I'm maintaining a large application that makes heavy use of StructureMap to load it's components. I'm trying to split the components up so they can run on different machines, connected via network. They already run in different threads, but within the same process (making use of a single StructureMap container).
I'm not sure how to do this. Is it possible to have StructureMap automatically create a proxy for all components and use them over network instead of locally? What changes to the components are needed to make them distributable?
Interesting! Theoretically I guess it is possible, the real underlying question is if you really want to do so, we are talking about a major architectural change.
Disclaimer: I don't know how familiar you are with WCF, I'll attempt to explain very roughly how I imagine it being possible, but consider that if we are talking about this sort of communication over a network you want to use WCF.
Define every interface for the components that you want to use over a network as a WCF service contract
Wrap your components with services and host them somewhere/somehow
Write clients for these services, having them implement your components interfaces
Let StructureMap inject your clients when the code expects a component
While it sounds quite straightforward, a relevant complexity is hiding behind these steps. To name a few potential issues off the top of my head: which components are you going to wrap into services? How easy is wrapping them going to be? Where are you going to host them, how? What about security? Does your logging mechanism need to be adjusted?
Related
We have different client applications (each is built with a different UI and is targeted to a different sales channels) that are used to capture orders that ultimately need to be processed by our factory.
At first we decided to offer a single "order" microservice that would be used by all these client applications for business rules execution and data storage. This microservice will also trigger our backoffice processes such as client profile update, order analysis, documents storage to our electronic vault, invoicing, communications, etc.
The challenge we are facing is that these client applications are developed by teams that are external to ours (we are a backoffice team only). Each team responsible to develop a client application will be able to offer a different UX to their users (some will allow to save orders in an incomplete state, some wil allow to capture data using a specific worflow, some will use text fields instead of listboxes for some values, etc.).
This diversity of behaviors from client applications is an issue because our microservice logic will become very complex to be able to support all those UI requirements. Moreover, everytime a change will be made to one of the client applications, we will have to modify our microservice which is a case of strong coupling.
My questions are: What would be your best advice to manage this issue? Should we let each application capture the data the way it wants (and persist it if needed in its own database) and let them call our microservice only when an order is complete and compliant to our API contract?
Should we keep our idea of having a single "order" microservice for everyone and force each client application to capture the data the same way?
Any other option?
We want to reduce the duplication of data and business rules in our ecosystem but in the same time we don't want our 'order' microservice to become a mess.
Many thanks for your help.
Moreover, everytime a change will be made to one of the client applications, we will have to modify our microservice which is a case of strong coupling.
This rings alarm bells for me. A change to a UI shouldn't require a change to a backend service. (The exception would be if a new feature were being added to a system and the backend service needed to play a part in supporting that feature, but I wouldn't just call that a change to a client.) As you have said, it's strong coupling, and that's something to be avoided in a microservices environment.
Ideally, your service should provide a generic, programmatic API that is flexible enough to support multiple UIs (or other non-UI applications) without having any knowledge of how the UIs work.
It sounds like you have some decisions to make about what responsibilities your service will and won't take on:
Does it make more sense for your generic orders service to facilitate the storage/retrieval/completion of incomplete orders, or to force its clients to manage this somewhere else?
Does it make more sense for your generic service to provide facilities to assist in the tracking of workflows, or to force the UIs that need that functionality to find it elsewhere?
For clients that want to show list boxes, does it make sense for your generic orders service to provide APIs that aid in populating those boxes?
Should we let each application capture the data the way it wants (and persist it if needed in its own database) and let them call our microservice only when an order is complete and compliant to our API contract?
It really depends on whether you think that's the most sensible way for your service to behave. Something that will play into that will be how similar or dissimilar the needs of each UI is. If 4 out of 5 UIs have the same needs, it could well make sense to support that generically in your service. If every single UI behaves differently to the others, putting that functionality in your generic orders service would amount to storing frontend code somewhere that it doesn't belong.
It seems like there might also be some organisational considerations to these decisions. If the teams using your service are only frontend teams (i.e. without capacity/skills to build backend services), then someone will still have to build the backend functionality they require.
Should we keep our idea of having a single "order" microservice for everyone and force each client application to capture the data the same way?
Yes to the idea of having a single order service with a generic interface for everyone. With regards to forcing client applications to capture data a certain way, your API will only dictate what they need to do to create an order. You can't (and shouldn't) force anything on them about the way they capture the data before calling your service. They can do it however they like. The questions are really around whether your service supports various models of capture or pushes that responsibility back to the frontend.
What would be your best advice to manage this issue?
Collaborate with the teams that will use the service. Gather as much information as you can about the use cases in which they intend to use it. Discover what is common for the majority and choose what of that you will support. Create a semi-formal spec (e.g. well-documented Open API), share it with the client teams, ask for feedback, and iterate. For the parts of the UIs that aren't common across clients, strongly consider telling those teams they'll need to support those elements of their design themselves, especially if they represent significant work on your end.
Instead of using flux/redux architecture, how react components should communicate with services?
For example:
There is a container having few representational (react) components:
ChatBox - enables to read/write messages
AvatarBox with password changer - which enables to change user's password
News stream - lists news and apply filter to them
Thinking of them as resources representation, I want each of them to access Microservice API by itself (getting or updating data). Is this correct?
It will provide clean responsibility managing models, but it gives performance doubts using http requests to load each component's content
This question also reffers to: How to execute efficient communication for multiple (micro)services?
When you opt for not using Flux/Redux, here is what you do:
Create an outer component that should wrap all the other components. This component is also known as a higher order component or a controller view. This component should use an HTTP library to communicate with your microservices (I personally like Axios). I would recommend that you create a client API object that wraps Axios. Your higher order component can reference this client API so it is agnostic of the HTTP library and whatnots. I would also put a reference of this client API on the window object in dev mode so you can do window.clientApi.fetchSomething() in the Chrome console and make debugging easier.
Make all the other components (ChatBox, AvatarBox and NewsStream) controlled. If you are not familiar with this concept, it means they receive everything they need through props and they avoid keeping state. These components should not call the microservices themselves. This is responsability of the higher order component. In order to be interactive, these components should receive event handlers as functions as props.
Is this correct? It will provide clean responsibility managing models, but it gives performance doubts using http requests to load each component's content
You can avoid performance issues by not allowing each component to directly contact the microservices. If your higher order component compiles all the information needed and make as little as possible HTTP calls, you should be perfectly fine with this approach.
It's generally recommended to use Flux/Redux, but if you opt out, this is how to go about it.
According to: https://facebook.github.io/flux/docs/overview.html#content
Occasionally we may need to add additional controller-views deeper in the
hierarchy to keep components simple. This might help us to better encapsulate a
section of the hierarchy related to a specific data domain.
And this is what I am thinking about responsibility of particulary component's domain (three of them was described). So could it be reliable to make three controller views (or stores) that can access dependent API to manage resource's data?
Seems like everyone is moving towards IoC containers. I've tried to "grok" it for a while, and as much as I don't want to be the one driver to go the wrong way on the highway, it still doesn't pass the test of common sense to me. Let me explain, and please correct/enlighten me if my arguments are flawed:
My understanding: IoC containers are supposed to make your life easier when combining different components. This is done through either a) constructor injection, b) setter injection and c) interface injection. These are then "wired up" programmatically or in a file that's read by the container. Components then get summoned by name and then cast manually whenever needed.
What I don't get:
EDIT: (Better phrasing)
Why use an opaque container that's not idiomatic to the language, when you can "wire up" the application in (imho) a much clearer way if the components were properly designed (using IoC patterns, loose-coupling)? How does this "managed code" gain non-trivial functionality? (I've heard some mentions to life-cycle management, but I don't necessarily understand how this is any better/faster than do-it-yourself.)
ORIGINAL:
Why go to all the lengths of storing the components in a container, "wiring them up" in ways that aren't idiomatic to the language, using things equivalent to "goto labels" when you call up components by name, and then losing many of the safety benefits of a statically-typed language by manual casting, when you'd get the equivalent functionality by not doing it, and instead using all the cool features of abstraction given by modern OO languages, e.g. programming to an interface? I mean, the parts that actually need to use the component at hand have to know they are using it in any case, and here you'd be doing the "wiring" using the most natural, idiomatic way - programming!
There are certainly people who think that DI Containers add no benefit, and the question is valid. If you look at it purely from an object composition angle, the benefit of a container may seem negligible. Any third party can connect loosely coupled components.
However, once you move beyond toy scenarios you should realize that the third party that connects collaborators must take on more that the simple responsibility of composition. There may also be decommissioning concerns to prevent resource leaks. As the composer is the only party that knows whether a given instance was shared or private, it must also take on the role of doing lifetime management.
When you start combining various instance scopes, using a combination of shared and private services, and perhaps even scoping some services to a particular context (such as a web request), things become complex. It's certainly possible to write all that code with poor man's DI, but it doesn't add any business value - it's pure infrastructure.
Such infrastructure code constitutes a Generic Subdomain, so it's very natural to create a reusable library to address such concerns. That's exactly what a DI Container is.
BTW, most containers I know don't use names to wire themselves - they use Auto-wiring, which combines the static information from Constructor Injection with the container's configuration of mappings from interfaces to concrete classes. In short, containers natively understand those patterns.
A DI Container is not required for DI - it's just damned helpful.
A more detailed treatment can be found in the article When to use a DI Container.
I'm sure there's a lot to be said on the subject, and hopefully I'll edit this answer to add more later (and hopefully more people will add more answers and insights), but just a couple quick points to your post...
Using an IoC container is a subset of inversion of control, not the whole thing. You can use inversion of control as a design construct without relying on an IoC container framework. At its simplest, inversion of control can be stated in this context as "supply, don't instantiate." As long as your objects aren't internally depending on implementations of other objects, and are instead requiring that instantiated implementations be supplied to them, then you're using inversion of control. Even if you're not using an IoC container framework.
To your point on programming to an interface... I'm not sure what your experience with IoC containers has been (my personal favorite is StructureMap), but you definitely program to an interface with IoC. The whole idea, at least in how I've used it, is that you separate your interfaces (your types) from your implementations (your injected classes). The code which relies on the interfaces is programmed only to those, and the implementations of those interfaces are injected when needed.
For example, you can have an IFooRepository which returns from a data store instances of type Foo. All of your code which needs those instances gets them from a supplied object of type IFooRepository. Elsewhere, you create an implementation of FooRepository and configure your IoC to supply that anywhere an IFooRepository is needed. This implementation can get them from a database, from an XML file, from an external service, etc. Doesn't matter where. That control has been inverted. Your code which uses objects of type Foo doesn't care where they come from.
The obvious benefit is that you can swap out that implementation any time you want. You can replace it with a test version, change versions based on environment, etc. But keep in mind that you also don't need to have such a 1-to-1 ratio of interfaces to implementations at any given time.
For example, I once used a code generating tool at a previous job which spit out tons and tons of DAL code into a single class. Breaking it apart would have been a pain, but what wasn't much of a pain was to configure it to spit it all out in specific method/property names. So I wrote a bunch of interfaces for my repositories and generated this one class which implemented all of them. For that generated class, it was ugly. But the rest of my application didn't care because it saw each interface as its own type. The IoC container just supplied that same class for each one.
We were able to get up and running quickly with this and nobody was waiting on the DAL development. While we continued to work in the domain code which used the interfaces, a junior dev was tasked with creating better implementations. Those implementations were later swapped in, all was well.
As I mentioned earlier, this can all be accomplished without an IoC container framework. It's the pattern itself that's important, really.
First of all what is IOC? It means that responsibility of creating the dependent object is taken away from the main object and delegated to third party framework. I always use spring as my IOC framework and it bring tons of benefit to the table.
Promotes coding to interface and decoupling - The key benefit is that IOC promotes and makes decoupling very easy. You can always inject an interface in your main object and then use the interface methods to perform tasks. The main object does not need to know which dependent object is assigned to the interface. When you want to use a different class as dependency all you need is to swap the old class with a new one in the config file without a single line of code change. Now you can argue that this can be done in the code using various interface design patterns. But IOC framework makes its walk in a park. So even as a newbie you become expert in levering various interface design patterns like bridge, factory etc.
Clean code - As most of object creation and object life-cycle operations are delegated to IOC container you saved from the writing broiler point repetitive code. So you have a cleaner, smaller and more understandable code.
Unit testing - IOC makes unit testing easy. Since you are left with decoupled code you can easily test the decoupled code in isolation. Also you can easily inject dependencies in your test cases and see how different component interacts.
Property Configurators - Almost all the applications have some properties file where they store application specific static properties. Now to access those properties developers need to write wrappers which will read and parse the properties file and store the properties in format that application can access. Now all the IOC frameworks provide a way of injecting static properties/values in specific class. So this again becomes walk in the park.
These are some of the points I can think right away I am sure there are more.
This is a discussion that seems to reappear regularly in the SOA world. I heard it as far back as '95, but it's probably been a topic of conversation long before that. I definitely have my own opinions about it, but I'd like to hear some good, solid arguments for having a Data Services Layer, and likewise for arguments against having one.
What value does it add to a systems architecture?
What are the inherent pitfalls?
What are common anti-patterns?
Links to articles are definitely acceptable.
To avoid confusion, this article describes the type of Data Service Layer I'm talking about. Essentially, a thin layer above the database that provides SOAP access to data and includes no business logic.
Data services are quite data oriented, for projects without logic always doing crud. For instance, it can suit if you have a log service or a properties service, you will just do the crud to it.
If the domain that involves that DDBB is complex, with complex logic, you will need to manage that logic up to that service (maybe in an orchestration), so you will divide the logic into several services. In that case I think is better to use a thicker unique service (DAL, BLL and SIL) that manage that domain and expose just one interface.
At the end it is another tool, depend of the problem.
I’m just working on this interesting thing with ADO.net entities and need your opinion. Often a solution would be created to provide a service (WCF or web service) to allow access to the DB via the entity framework, but I working on an application that runs internally and has domain access pretty much all the time. The question is if it’s good practice to create a data service for the application to interface from or could I go from the WPF application directly to the entity framework. What’s the best practice in this case and what are some of the pros’ and cons’ to the two different approach.
By using entity framework directly, do you mean that the WPF application would connect to the database, or that it would still use services but re-use the entities?
If it's the first approach, I tend to be against this because it means multiple clients connecting to the database, which a) is an additional security concern, b) could make it more expensive from a licensing perspective, and c) means you don't get the benefits of connection pooling. Databases are the most expensive things to scale so I'd try to design the solution to use services and reduce the pressure on the database. But there are times when it's appropriate. One thing I've noticed is that applications which do start out connecting directly tend to get refactored to go via a service later; it seldom happens the other way around. But it might also be a case of YAGNI.
If it's the second approach, I think that's fine. It's common for people looking at WCF to think "service oriented" - that is, there should be a strict contract between services and things shouldn't be shared. But a "multi-tier" application, which is only designed to have one client, is also a perfectly valid architecture and doesn't need to be so decoupled. In that case, reusing the entities on both sides of the service boundary should be fine. However, I'm not sure how easy this is to do with EF specifically, since I haven't used it except in experiments.
It really depends on the level of complexity and the required level of coupling/modularity. I think a good compromise would be to create a EF model in it's own library or the like with a simple level of abstraction. In that scenario if you chose to change the model to use an exposed service instead of direct access it shouldn't be a big deal to refactor existing code and the new service could utilize the existing library.