Is it possible to create independent module for all interface that is connected to the biztalk application We are connecting 19 different systems to the biztalk serer so the future enhancement should not cause any effect on the whole application the changes must be reflected in particular interface
say if I have interfaces like dialler,posidex, mlms ,Mfos ,finnonelms
If I have to modify only posidex the change must only be reflected in that and not in all the interface
How can I proceed?
You want to employ a publication-subscription infrastructure.
Each interface of a common solution should map to a canonical interface (schema) on the publication side. Then this canonical schema is what you use on the publication side. The advantage of this, is that when you pub interface changes you only have to update and deploy the pub project and how it maps to the canonical schema.
Effectively you will have something like 3+ Visual Studio projects, a pub, canonical, and one to many sub. The sub and the pub will both reference the canonical, which contains the common artifacts. You will deploy all the projects to the same BizTalk app. In the future if you pub interface changes you can alter it, and deploy it without having to worry about how it will effect your subscribers.
Related
I understand the need for abstraction and separating concerns and unit tests, however, it seems to me that separating entities and context into 2 projects is slight overengineering?
I could be missing something really, but is this because you want to be open for different ORM-s?
Much thanks for the clarification.
The main reason I prefer to have Infrastructure in a separate project, rather than just a separate folder, from the domain model (Core project) is simple: enforcing my design via the compiler.
I have a design rule, which is basically the Dependency Inversion Principle. Don't depend on low level implementations (such as those found in Infrastructure), instead depend on abstractions (interfaces). Also, don't have your abstractions depend on details; have details depend on abstractions. The details of how and which infrastructure is being used for a given abstraction are in the Infrastructure service implementations.
Abstractions say what; implementations say how.
What: I need to send an email.
ISendEmail interface
How: I want to do it using the SMTP protcol
SmtpEmailSender class (implements ISendEmail)
How: I want to do it using a SendGrid API
SendGridEmailSender class (implements ISendEmail)
So, in a single project, how would you ensure that the implementations depend on the interfaces, and not vice versa?
How would you ensure your domain classes didn't directly reference or use Infrastructure types?
I'm not aware of a way to do this.
But if you put them in separate projects, and you have the implementation details project depend on the abstractions-and-models project, you now have solved the problem. The compiler WILL NOT ALLOW the Core project to reference anything in the Infrastructure project, because it would create a circular dependency.
This constraint helps developers do the right thing and keeps them falling into the pit of success even if they don't completely grok how the dependency inversion principle works or why it's important.
And I've never found 3 projects (Core/Infra/UI) to be overengineering for any non-demo app I've built for real work. It's only 3 projects.
I want to share the pact file from consumer to bitbucket and then provider can use from the same location.
Does anybody implemented this?
Thanks in advance.
It's worth noting that it's very much a non-standard way of doing it and I would highly recommend you don't do it this way (see https://docs.pact.io/pact_nirvana/step_4/). You're going to have to build a lot of the workflows again, and that will require investment in building tooling and coming up with ideas to evolve the contract. At some point, you'll be rebuilding key features the Pact Broker already has and would be better off just running that or using a hosted service like pactflow.io.
So, without a pact broker, you don't get the can-i-deploy tool, versioning, environment management and all of these powerful workflows.
With that said - if you do want to use bitbucket:
you'll need to create a manual process (i.e. script) to upload (from consumer) and download (provider) from bitbucket
You'll only want to upload from CI, so that's easier to control
For provider verification, you really want to do this on a laptop, so you'll need a standard approach for pulling down the correct contract to verify there and on CI. Every team member will need credentials to read from that repo
Pact doesn't have a mechanism to pull from git protocols, but you could potentially add that feature to the languages you need them for
I recently started a side-project. It was supposed to be a virtual recipe-book with the capabilities to store and retrieve recipes (CRUD), rate them and search through them. This is nothing new, but i wanted to build it as a desktop application to learn more about databases, unit testing, UIs and so on. Now that the core domain is pretty much done (i use a DDD approach) and i implemented most of the CRUD Repositories, i want to make this a bit more extensible by hosting the core functionality online, so i am able to write multiple backends (desktop application, web application, web api, etc).
Service Oriented Architecture (or Microservices) sound like a good approach to me to do that. The problem i am facing is how to decide, which parts of my project belong into a separate service and how to name them.
Take the following parts of the project:
Core domain (Aggregates, Entities, Value Objects, Logic) -> Java
Persistence (DAOs, Repositories, multiple Database backend implementations) -> Java
Search (Search Services which use SQL queries on the persistence DB for searching) -> Java
Desktop Application -> JS (Electron) or JavaFX
Web Application -> Flask or Rails
Web API (Manage, Rate, Search for recipes using REST) -> ?
My initial approach would be to put the core domain, the persistence, the search and the web api into a single sub-project and host that whole stack on Heroku or something similar. That way my clients could consume the web interface. The Desktop and Web apps would be different projects on their own. The Dektop app could share the core domain if they are both written in Java.
Is this a valid approach, or should i split the first service into smaller parts? How do you name these services?
Eric Evans on GOTO 2015 conference ( https://youtu.be/yPvef9R3k-M) and I 100% agree with him, answered to your question. Microservice scope should be one or maybe more Bounded Context(s). Including its supporting classes for persistence, REST/HTTP API, etc.
As I understood, the microservice is deployment wrapper over Bounded Context, with adding the isolation, scaling and resilient aspects.
As you wrote, you didn't apply Strategic Design to define bounded context. So its time to check, before tearing the app to parts.
I'm having to update one of our ancient Intranet applications that was written in Classic ASP and utilizes an in-house COM+ Service. I cannot find the source code to this object anywhere and it was not documented by the developer.
I can view the methods available in the Service through Start -> Administrative Tools -> Component Services but can't for the life of me figure out how to look inside the methods to see what they're doing.
Is there anyway to decompile these COM+ Services, or otherwise see what their methods do, or am I doomed to pure observation of the old application and try my best to mimic the behavior and data?
Note: I exported the service from the old server, installed in on my dev box, added the reference to a VS2010 project, and tried to discern these methods using the Object Explorer. Nothing...
COM services include type descriptions of what methods exist on the COM classes and their parameters so that automation controllers can figure out how to pass parameters to the COM methods.
Beyond that, though, there is nothing to indicate what the COM classes do internally other than the native x86 machine code itself. You can try using an x86 disassembler on the DLL, but unless you are already familiar with x86 machine code instructions, this won't be a lot of help.
Compiling source code down to native machine code throws away an enormous amount of information. Variable names, internal function names, none of that is needed for the CPU to execute instructions and perform the operations indicated by the original source code. It is virtually impossible for disassemblers to reconstitute these names that would be helpful clues as to what the code is intended to do. A disassembler can sometimes help figure out core logic, but it will require a lot of careful analysis and effort by a person to even scratch the surface. It's like trying to understand the forest by looking at individual blades of grass.
We have a PeopleSoft installation and I am building a separate web application that needs to pull data from the PeopleSoft database. The web application will be on a different server than PeopleSoft, but the same internal network.
What are my options?
This one's an oldie but it may still be of interest.
PeopleSoft has it's own schema within the host database (Oracle, SQL Server, DB2 etc) which are the PSxxx tables, eg: PSRECDEFN is the equivalent of Oracle's DBA_TABLES. These tables should not be touched by any external code. The application tables are stored in PS_xxx tables, eg: PS_JOB. These tables can be read and updated by any SQL code.
Many batch programs in PeopleSoft (eg: Application Engines, COBOL or SQRs) access the tables directly, and this is the fastest way to get data into or out of the database. However PeopleSoft has quite a rich application layer which is bypassed when doing direct SQL. This application layer must be replicated in direct SQL code, especially for inserts or updates. There may be updates to other tables, calculations or increments of database-stored counters.
To determine how to do this one must look through the PeopleCode (a VB6-like interpreted language), page design (via Application Designer) and use the PeopleCode and SQL trace tools. These days the application layer is huge, so this can be a lengthy task for non-trivial pages. PeopleSoft groups related pages into "Components", and all pages in the component are saved at the same time.
Component Interfaces were introduced with PeopleTools 8 as a means to avoid doing all of this. Using a generator within the PeopleSoft app designer, a Component Interface is generated based on the component. For many components these can be used to access the pages as a user would, and can be accessed via PeopleCode programs, and therefore via App Engine programs and via the Integration Broker. They can also be wrapped in Java code and access directly by code able to execute against the app server with a web service wrapper. This method is best for low-volume transactions: heavy extracts work better with native SQL.
The online development and tracing tools in PeopleSoft are pretty good, and the documentation is excellent (although quite extensive) and available on: http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E17566_01/epm91pbr0/eng/psbooks/psft_homepage.htm
If you are just looking at bringing out data from a given Component, the easiest way would be to turn on the SQL trace (under the utilities menu in PeopleSoft) and bring up some records for the Component. Wading through the trace file will give you a good idea of what to do, and much of the SQL could be cut and pasted. Another method would be to find an existing report that is similiar to what you are trying to do and cut out the SQL.
Have a PeopleSoft business analyst on hand to help you develop the requirements wouldn't hurt either.
Yes - Integration Broker is Peoplesoft's proprietary implementation of a publish/subscribe mechanism, speaking xml. You could of course just write code that goes against your database using JDBC or OLE/ODBC. Nothing keeps you from doing this. However, you must understand the Peoplesoft database schema, so that you are pulling from, or inserting/updating/deleting all of the proper data. Peoplesoft takes care of this for you.
Also, check out Component Interfaces - and they are exposed as an API to Java or C/C++.
I guess it depends on your requirement, and which version of PeopleSoft you're on.
Do you want real-time lookup? If that's the case then you'll want to look at Web Services/Integration Broker.
If you want a batch/bulk export then a scheduled App Engine would do the trick.
The best way is to use Integration Broker (IB) services to expose the PeopleSoft database data to external applications. The external application will be able to access the PeopleSoft IB services as XML over HTTP, thus allowing you to use any widely used XML parsers for this purpose.
The problem with component interfaces as opposed to Integration Broker is that component interfaces tend to be much slower than direct DB access from within IB service PeopleCode. Also future additions to the component attached to the component interface sometimes tend to 'break' the interface.
For more details on PeopleSoft Integration broker, you can access the online documentation at http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E26239_01/pt851h3/eng/psbooks/tibr/book.htm
Going directly to the database means you have to re-create the presentation logic... see my longer answer above. You can do this for simple pages but otherwise using a component interface is the way to go.
You can also write a sqr process for bulk data extraction. SQR will create the output file which the other application can pick. SQR would be faster than the application engine programs as it performs most of the operations in memory.