I have a method on my server that I want to run from time to time, though not on a consistent schedule or as a response to a specific event, and would trigger it manually. I can easily ssh into the server, cd into the directory, uncomment the function call, run the code then comment the function call out again, though it can be a bit tedious. I was wondering if it would be bad practice to expose it as a REST API endpoint and just run it from there whenever necessary instead. Any and all advice and suggestions would be helpful.
Related
As far as I understand, in a CQRS-oriented API exposed through a RESTful HTTP API the commands and queries are expressed through the HTTP verbs, the commands being asynchronous and usually returning 202 Accepted, while the queries get the information you need. Someone asked me the following: supposing they want to change some information, they would have to send a command and then a query to get the resulting state, why to force the client to make two HTTP requests when you can simply return what they want in the HTTP response of the command in a single HTTP request?
We had a long conversation in DDD/CRQS mailing list a couple of months ago (link). One part of the discussion was "one way command" and this is what I think you are assuming. You can find out that Greg Young is opposed to this pattern. A command changes the state and therefore prone to failure, meaning it can fail and you should support this. REST API with POST/PUT requests provide perfect support for this but you should not just return 202 Accepted but really give some meaningful result back. Some people return 200 success and also some object that contains a URL to retrieve the newly created or updated object. If the command handler fails, it should return 500 and an error message.
Having fire-and-forget commands is dangerous since it can give a consumer wrong ideas about the system state.
My team also recently had a very heated discussion about this very thing. Thanks for posting the question. I have usually been the defender of the "fire and forget" style commands. My position has always been that, if you want to be able to move to an async command dispatcher some day, then you cannot allow commands to return anything. Doing so would kill your chances since an async command doesn't have much of a way to return a value to the original http call. Some of my team mates really challenged this thinking so I had to start thinking if my position was really worth defending.
Then I realized that async or not async is JUST an implementation detail. This led me to realize that, using our frameworks, we can build in middleware to accomplish the same thing our async dispatchers are doing. So, we can build our command handlers the way we want to, returning what ever makes sense, and then let the framework around the handlers deal with the "when".
Example: My team is building an http API in node.js currently. Instead of requiring a POST command to only return a blank 202, we are returning details of the newly created resource. This helps the front-end move on. The front-end POSTS a widget and opens a channel to the server's web socket using the same command as the channel name. the request comes to the server and is intercepted by middleware which passes it to the service bus. When the command is eventually processed synchronously by the handler, it "returns" via the web socket and the front-end is happy. The middleware can be disabled easily, making the API synchronous again.
There is nothing stopping you from doing that. If you execute your commands synchronously and create your projections synchronously, then it will be easy for you to just make a query directly after executing the command and returning that result. If you do this asynchronously via the rest-api, then you have no query result to send back. If you do it asynchronously within your system, then you can wait for the projection to be created and then send the response to the client.
The important thing is that you separate your write and read models in classic CQRS style. That does not mean that you cannot do a read in the same request as you do the command. Sure, you can send a command to the server and then with SignalR (or something) wait for a notification that your projection have been created/updated. I do not see a problem with waiting for the projection to be created on the server side instead for on the client.
How you do this will affect you infrastructure and error handling. Also, you will hold the HTTP request open for a longer time if you return the result at once.
In my ember-cli app I use a token based approach to communicate with a secured REST interface on the server side. As tokens expire after some time, I would like to realize the following behaviour:
As soon as the client tries to access the REST service with an expired token, I would like the user to be redirected to the login screen.
Right now I use the 'catch' function on the store's find method while fetching data in the route's model callback. This works quite well. As a matter of fact, there are more REST invocations than the ones that refer to the model store.
What would be the best practice to deal with this situation? In what place should I implement the (exception) handling? As this seems to be a crosscutting concern, I'd like to implement it in a central place.
I prefer to follow an optimistic approach, thus not checking the validity of the token on each and every transition. It will be sufficient if the redirect will take place the moment the application tries to communicate with the REST interface (ie as soon as it gets the error message from the server).
Thanks
You may want to consider the global jquery hooks so you can respond to an Auth fail uniformly. See:
http://api.jquery.com/category/ajax/global-ajax-event-handlers/
It's up to you if you want to set window.location or lookup your application controller and use transitionToRoute() for switching to the login route. Make sure that if you use Ember functions to put your code in an Ember.run.once() from your jquery hook function so it occurs on the Ember run loop.
You could also consider using Ember SimpleAuth (which kind of locks you into its paradigm) or even better and a safer long term priposal IMO, doing it from scratch by first following these tutorials:
- http://coderberry.me/blog/2013/07/08/authentication-with-emberjs-part-1/
- http://coderberry.me/blog/2013/07/08/authentication-with-emberjs-part-2/
And then this which is newer and incorporates the above tutorials:
- http://webcloud.info/blog/2014/04/07/emberjs-authentication-the-right-way-javascript-version/
I want to use elements of CQRS pattern in my project. I wonder if i do it right with Command and Events.
The thing that I'm not sure is if event can invoke command. To better show what i want to do I will use diagram and example.
This is an example:
User invoke TripCreateCommand. TripCreateCommandHandler do his job and after success publish TripCreatedEvent.
Now we have two listener to TripCreatedEvent (the order of listener execution does not matter)
First listener (can be execute after the second listener):
for each user in trip.author.friends invoke two Command (the order of commands is important)
PublishTripOnUserWallCommand
SendNewTripEmailNotificationCommand
SendNewTripPlatformNotification
Second listener (can be execute before the first listener):
PublishTripOnUserSocials
And this is sample diagram:
Is this a good way ? Can EventListener invoke Command, or maybe I should do it in some other way ?
Your question is about Mesage Driven Architecture which works together with but otherwise unrelated to CQRS.
Anyway, your diagram is almost correct. The event subscriber/handler (I prefer this terminology) can send new Commands via the service bus, but it's not a rule that you should always do this. I implement quite a lot of functionality directly in the event handler, although probalby would be more clean and reliable to send a new command. It really depends on what I want to do.
Note that the message handlers (commands or events) should not know about other handlers. They should know about the bus and the bus takes care of handling. This means that in your app, the event handlers would take the bus as dependency, create the command and send it via the bus. The event handler itself doesn't know what command handler generated the event and can 'reply' to it.
Usually the commands would be handled independently and you can't guarantee the order (unless they're handled synchronously) so maybe you want the second command to be issued as a result of the first command's handling. Indeed, it can be the case for a Saga.
AFAIK you are talking only about doing things synchronously, so your approach works in this case but it's probably not scalable. Moving to async handling will break this execution flow. However your application can be fine with it, not everyhting needs to be twitter.
A message driven architecture is not that straightforward and for some cases (like you want an immediate response from the backend) it's quite complicated to implement, at least more complicated than with the 'standard' approach. So maybe for those particular cases you might want to do it the 'old' way.
If you're worried about decoupling and testing, you can still design the services as they were message handlers but use them directly, instead of a service bus.
Not sure why you would need Commands for performing the updating the information on the user's wall. Why would you choose not to use a View Model Updater for that task.
Sending an email can be considered a Command but could also easily be viewed as just another View Model update.
Not clear on what the purpose of the SendNewTripPlatformNotification is, so I cannot give any suggestions there...
Some of this could also be a candidate for a Saga. Secondly I'm missing your Domain in the diagram, that is what should be responsible for publishing any events, or do you consider the CommandHandler to be the Domain?
I've got a Backbone web application that talks to a RESTful PHP server. For PUT and POST it matters in which order the requests arrive at the server and for GET it matters in which order the responses arrive at the client.
The web application does not need to be used concurrently by multiple users, but what might happen is that the user changes its name twice really fast. Then the order in which the server processes PUT /name/Ann and PUT /name/Bea determines whether the name is set to Ann or Bea.
Backbone.Safesync and Backbone.Sync.AjaxQueue are two libraries that try to solve this problem. Doesn't Safesync only solve the problem with GET? Sync.AjaxQueue is outdated, but might serve as inspiration to implement a custom queued sync function. Making sync synchronous would solve the problem. If a request is only sent after the previous response is received, then only one request is processed at a time.
Any advice on how to proceed?
BTW: I don't think using PATCH requests would solve anything, because in my example the same attribute is changed twice.
There's a few ways to solve this, here's two:
add a timestamp to all requests, store it in the DB as "modified" and let the server check whether the timestamp of the new request is later than the one in the DB in order to be valid
use Promises to delay the second request from being made before the first one is responded on, there's a promise/deferred mechanism built into jquery, but you can also use a 3rd party one, for instance Q or when
If you can afford the delay, an easy approach is to set the async option to false when you call whatever method you're calling that results in the Backbone.sync. For example, in the appropriate model(s) simply override the default sync method to include the additional option.
I just got asked to reduce the traffic made by my GWT app. There is one method that checks for status.
This method is an asynchronous call wrapped in a Timer. I know web apps are stateless and all that, but I do wonder if there is some other way to do this, or if everyone has a Timer wrapped around a call when they need this kind of behaviour.
You can check out gwteventservice. It claims to have a way to push server events and notify the client.
I have a feeling they might be implemented as long running (hanging) client to server RPC calls which time out after an interval (say 20sec), and then are re-made. The server returns the callback if an event happens in the meanwhile.
I haven't used it personally but know of people using it to push events to the client. Have a look at the docs . If my assumption is correct, the idea is to send an RPC call to the server which does not return (hangs). If an event happens on the server, the server responds and that RPC call returns with the event. If there is no event, the call will time out in 20 seconds. Then a new call is made to the server which hangs in the same way until there is an event.
What this achieves is that it reduces the number of calls to the server to either one for each event (if there is one), or a call once every 20 seconds (if there isn't one). It looks like the 20 sec interval can be configured.
I imagine that if there is no event the amount of data sent back will be minimal - it might be possible to cancel the callback entirely, or have it fail without data transfer, but I don't really know.
Here is another resource on ServerPush - which is likely what's implemented by gwteventservice.
Running on Google app engine you could use they Channel technology
http://code.google.com/intl/en-US/appengine/docs/java/channel/overview.html
If you need the client to get the status from the server, then you pretty much have to make a call to the server to get it's status.
You could look at reducing the size of some of your messages
You could wind back the timer so the status call goes out less often
You could "optimise" so that the timer gets reset when some other client/server IO happens (i.e. if the server replies you know it is ok, so you don't need to send the next status request).