The classic EDA example involves a command triggering events - like a chain of dominos.
PlaceOrder -> OrderPlaced -> PaymentSucceeded -> OrderShipped
Typically the Order Service listens to events along the way to keep the status of the order updated. Presumably (and this is the part that every article skips!) because at some point the order service will receive a ViewOrder command, which will require a response beyond "OK".
So my question is: In a EDA, do at least some of your services have to react to both events and commands?
If not, what architecture could separate the "command world" (required for supporting a HTTP API) from the "event world" of services performing async processing?
In my experience, every microservice we've built does both things. Participating with the Messaging Plane (publishing and/or subscribing) is always a requirement, and in most cases, exposing at least one API endpoint is also a requirement. In fact I don't believe we have any live services that don't expose an API endpoint although we have a few that probably could be that way.
So far, we've not run into a case where there was value in splitting a service into separate parts for API serving vs event bus interaction. I wouldn't say that's impossible, but we are very focused on services encapsulating a (functional) domain without much concern for implementation. That has allowed us to use a very formulaic approach to creating services themselves which is a big part of why we chose this architecture style.
Related
I have an aggregate root with the business logic in a c# project. Also in the solution is a REST web.api project that passes commands / requests to the aggregate root to do work and handle queries. This is my microservice. Now I want some of my events / commands / request to come of a message queue. I'm considering this:
Put a console app in the solution to listen for messages from a message queue. Then reference the aggregate root project in the console app
Is it a bad pattern to share "microservice business logic" between two services? Because now I have two "services" an api and a console app doing the work. I would have to ensure that when the business logic changes both services are deployed.
Personally I think it is fine to do what I suggest, a good CI/CD pipeline should mitigate that. But are there any other cons I might have missed?
For some background I would suggest watching DDD & Microservices: At Last, Some Boundaries! by Eric Evans.
A bounded context is the micro service. How you surface it is another matter. What you describe seems to be what I actually do quite frequently. I have an Identity & Access open source project that I'm working on (so depending on when you read this it may be in a different state) that demonstrates this structure.
Internal to an organization one may access the BC either via a service bus or via the web-api. External parties would utilize only the web-api as messaging should not be exposed.
The web-api either returns data from the query layer or sends commands via the service bus (messaging) to the BC functional endpoint. Depending on the complexity of the system I may introduce an orchestration concern that interacts with multiple BCs. It is probably a BC in its own right much along the lines of a reporting BC.
I'm designing a system that uses a microservices architecture with event-based communication (using Google Cloud Pub/Sub).
Each of the services is listening and publishing messages so between the services everything is excellent.
On top of that, I want to provide a REST API that users can use without breaking the event-based approach. However, if I have an endpoint that triggers event X, how will I send the response to the user? Does it make sense to create a subscriber for a "ProcessXComplete" event and than return 200 OK?
For example:
I have the following microservices:
Service A
Service B
Frontend Service - REST Endpoints
I'm want to send this request "POST /posts" - this request sent to the frontend service.
The frontend service should trigger "NewPostEvent."
Both Service A and Service B will listen to this event and do something.
So far, so good, but here is where things are starting to get messy for me.
Now I want to return the user that made the request a valid response that the operation completed.
How can I know that all services finished their tasks, and how to create the handler to return this response?
Does it even make sense to go this way or is there a better design to implement both event-based communications between services and providing a REST API
What you're describing is absolutely one of the challenges of event-based programming and how eventual-consistency (and lack of atomicity) coordinates with essentially synchronous UI/UX.
It generally does make sense to have an EventXComplete event. Our microservices publish events on completion of anything that could potentially fail. So, there are lots of ServiceA.EventXSuccess events flowing through the queues. I'm not familiar with Google Cloud PubSub specifically, but in general in Messaging systems there is little extra cost to publishing messages with few (or no) subscribers to require compute power. So, we tend to over-articulate service status by default; it's easy to come back later and tone down messaging as needed. In fact, some of our newer services have Messaging Verbosity configurable via an Admin API.
The Frontend Service (which here is probably considered a Gateway Service or Facade Layer) has taken on the responsibility of being a responsive backing for your UI, so it needs to, in fact, BE responsive. In this example, I'd expect it to persist the User's POST request, return a 200 response and then update its local copy of the request based on events it's subscribed to from ServiceA and ServiceB. It also needs to provide a mechanism (events, email, webhook, gRPC, etc.) to communicate from the Frontend Service back to any UI if failure happens (maybe even if success happens). Which communication you use depends on how important and time-sensitive the notification is. A good example of this is getting an email from Amazon saying billing has failed on an Order you placed. They let you know via email within a few minutes, but they don't make you wait for the ExecuteOrderBilling message to get processed in the UI.
Connecting Microservices to the UI has been one of the most challenging aspects of our particular journey; avoiding tight coupling of models/data structures, UI workflows that are independent of microservice process flows, and perhaps the toughest one for us: authorization. These are the hidden dark-sides of this distributed architecture pattern, but they too can be overcome. Some experimentation with your particular system is likely required.
It really depends on your business case. If the REST svc is dropping message in message queue , then after dropping the message we simply return the reference ID that client can poll to check the progress.
E.g. flight search where your system has to calls 100s of backend services to show you flight deals . Search api will drop the message in the queue and save the same in the database with some reference ID and you return same id to client. Once worker are done with the message they will update the reference in DB with results and meanwhile your client will be polling (or web sockets preferably) to update the UI with results.
The idea is you can't block the request and keep everything async , this will make system scaleable.
I know that messaging system is non blocking and scalable and should be used in microservices environment.
The use case that i am questioning is:
Imagine that there's an admin dashboard client responsible for sending API request to create an Item object. There is a microservice that provides API endpoint which uses a MySQL database where the Item should be stored. There is another microservice which uses elastic search for text searching purposes.
Should this admin dashboard client :
A. Send 2 API Calls; 1 Call to MySQL service and another elasticsearch service
or
B. Send message to topic to be consumed by both MySQL service and elasticsearch service?
What are the pros and cons when considering A or B?
I'm thinking that it's a little overkill when only 2 microservices are consuming this topic. Also, the frequency of which the admin is creating Item object is very small.
Like many things in software architecture, it depends. Your requirements, SLAs and business needs should make it clearer.
As you noted, messaging system is not blocking and much more scalable, but, API communication got it pluses as well.
In general, REST APIs are best suited to request/response interactions where the client application sends a request to the API backend over HTTP.
Message streaming is best suited for notifications when new data or events occur that you may want to take action upon.
In you specific case, I would go with a messaging system with is much more scalable and non-blocking.
Your A approach is coupling the "routing" logic into your application. Pretend you need to perform an API call to audit your requests, then you will need to change the code and add another call to your application logic. As you said, the approach is synchronous and unless you're not providing threading logic, your calls will be lined up and won't scale, ie, call mysql --> wait response, then call elastic search --> wait response, ...
In any case you can prefer this approach if you need immediate consistency, ie, the result call of one action feeding the second action.
The B approach is decoupling that routing logic, so, any other service interested in the event can subscribe to the topic and perform the action expected. Totally asynchronous and scalable. Here you will have eventual consistency and you have to recover any possible failure.
I heard Amazon uses HTTP for its microservice based architecture. An alternative is to use a messaging system like RabbitMQ or Solace systems. I personally have experience with Solace based microservice architecture, but never with REST.
Any idea what do various big league implementations like Amazon, Netflix, UK Gov etc use?
Other aspect is, in microservices, following things are required (besides others):
* Pattern matching
* Async messaging.. receiving system may be down
* Publish subscribe
* Cache load event.. i.e. on start up, a service may need to load all data from a couple of other services, and should be notified when data is completely loaded, so that it can 'know' that it is now ready to service requests
These aspects are naturally done with messaging rather than REST. Why should anyone use REST (except for public API). Thanks.
A standard that I've followed in the past is to use web services when the key requirement is speed (and data loss isn't critical) and messaging when the key requirement is reliability. Like you've said, if the receiving system is down, a message will sit on a queue until the system comes back up to process it. If it's a REST endpoint and it's down, requests will simply fail.
REST API presumes use of HTTP only. it is quite stone age technology and does not accept async. messaging. To plugin messaging there, I would consider WebSockets Gateways
-sorry for eventually dummy statements
We are looking to develop a number of services, but are not sure which "response" mechanism is the best route to go. The two contenders are:
HTTP callbacks, where the service would update the client application via "pinging" it with update messages sent via HTTP requests
Message Passing, where the service would update the client via publishing messages into a pub-sub queue on a message server
In both cases, both the caller and the services are within our network, we have full control over them, and things we develop are the only users of the services.
What are the pros / cons of each way of providing status updates to the calling application, and what, if any, pros / cons would there be for making the initial request via one method or the other?
Note: The first service we have in mind for this is an email service similar to SendGrid, which we can't use for various reasons, but still need the same functionality.
The main difference would be the quality of service that you get "out of the box" with a messaging server.
If you go with HTTP then your application has to take care of what happens when a message doesn't arrive as expected. To get an idea of the issues you need to consider and the complexities involved in solving them, take a look at WS-ReliableMessaging or HTTPLR.
With messaging, you get a configurable level of reliability out of the box. And there's a lot of good choice these days such as ActiveMQ, RabbitMQ, 0MQ.
My personal preference is for reliability to be handled at the transport layer (by messaging), but then for a good discussion and dissenting view, check out "Nobody Needs Reliable Messaging."