I have already successfully installed CB, Cygnus and POI. I want an entity to subscribe CB to reference Cygnus and POI (for persistence) in the same request. My point is to avoid sending a subscription request to CB for every single process. I want something like that:
"reference1": "http://Cygnus_address:port1/notify",
"reference1": "http://POI_address:port2/notify",
Is that possible?. Sending n requests with the same content makes not sense.
Best
reference field is single-valued, so you cannot do what you propose. However, doing an addition subscription with the new reference will have the the same effect.
Related
I'm currently writing a distributed application with a microservice architecture.
For that I am applying the CQRS pattern and event sourcing with the help of the axon framework. Therefore the data is eventual consistent.
Both, the write and the read side, are accessible over HTTP; REST specifically.
The initial problem:
After updating/creating an entity, the user [1] should be able to see the results. Because the events are handled asynchronously, the client/UI doesn't know when the entity is really updated (or created). So when the client fetches the data after sending the update-request but before the event is processed, the unchanged data is returned. Therefore the user could think, that the application is broken and/or sends a new request.
Solution attempt:
While looking for a solution for the read-after-write problem I came accross this blog entry.
There is proposed to return the new entity version in the write response. The client can then request the data with the expected entity version (as Expect header). If the actual version is equal or greater than the expected version, the data is returned. Or else an empty response with a Retry-After Header is returned.
The problem:
When the client sends an UpdateFoo request to the write side, the application sends a corresponding UpdateFooCommand over the CommandGateway. The Command is processed by the entity aggregate which publishes the FooUpdatedEvent. The read side receives this event and updates its entity view which can be accessed over the REST interface of the read side.
This is controlled by the axon framework. The handlers are annotated with #CommandHandler and #EventSourcingHandler respectively.
Now: How can I access the new version number of the affected entity in the CommandHandler, so that this number can be returned in the update response?
Thanks in advance
[1] Not only users. There can als be non human clients.
you can use AggregateLifecycle.getVersion() from within your aggregate. You can choose to return that value as part of your command's results and pass that information when doing a query. If the query doesn't have that version number of the aggregate's information, yet, you can (wait and) retry.
I have an an activity diagram with two swimlanes (Client and Server). I want to model a request call from Client to Server.
Is it correct to use Signals Notation for Calls between systems? Are there alternatives?
The call is parametrized, Client wants to send something which was created before. How to model this?
Thankful for any hint! Here's my example:
My answer has to be improved, but here is a first step.
The norm/spec says: "A SendSignalAction is an InvocationAction that creates a Signal instance and transmits the instance to the object given on its target InputPin. A SendSignalAction must have argument InputPins corresponding, in order, to each of the (owned and inherited) Properties of the Signal being sent, with the same type, ordering and multiplicity as the corresponding attribute.
And a SendSignalAction has an association to a target objet which is an input pin.
So for your question about Request:item I would use input pin, one for the object from which the Signal is created and one to define the Target. (in the schema the target comes from an output pin but a data store may be use). Then after sending the request, the client is waiting the answer. The AcceptEvent is linked to a trigger (not shown on the schema) which a signal, the one created by the server. But you can not link SendRequest of Client to ReceiveRequest of Server because this is not how it runs.
For the server, you can do similar reasoning.
Concerning the parametrization of the call I would use InputPin to model the arguments of the Call i.e. the Object sent by the Call as shown below.
Signal and Call Notations are correct for me but I am not used to have the sending and receive action in the same diagram so will suggest two alternatives.
1) First remove them...
2) Separate Client and Server Modelling
Let me know what you think about that and what seems to be clear for you...
I also recognize the tool you used so please find my project at:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/s1mx46cb3linop0/Project1.zip?dl=0
As I see it, it should be modeled like this:
The server runs in an independent loop and starts with waiting for a request. There's a object flow between Create request and Query result set. This symbolizes data placed in a queue (or what ever is appropriate). The receipt of the result set would be done below in a similar way, I just left that out for brevity.
You can also draw an object for the query set
instead of the ActionPins.
I'm pretty new to the FIX protocol and was hoping someone could help clarify some terms.
In particular could someone explain (perhaps with an example) the flow of NewOrderSingle, ExecutionReport, CancelReplaceRequest and how the fields ClOrdID, OrdID, OrigClOrdID are used within those messages?
A quick note about usages of fields. My experience is that many who implement FIX do it slightly differently. So be aware that though I am trying to explain correct usage you may find that there are differences between implementations. When I connect to a new broker I get a FIX specification which details exactly how they use the protocol. I have to be very careful to make sure where they have deviated from other implementations.
That said I will give you a rundown of what you have asked for.
There are more complicated orders but NewOrderSingle is the one most used. It allows you to create a trade for any asset. You will need to create a new order using this object / msg type. Then you will send it through your session using the method sendToTarget(). You can modify the message after this point through the toApp() method, assuming your application implements the quickfix.Application interface.
The broker (or whoever you are connected to) will send you a reply in the form of and Execution report. Using quickfix that reply will enter your application through the fromApp() callback. From there the best thing to do is to implement your app inheriting from the MessageCracker class (or implement it elsewhere) using the crack method from MessageCracker it will then call back a relevant onMessage() method call. You will need to implement a number of these onMessage() methods (it depends on specifically what you are doing as to which methods you will need), the main one being onMessage(ExecutionReport msg, SessionID session). This method will be called by message cracker when you receive and Execution report from the broker. This is the standard reply to a new order.
From there you handle the reply as required.
Some orders do not get filled immediately like Limit orders. They can be changed. For that you will need the CancelReplaceRequest. Your broker will give you details of how to do this specifically for them (again there are differences and not everyone does it the same). You will have to have done a NewOrderSingle first and then you will use this MsgType to update it.
ClOrdID is an ID that the client uses to identify the order. It is sent with the NewOrderSingle and returned in the ExecutionReport. The OrdID tag is in the ExecutionReport message, it is the ID that the broker will use to identify the order. OrgClOrdID is usually used to identify the original order in when you do and update (using CancelReplaceRequest), it is supposed to contain the ClOrdID of the original order. Some brokers want the original order only, others want the ClOrdID of the last update, so the first OrigClOrdID or will be the ClOrdID of the NewOrderSingle, then if there are subsequent updates to the same order then they will be the ClOrderID from the last CancelReplaceRequest. Some brokers want the last OrderID and not ClOrderID. Note that the CancelReplaceRequest will require a ClOrdID as well.
I'm using Web Api and have a scenario where clients are sending a heartbeat notification every n seconds. There is a heartbeat object which is sent in a POST rather than a PUT, because as I see it they are creating a new heartbeat rather than updating an existing heartbeat.
Additionally, the clients have a requirement that calls for them to retrieve all of the other currently online clients and the number of unread messages that individual client has. It seems to me that I have two options:
Perform the POST followed by a GET, which to me seems cleaner from a pure REST standpoint. I am doing a creation and a retrieval and I think the SOLID principles would prefer to split them accordingly. However, this approach means two round trips.
Have the POST return an object which contains the same information that the GET would otherwise have done. This consolidates everything into a single request, but I'm concerned that this approach would be considered ill-advised. It's not a pure POST.
Option #2 stubbed out looks like this:
public HeartbeatEcho Post(Heartbeat heartbeat)
{
}
HeartbeatEcho is a class which contains properties for the other online clients and the number of unread messages.
Web Api certainly supports option #2, but just because I can do something doesn't mean I should. Is option #2 an abomination, premature optimization, or pragmatism?
The option 2 is not an abomination at all. A POST request creates a new resource, but it's quite common that the resource itself is returned to the caller. For example, if your resources are items in a database (e.g., a Person), the POST request would send the required members for the INSERT operation (e.g., name, age, address), and the response would contain a Person object which in addition to the parameters passed as input it would also have an identifier (the DB primary key) which can be used to uniquely identify the object.
Notice that it's also perfectly valid for the POST request only return the id of the newly created resource, but that's a choice you have, depending on the requirements of the client.
public HttpResponseMessage Post(Person p)
{
var id = InsertPersonInDBAndReturnId(p);
p.Id = id;
var result = this.Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.Created, p);
result.Headers.Location = new Uri("the location for the newly created resource");
return result;
}
Whichever way solves your business problem will work. You're correct POST for new record vs PUT for update to existing record.
SUGGESTION:
One thing you may want to consider is adding Redis to your stack and the apps can post very fast, then you could use the Pub/Sub functionality for the echo part or Blpop (blocking until record matches criteria). It's super fast and may help you scale and perfectly designed for what you are trying to do.
See: http://redis.io/topics/pubsub/
See: http://redis.io/commands/blpop
I've used both Redis for similar, but also RabbitMQ and with RabbitMQ we added socket.io connection to "stream" the heartbeat in real time without need for long polling.
I have a questing regarding MSMQ...
I designed an async arhitecture like this:
CLient - > WCF Service (hosted in WinService) -> MSMQ
so basically the WCF service takes the requests, processes them, adds them to an INPUT queue and returns a GUID. The same WCF service (through a listener) takes first message from queue (does some stuff...) and then it puts it back into another queue (OUTPUT).
The problem is how can I retrieve the result from the OUTPUT queue when a client requests it... because MSMQ does not allow random access to it's messages and the only solution would be to iterate through all messages and push them back in until I find the exact one I need. I do not want to use DB for this OUTPUT queue, because of some limitations imposed by the client...
You can look in your Output-Queue for your message by using
var mq = new MessageQueue(outputQueueName);
mq.PeekById(yourId);
Receiving by Id:
mq.ReceiveById(yourId);
A queue is inherently a "first-in-first-out" kind of data structure, while what you want is a "random access" data structure. It's just not designed for what you're trying to achieve here, so there isn't any "clean" way of doing this. Even if there was a way, it would be a hack.
If you elaborate on the limitations imposed by the client perhaps there might be other alternatives. Why don't you want to use a DB? Can you use a local SQLite DB, perhaps, or even an in-memory one?
Edit: If you have a client dictating implementation details to their own detriment then there are really only three ways you can go:
Work around them. In this case, that could involve using a SQLite DB - it's just a file and the client probably wouldn't even think of it as a "database".
Probe deeper and find out just what the underlying issue is, ie. why don't they want to use a DB? What are their real concerns and underlying assumptions?
Accept a poor solution and explain to the client that this is due to their own restriction. This is never nice and never easy, so it's really a last resort.
You may could use CorrelationId and set it when you send the message. Then, to receive the same message you can pick the specific message with ReceiveByCorrelationId as follow:
message = queue.ReceiveByCorrelationId(correlationId);
Moreover, CorrelationId is a string with the following format:
Guid()\\Number