I'm currently looking forward to using Reactive Streams in one of the projects. I understand the basics of using an Observable and an Observer! I would like to know if there are any design patterns that I should consider. For example., are there any patterns that I could employ when it comes to error handling?
When my stream is connected to a client which is a REST endpoint, it could be that the upstream system is not yet ready to respond to my requests and if I have my Observable that calls this REST end-point every 2 seconds, how do I handle these empty responses that I get from the REST calls?
I'm basically looking for some good practices when using Reactive Streams! Any suggestions?
Related
I'm trying to develop a project with microservices.
I have some questions on this topic (something is not clear):
1) How to implement microservices communication?
A) HTTP : Every microservice expose HTTP API , an API GATEWAY broadcast requests.
B) MQTT : every microservice pub/sub to a broker
C) BOTH : but how to understand when one is better than the other ?
Have I to use pub/sub protocol as a standard even for classic operations usually performed over HTTP ? For example I have two microservices:
web-management and product-service. web-management is a panel that lets the administrator to add, modify, ... products in its ecommerce digital shop. Let's say we want to implement createProduct operation. It's a command (according to event /command distinction), a one-to-one communication.
I can open an API in product-service, let's say (POST, "/product") that add the new product. I also can implement this transforming the command in a productCreationRequest event. In this case: web-managemnet publish this event. product-service listen to productCreationRequest events (and also productUpdateRequest, productGetEvents, ...) once it is notified it performs the operation and emits productCreated event.
I find this case borderline. For example a last-occasion-service may listen to productCreated and immediately send a message (email or push notification) to customers. What do you think about this use case?
2) Which may be a valid broker (I will use docker-compose or kubernetes to orchestrate containerized microservices: language adopted probably java, javascript, python)?
Both is definitely a possibility! Choose a broker that allows you to easily mix-and-match between HTTP (synchronous) communication, and more async event-driven pub/sub. It should allow you to migrate your microservices between the two options as required.
HTTP APIs are great at the edge of your distributed application, where a customer wants to submit an order or something, and block waiting for a response (200 OK).
But internally within your application between microservices, a lot of them don't need a response... async, eventually consistent. And using pub/sub (like MQTT) allows for multiple downstream consumers easily. Another great use for MQTT is streaming updates to downstream consumers... like a data-feed from a bus or airline company or something, rather than having to poll a REST API for updates.
For your use-case and similar ones, I would almost always recommend using pub/sub communication, even if today it's a simple request-reply interaction with a single backend process. REST over HTTP is point-to-point, and perhaps in the future you want another process to be able to see/consume/monitor that event or interaction. If you're already using publish-subscribe, adding that 2nd (or more) consumer of that data flow is trivial. Harder with REST/HTTP.
In terms of performance, I would highly doubt a blocking protocol like HTTP is going to outperform something that is asynchronous and bidirectional, like MQTT which uses WebSockets for web communication.
As for a broker to glue all this together, check out the standard edition Solace PubSub+ event broker... can do both (and translate between) MQTT and HTTP. I even wrote a CodeLab for this (almost) exact use case haha!
(BTW, I work for Solace! FYI.)
Consider using SMF framework for Javascript/Node.js, it helps prototype pub/sub communications via a message broker (RabbitMQ) between microservices out of the box:
https://medium.com/#krawa76/bootstrap-node-js-microservice-stack-4a348db38e51
As for the message broker routes, use an event-driven naming convention, e.g. post a "web.new-product", where "web" is the sub-system name, "new-product" - event name.
Currently we are implementing REST API's using the spring-boot. Since our API's are growing in number we are thinking of a solution to implement the REST API's using a different approach.
The approach is as below :
Expose a single service to receive all the HTTP requests.
We will have the URI's configured in a data base table to call the
next set of services. These service are configured to listen to
particular JMS messages.
The next set of services will receive the JMS messages and process
the data.
Below are my questions :
Will the above approach still represent the REST architecture ?
What are the downsides of above approach(we are aware of network
latency) any thing other then network latency ?
What are the REST architecture benefits will we be missing.
Or can we just say that our approach is the REST architecture done differently ?
You're making 2 major choices, each can be decided separately:
1) Having a single HTTP service
2) Using JMS as the communication between this service and the underlying microservices
Regarding #1, if you do this, you can no longer call your services REST since the whole point of REST is to use HTTP verbs together with your domain objects for a predicable set of endpoints. GET on /objects/ means the object is being fetched, POST on /objects means a new object is being created, etc... Now, this is OK, you can do it this way and it can work, though it will be "non-standard".
In fact, you might want to check out GraphQL https://www.howtographql.com/basics/1-graphql-is-the-better-rest/ as its pretty close to what you're trying to do.
These days really either REST or GraphQL seems to be the two popular approaches.
Another way to do REST, if you're looking to simply expose REST services on your domain objects without having to write a lot of code, is Spring Data REST: https://spring.io/projects/spring-data-rest and if you're comfortable with Spring already, this should be pretty easy to understand.
For #2, your choice of communication between your single gateway service and the underlying services. Do most of your calls require synchronous answers, such as a UI asking for data to display in a browser or phone? If so, JMS is not a good approach. JMS would be an ok approach if the majority of your services were asyncronous - for example someone submitting a stock trade request. The UI would just need to know the request was submitted, but it will actually be processed some time later and the result will be fetched asyncronously.
Without knowing much about your application, I would recommend sticking with HTTP between your services for simplicity sake unless there is a good reason to switch to JMS.
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.
Im learning akka streams but obviously its relevant to any streaming framework :)
quoting akka documentation:
Reactive Streams is just to define a common mechanism of how to move
data across an asynchronous boundary without losses, buffering or
resource exhaustion
Now, from what I understand is that if up until before streams, lets take an http server for example, the request would come and when the receiver wasent finished with a request, so the new requests that are coming will be collected in a buffer that will hold the waiting requests, and then there is a problem that this buffer have an unknown size and at some point if the server is overloaded we can loose requests that were waiting.
So then stream processing came to play and they bounded this buffer to be controllable...so we can predefine the number of messages (requests in my example) we want to have in line and we can take care of each at a time.
my question, if we implement that a source in our server can have a 3 messages at most, so if the 4th id coming what happens with it?
I mean when another server will call us and we are already taking care of 3 requests...what will happened to he's request?
What you're describing is not actually the main problem that Reactive Streams implementations solve.
Backpressure in terms of the number of requests is solved with regular networking tools. For example, in Java you can configure a thread pool of a networking library (for example Netty) to some parallelism level, and the library will take care of accepting as much requests as possible. Or, if you use synchronous sockets API, it is even simpler - you can postpone calling accept() on the server socket until all of the currently connected clients are served. In either case, there is no "buffer" on either side, it's just until the server accepts a connection, the client will be blocked (either inside a system call for blocking APIs, or in an event loop for async APIs).
What Reactive Streams implementations solve is how to handle backpressure inside a higher-level data pipeline. Reactive streams implementations (e.g. akka-streams) provide a way to construct a pipeline of data in which, when the consumer of the data is slow, the producer will slow down automatically as well, and this would work across any kind of underlying transport, be it HTTP, WebSockets, raw TCP connections or even in-process messaging.
For example, consider a simple WebSocket connection, where the client sends a continuous stream of information (e.g. data from some sensor), and the server writes this data to some database. Now suppose that the database on the server side becomes slow for some reason (networking problems, disk overload, whatever). The server now can't keep up with the data the client sends, that is, it cannot save it to the database in time before the new piece of data arrives. If you're using a reactive streams implementation throughout this pipeline, the server will signal to the client automatically that it cannot process more data, and the client will automatically tweak its rate of producing in order not to overload the server.
Naturally, this can be done without any Reactive Streams implementation, e.g. by manually controlling acknowledgements. However, like with many other libraries, Reactive Streams implementations solve this problem for you. They also provide an easy way to define such pipelines, and usually they have interfaces for various external systems like databases. In particular, such libraries may implement backpressure on the lowest level, down to to the TCP connection, which may be hard to do manually.
As for Reactive Streams itself, it is just a description of an API which can be implemented by a library, which defines common terms and behavior and allows such libraries to be interchangeable or to interact easily, e.g. you can connect an akka-streams pipeline to a Monix pipeline using the interfaces from the specification, and the combined pipeline will work seamlessly and supporting all of the backpressure features of Reacive Streams.
Nowadays I'm designing a REST interface for a distributed system. It is a client/sever architecture but with two message exchange patterns:
req/resp: the most RESTful approach, it would be a CRUD interface to access/create/modify/delete objects in the server.
pub/subs: this is my main doubt. I need the server to send asynchronous notifications to the client as soon as possible.
Searching in the web I found that one solution could be to implement REST-servers in the server and client: Publish/subscribe REST-HTTP Simple Protocol web services architecture?
Another alternative would be to implement blocking-REST and so the client doesn't need to listen in a specific port: Using blocking REST requests to implement publish/subscribe
I would like to know which options would you consider to implement an interface like this one. Thanks!
Web Sockets can provide a channel for the service to update web clients live. There's other techniques like http long polling where the client makes a "blocking" request (as you referred to it) where the service holds the request for a period of less than a timeout (say 50 sec) and writes a response when it has data. The web client immediately issues another request. This loop creates a continuous channel where messages can be "sent" from the server to the client but it's initiated from the client (firewalls, proxies, etc...)
There are libraries such as socket.io, signalR and many others that wrap this logic and even fallback from websockets to long polling gracefully for you and abstract away the details.
I would recommend write some sample web socket and long polling examples just to understand but then rely on libraries like mentioned above to get it right.