either design course grained services (that creates a Customer and associated Address in one single JDBC transaction) or
perhaps simple create a reversing service (deleteCustomer) that simply reverses the action of createCustomer.
any suggestions. thanks
The short answer: services should be designed for the convenience of the service client. If the client is told "call this, then cdon't forget to call that" you're making their lives too difficult. There should be a coarse-grained service.
A long answer: Can a Customer reasonably be entered with no Address? So we call
createCustomer( stuff but no address)
and the result is a valid (if maybe not ideal) state for a customer. Later we call
changeCustomerAddress ( customerId, Address)
and now the persisted customer is more useful.
In this scenario the API is just fine. The key point is that the system's integrity does not depend upon the client code "remembering" to do something, in this case to add the address. However, more likely we don't want a customer in the system without an address in which case I see it as the service's responsibility to ensure that this happens, and to give the caller the fewest possibilities of getting it wrong.
I would see a coarse-grained createCompleteCustomer() method as by far the best way to go - this allows the service provider to solve the problem once rather then require every client programmer to implement the logic.
Alternatives:
a). There are web Services specs for Atomic Transactions and major vendors do support these specs. In principle you could actually implement using fine-grained methods and true transactions. Practically, I think you enter a world of complexity when you go down this route.
b). A stateful interface (work, work, commit) as mentioned by #mtreit. Generally speaking statefulness either adds complexity or obstructs scalability. Where does the service hold the intermediate state? If in memeory, then we require affinity to a particular service instance and hence introduce scaling and reliability problems. If in some State or Work-in-progress database then we have significant additional implementation complexity.
Ok, lets start:
Our client follows SOA principles and
have design web services that are very
fine grained like createCustomer,
deleteCustomer, etc.
No, the client has forgotten to reach the SOA principles and put up what most people do - a morass of badly defined interfaces. For SOA principles, the clinent would have gone to a coarser interface (such asfor example the OData meachsnism to update data) or followed the advice of any book on multi tiered architecture written in like the last 25 years. SOA is just another word for what was invented with CORBA and all the mistakes SOA dudes do today where basically well known design stupidities 10 years ago with CORBA. Not that any of the people doing SOA today has ever heard of CORBA.
I am not sure if fine grained services
are desirable as they create
transactional related issues.
Only for users and platforms not supporting web services. Seriously. Naturally you get transactional issues if you - ignore transactional issues in your programming. The trick here is that people further up the food chain did not, just your client decided to ignore common knowledge (again, see my first remark on Corba).
The people designing web services were well aware of transactional issues, which is why web service specification (WS*) contains actually mechanisms for handling transactional integrity by moving commit operations up to the client calling the web service. The particular spec your client and you should read is WS-Atomic.
If you use the current technology to expose your web service (a.k.a. WCF on the MS platform, similar technologies exist in the java world) then you can expose transaction flow information to the client and let the client handle transaction demarcation. This has its own share iof problems - like clients keeping transactions open maliciously - but is still pretty much the only way to handle transactions that do get defined in the client.
As you give no platform and just mention java, I am pointing you to some MS example how that can look:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms752261.aspx
Web services, in general, are a lot more powerfull and a lot more thought out than what most people doing SOA ever think about. Most of the problems they see have been solved a long time ago. But then, SOA is just a buzz word for multi tiered architecture, but most people thinking it is the greatest thing since sliced bread just dont even know what was around 10 years ago.
As your customer I would be a lot more carefull about the performance side. Fine grained non-semantic web services like he defines are a performance hog for non-casual use because the amount of times you cross the network to ask / update small small small small stuff makes the network latency kill you. Creating an order for like 10 goods can easily take 30-40 network calls in this scenario which will really possibly take a lot of time. SOA preaches, ever since the beginning (if you ignore the ramblings of those who dont know history) to NOT use fine grained calls but to go for a coarse grained exchange of documents and / or a semantical approach, much like the OData system.
If transactionality is required, a coarser-grained single operation that can implement transaction-semantics on the server is definitely going to be much simpler to implement.
That said, certainly it is possible to construct some scheme where the target of the operations is not committed until all of the necessary fine-grained operations have succeeded. For instance, have a Commit operation that checks some flag associated with the object on the server; the flag is not set until all of the necessary steps in the transaction have completed, and Commit fails if the flag is not set.
Of course, if having light-weight, fine grained operations is an important design requirement, perhaps the need to have transactionality should be re-thought.
My project is converting a legacy fat-client desktop application into the web. The database is not changing as a result. Consequently, we are being forced to call external web services to access data in our own database. Couple this with the fact that some parts of our application are allowed to access the database directly through DAOs (a practice that is much faster and easier). The functionality we're supposed to call web services for are what has been deemed necessary for downstream, dependent systems.
Is this really how SOA is supposed to work? Admittedly, this is my first foray into the SOA world, but I have to think this is the complete wrong way to go about this.
I agree that it's the wrong approach. Calling your own database via a webservice should raise red flags in a design review, and a simple DAO is the way to go (KISS principle).
Now, if it's data that truly needs to be shared across your company (accounts, billing, etc) THEN it's time to consider a more heavy-duty solution such as SOAP or REST. But your team could still access it directly, which would be faster.
My team had the same thing happen with a web service that we wanted to call in batch mode. Rather than call our own SOAP endpoint, we instead set it up to call a POJO (plain old java object) interface. There's no XML transformation or extra network hop through an SOA appliance.
It's overkill to put an XML interface between MVC layers when your team owns the whole application. It may not be traditional SOA... but IMO it's traditional common sense. ;)
I've seen people try to jam SOA at too low a level and this may be such a case. I would certainly not equate DAO and SOA at the same level.
I agree with #ewernli
What is SOA "in plain english"?
IMHO, SOA makes sense only at the enterprise-level, and means nothing for a single application.
If I'm reading into your question correctly, your web services are for C/R/U/D data into the database. If so, providing C/R/U/D services directly to the database and its tables are likely too low level to be SOA services.
I'd look for services at a higher level and try to determine whether they are interesting at to the enterprise. If so, those are your services. I'd also ask myself whether my former desktop app is providing services (i.e. should you be looking to make your new app an SOA service itself rather than trying to force an SOA architecture into the desktop app at a low level.
Consequently, we are being forced to
call external web services to access
data in our own database.
Man, that gotta hurt. As far as services in SOA go,
a service is a repeatable logical manifestation of a business task - that means you are not implementing SOA if you are not 'service enabling' business processes. If you are putting some web services to select data out of your data base, all you got is a bunch of webservices, which would slowdown your applications which could have been faster by conventional data access patterns (like DAO)
When you equate SOA with Web services there is a risk of replacing existing APIs with Web services without proper architecture. This will result in identifying many services that are not business aligned.
Also, service orientation is a way of integrating a business as a group of linked services - so ask yourself is the organization making use of these atomic services to achieve further benefits?
Do a google search for SOA anti-patterns and you will find what are the different ways to end up with a pile of web-services instead of SOA.
SOA... SOA... is the bane of my existence, for just this reason. What, or what not, constitutes SOA? I support SOA products in my day job, and some people get it, some don't. SOA.. SOA is about wrapping discrete business services in XML. ZIP+4 validation services. Payment gateways. B2B messaging.
SOA CAN be used to decouple desktop apps from backend databases. Sometimes it doesn't make sense, sometimes it does. What almost NEVER makes sense is low-latency high-query-count logic. If you ever have to use an application in France directly connected to a database in California, you'll get what I mean. SOA pretty much forces you to then smartly about how you model and return your data (look into SDO - Service Data Objects). The devil's in the details though. Marshalling data to/from XML can be costly.
Good SOA design is all about separation of behavior and data.
I repeat behavior and data need to be separate or else you will have lots or problems whether its CORBA/SOAP/REST/XMLRPC or even plain old in-the-same-JVM-method calls.
Lots of people will talk about service end points, message handling, and contracts making SOA one of the more soporific areas of computing when its surprisingly not complicated.
If you are doing Java its really easy. Make POJOs for your domain objects with no weird state behavior and no weird collaborators and then make Service classes with the behavior. More often then not you can just use your DAO as the service (I mean you should have a thin layer over the DAO but if you don't need one....).
OOP lovers will disagree of this separation of data and behavior but this design pattern scales extremely well and is infact what most functional programming languages like Erlang do.
That being said if you are making a video game or something very state based then this design philosophy is a bad idea. BTW SOA is about as vacuous as the term enterprise.
Which part do you think is wrong? The part that you have to hit the web service, or the part you are hitting the database directly?
SOA is more of an API design guideline, not a development methodology. It's not an easy thing to implement, but the reward of reusability is often worth it.
See Service-Oriented Architecture expands the vision of Web services or any technical book on SOA. Simply wrapping function calls with web call does not make it a Service Oriented Architecture. The idea of the SOA is to make reusable services, and then you make higher level services (like website) by compositing or orchestrating underlying low-level services. At the very low level, you should focus on things like statelessness, loose coupling, and granularity. Modern frameworks like Microsoft's WCF supports wiring protocols like SOAP, REST, and faster binary side by side.
If your application is designed to run over the Internet, you should be mindful of the network latency issues. In a traditional client-server application that is deployed on a LAN, because the latency is sub 10 msec, you could hit the database every time you need the data without interrupting the user experience. However, on the Internet, it is not uncommon to have 200 msec latency if you go across proxies or oceans. If you hit the database 100 times, and that will add up to 20 seconds of pause. In SOA, you would try to pack the whole thing into a single document, and you exchange the document back and forth, similar to the way tax is filed using Form 1040 if you live in the US.
You may say that the latency issue is irrelevant because the web service is only consumed by your web application layer. But you could hit the web service from the browser using AJAX reload the data, which should give the user shorter response time.
Maybe I just expected "three-tier architecture" to deliver a little more than just a clean separation of responsibilities in the source code (see here)...
My expectations to such a beast that can safely call its self "three-tier architecture" are a lot higher... so, here they are:
If you were to build something like a "three tier architecture" system but this time with these, additional requirements and constraints:
Up and running at all times from a Users point of viewExpect when the UI gets replacedWhen other parts of the system are down, the UI has to handle that
Never get into a undefined state or one from which the system cannot recover automatically
The system has to be "pausable"
The middle-tier has to contain all the business logic
Obviously using an underlying Database, itself in the data-tier (if you like)
The business logic can use a big array of core services (here in the data-tier, not directly accessible by the UI, only through business logic tier facade)
Can be unavailable at times
Can be available as many parallel running, identical processes
The UI's may not contain any state other than the session in case of web UI's and possibly transient view baking models
Presentation-tier, logic-tier and data/core-services-tier have to be scalable independently
The only thing you can take for granted is the network
Note: The mentioned "core services" are heavy-weight components that access various external systems within the enterprise. An example would be the connection to an Active Directory or to a "stock market ticker"...
1. How would you do it?
If you don't have an answer right now, maybe read on and let me know what you think about this:
Sync considered harmful. Ties your system together in a bad way (Think: "weakest link"). Thread blocked while waiting for timeout. Not easy to recover from.
Use asynchronous messaging for all inter-process communication (between all tiers). Allows to suspend the system anytime you like. When part of the system is down, no timeout happens.
Have central routing component where all requests get routed through and core services can register themselves.
Add heartbeat component that can e.g. inform the UI that a component is not currently available.
State is a necessary evil: Allow no state other than in the business logic tier. This way the beast becomes manageable. While the core services might well need to access data themselves, all that data should be fed in by the calling middle tier. This way the core services can be implemented in a fire and forget fashion.
2. What do you think about this "solution"?
I think that, in the real world, high-availability systems are implemented using fail-over: for example, it isn't that the UI can continue to work without the business layer, instead it's that if the business layer becomes unavailable then the UI fails over to using a backup instance of the business layer.
Apart from that, they might operate using store-and-forward: e.g. a mail system might store a piece of mail, and retransmit it periodically, if it can't deliver it immediately.
Yep its the way most large websites do it. Look at nosql databases, Google's bigtable architecture etc.
1. This is the general approach I'd take.
I'd use a mixture of memcached , a nosql-cloud (couch-db or mongo-db) and enterprise grade RDBMS systems (core data storage) for the data layer. I'd then write the service layer ontop of the data layer. nosql database API's are massively parallel (look at couchdb with its ngingx service layer parallizer). I'd then provide "oldschool each request is a web-page" generating web-servers and also direct access to the service layer for new style AJAX application; both these would depend on the service layer.
p.s. the RDBMS is an important component here, it holds the authoritative copy of the all the data in the memchached/nosql cloud. I would use an enterprise grade RDBMS to do data-centre to data-centre replication. I don't know how the big boys do their cloud based site replication, it would scare me if they did data-cloud to data-cloud replication :P
Some points:
yYu do not need heartbeat, with nosql
the approach taken is that if content
becomes unavailable, you regenerate it
onto another server using the
authoratitve copy of the data.
The burden of state-less web-design
is carried to the nosql and memcached
layer which is infinitely scalable.
So you do not need to worry about
this. Just have a good network
infrastructure.
In terms of sync, when you are
talking to the RDBMS you can expect
acceptable synchronous response
times. Your cloud you should treat as
an asynchronous resource, you will
get help from the API's that
interface with your cloud so you
don't even have to think about this.
Advice I can give about networking
and redundancy is this: do not go for
fancy Ethernet bonding, as its not worth
it -- things always go wrong. Just
set up redundant switches, ethernet cards
and have multiple routes to all your
machines. You can use OpenBSD and
CARP for your routers, as they work
great - routers are your worst point of failure -- openbsd solves this problem.
2. You've described the general components of a web 2.0 farm, so no comment:D