I am wondering if it would be possible to develop an enterprise-level web application without the use of a standard MVC structure and application server by carrying the business/flow logic and session data to the client-size Javascript and make it talk to REST data services directly...maybe we could make use of an authorization/authentication layer and a second validation layer sitting on top of the data services. All these services operate on standard HTTP methods, support configurable logging&monitoring, and content or query parameters are all contained in the HTTP request/response body. Static HTML and Javascript are served to the browser and the rest is carried out by Javascript functions talking to the HTTP-based authorization/authentication, validation and then data services. Do you think this kind of an architecture could satisfy enterprise-level web application requirements?
It's possible but unlikely; what are the drivers that suggest this architecture to you? Is it just to be different or are there some specific aspects that this best addresses?
by carrying the business/flow logic
and session data to the client-side
Javascript and make it talk to REST
data services directly
In theory you'd still be able to have an appropriately layered solution (Business Logic (BL) script vs UI focused script) but practically speaking it'd be messy, and you'd lose the ability to physically separate it into different tiers. This could "bite" you at any number of places in the life of the system.
"Enterprise" grade systems are seldom small, I hate to think how much logic you'd be having to send over the wire to support a given action/process.
Putting all the BL into a scripting language ties you to that platform, and platforms change over time. The bad thing about scripts is that whilst they are stable to a degree I'd suggest they are more exposed to change than server-based platforms like Java or .Net. In an enterprise scenario, the servers will have very tight change control and upgrade paths mapped out for them - whereas browsers are much more open to regular change.
There's the issue of compatibility - unless you're tied to a specific browser (to the version level) guaranteeing consistent behavior is going to be harder, and will likely require more development effort. Let's say you deliver the solution successfully; what do you do when the business wants to take advantage of mobile computing - say iPads? Your only option is going to be a browser - you won't be able to take advantage of any of the native advantages of the platform. "The web and browsers" might seem like they'll be around forever - but then I'm guessing that what MainFrame folks said at the time. A server-centered solution is going to give you more life for less expense.
Staffing will be an issue - you'll need very strong JavaScript and server-side developers.
Security: having your core BL out on the client where it's much more exposed sounds very dangerous.
EDIT:
Web Apps can be sow for many reasons - not many of which are reason enough to put all your BL in JavaScript on the client. Building apps for performance is a whole field of endeavor on its own - I suggest you get more familiar with Architecting and implementing for performance before you write off n-tier web apps altogether :)
Regarding keeping your layers separated: there are different ways of doing this but it boils down to abstraction - and more correctly to keeping good design principles in mind; if you haven't heard of SOLID that would be a good place to start. In terms of implementation start reading up on Dependency Inversion (FYI - self-promotion, the articles mine and is .Net focused, but you should have no problem tracking down Java-based ones too).
Related
At the moment we have one huge API which is used by our backoffice, our frontend, and also our public API.
This causes me a lot of headaches because when building new endpoints I find a lot of application specific logic in the code which I don't necessarily want to include in my endpoint. For example, the code to create a user might contain code to send a welcome email, but because that's not needed for the backoffice endpoint I will then need to add a new endpoint without that logic.
I was thinking about a large refactor to break our code base in to a number of smaller highly specific service APIs, then building a set of small application APIs on top of those.
So for example, an application endpoint to create a new user might do something like this after the refactor:
customerService.createCustomer();
paymentService.chargeCard();
emailService.sendWelcomeEmail();
The application and service APIs will be entirely separate code bases (perhaps a separate code base per service), they may also be built using different languages. They will only interact through REST API calls. They will be on the same local network, so latency shouldn't be a huge issue.
Is this a bad idea? I've never seen/worked on a codebase which has separated the two before, so perhaps there is a better architecture to achieve the flexibility and maintainability I'm looking for?
Advise, links, or comments would all be appreciated.
Your idea of making multiple, well-defined services is sound and really it is the best way to approach this. Going with purely micro-services approach however trendy it might seem, proves to be an overkill most often than not. This is why I'd just redesign the existing API/services properly and follow solid and sound SOA design principles below. Good Resources could be found on both serviceorientation.com and soapatterns.org I've always used them as reference in my career.
Consider what types of services you need
(image from serviceorientation.com)
Entity services are generally your Client, Payment services - e.g. services centered around an entity in your domain. They should be business-agnostic, and be able to be reused in all scenarios. They could be called sometimes by clients directly if sufficient for their needs. They could be called by Task services.
Utility services contain logic you're likely to reuse in other services, but are generally not called by the clients directly. Rather, they'd be called by Task and Entity services. An example might be a Transliteration service.
Task services combine and reuse Entity and Utility services into meaningful tasks. Most often they are not that agnostic and they do implement some specific business logic. They have meaningful business operations and they are what clients mostly call.
Principles to follow when redesigning
I strongly recommend going over this cheat sheet and making sure everything there is covered when you do your redesign. It's great help.
In general, you should make sure that:
Each service has a common context and follows the separation of concerns principle. E.g. Clients service is only for clients related operations, etc.
Each of the Entity and Utility services is business-agnostic and basic enough. So it can be reused in multiple scenarios and context without being changed. Contract must be simple - CRUD and only common operations that make sense in most usage scenarios.
Services follow a common data model - make sure all the data structures you use are used uniformly in all services in order to prevent need for integration efforts in the future and promote combination of services for clients to exploit. If you need to receive a customer that another service returns, this should be happening without the need for transformation
OK, but where to put the non-agnostic logic?
Now, you have multiple options for abstracting business logic whenever you have a need for complex business functionality. It depends on your scenario what you're going to chose:
Leave logic to all clients. Let them combine your simplified services
If there is business logic that is commonly implemented in multiple of your applications and has the potential to be reused heavily you can implement a composite service that reuses multiple existing underlying services and exposing the logic.
Service Composability. Concerns on multiple API calls communication overhead.
Well, this is an age-old question - should you make multiple API calls when they will probably create some communication overhead? The answer is - it depends on how complex your scenario is, how much reuse you expect and how flexible you want to be. Also is speed critical? To what extent? In Service Oriented Architecture though, this is a very common approach - to reuse your existing services and combine them in new configurations as needed. Yes, it does add some overhead, but I've seen implementations in very complex environments, for example Telecoms, where thanks to the use of ESB solutions, message queues, etc the overhead is negligible compared to the benefits. Here is a common architecture approach (image from serviceorientation.com):
The mandatory legacy refactoring heads-up
More often than not, changing the established contract for multiple existing client systems is a messy business and could very well lead to lots of refactoring and need for looking for needle-in-a-stack functionality that's somewhere deep in the (possibly) legacy code. Business logic might be dispersed everywhere. So make sure you're ready and have the controls, time and will to lead this battle.
Hope this helps
Is this a bad idea?
No, but this is a big overall question to be able to provide very specific advice.
I'd like to separate this into 3 areas:
Approach
Design
Technology
Working backwards, the Technology is the final and most-specific part, and totally depends on what your current environment is (platforms, skills), and (hopefully) will be reasonable self-evident to you once the other things are in progress.
The Design that you outlined above seems like a good end-state - having multiple, specific, focused APIs, each with their own responsibility. Again, the details of the design will depend on the skills of you and your organization, and the existing platforms that you have. E.g. if you are already using TIBCO (for example) and have a lot invested (licenses, platforms, tools, people) then leveraging some of their published patterns/designs/templates makes sense; but (probably) not if you don't already have TIBCO exposure.
In the abstract, the REST API services seems like a good starting point - there are a lot of tools and platforms at all levels of the system for security, deployment, monitoring, scalability, etc. If you are NGINX users, they have a lot of (platform-independent) thoughts on how to do this also NGINX blog, including some smart thinking on scalability and performance. If you are more adventurous, and have an smart, eager team, a look at Event-driven architecture - see this
Approach (or Process) is the key thing here. Ultimately, this is a refactoring, though your description of "a large refactor" does scare me a little - put that way, it sounds like you are talking about a big-bang change and calling it refactoring. Perhaps it is just language, but what's in my mind would be "an evolution of the 'one huge API' into multiple, specific, focused APIs (by refactoring the architecture)". One place to start is Martin Fowler, while this book is about refactoring software, the principles and approach are the same, just at a higher-level. Indeed, he talks about just this here
IBM talk about refactoring to microservices and make it sound easy to do in one step, but it never is (outside the lab).
You have an existing API, serving multiple internal and external clients. I will suggest that you'll want to keep this interface solid for these clients - separate your refactoring of the implementation from the additional concerns of liaising with and coordinating external systems/groups. My high-level starting approach would be:
identify a small (3-7) number of related methods on the API
ideally if a significant, limited-scope change is needed anyway with these methods, that is good - business value with the code change
design/specify a new stand-alone API specifically for these methods
at first, clone the existing model/naming/style
code a new service just for these
with proper automated CI/CD testing and deployment practices
with associated monitoring
modify the existing API to have calls to these methods re-direct to call the new service
perhaps have a run-time switch to change between the old implementation and the new implementation
remove the old implementation from codebase
capture issues, assumptions and problems along the way
the first pass will involve a lot of learning about what works and doesn't.
then repeat the process over & over, incorporating improvements each time.
At some point in the future, when appropriate due to other business-driven needs, the API published to the back-end, front-end and/or public clients can change, but that is a whole different project.
As you can see, if the API is huge (1,000 methods => 140 releases) this is a many-months process, and having a reasonably frequent release schedule is important. And there may be no value improving code that works reliably and never changes, so a (potentially) large portion of the existing API may remain, just wrapped by a new API.
Other considerations:
public API? Maybe a new version (significant changes) will be needed sooner than the internal APIs
focus on the methods/services used by it
what parts/services change the most (have the most enhancement requests approved)
these are the bits most likely to change, and could benefit most from a better process/architecture
what are future plans for change and where would the API be impacted
e.g. change to user management, change to payment processors, change to fulfilment systems
e.g. new business plans (new products/services)
consider affected methods in the API
Also see:
Using Microservices for Legacy System Modernization
Migrating From a Monolith to APIs and Microservices
Break the Monolith! Loosely Coupled Architecture Brings DevOps Success
From the CEO’s Desk: Application Modernization – Assess, Strategize, Modernize! 9
[Microservices Architecture As A Large-Scale Refactoring Tool 10
Probably the biggest 4 pieces of advice that I can give is:
think refactoring: small changes that don't affect function
think agile: small increments that are valuable, testable, achievable
think continuous: have a vision for where you will (eventually) get to, then work the process continuously
script & automate the processes from code, documentation, testing, deployment, monitoring...
improving it every time!
you have an application/API that works - keep it working!
That is always the first priority (you just need to work to carve-out time/budget for maintenance)
Not a bad idea at all.
Also what are your looking is microservices arch. and with that the question comes is how you break your system into well defined services.
We use Domain Driven Design Arch. to break our system into microservices and lagom framework , which allows every service to be in diff. code base and event driven arch. between microservices.
Now lets look at your problem at low level: you said a service contains code like creating a user and sending a email and one with just creating a user and there might be other code as well.
First we need to understand how many type of code you are writing:
Domain Object Logic (eg: User Object) -- what parameters are valid and all -- this should be independent of service endpoint and should be encapsulated in one Class like user class and we say it an Aggregate in Domain Driven Design terms
Business Reactions -- like on user creation send a email -- using event driven arch. these type of logics are separated into process managers or sagas which could most cases work conditionally like a for user created externally send a mail and for user created internally send a email , by having extra data in the event
Also the current way you are doing it , how are you handling transaction across services???
I have been reading on difference between REST and SOAP. I see in many posts that SOAP is a better choice for distributed transactional resources.
Please give me a practical example of SOAP being used for distributed transaction.
SOAP has been the main player for many years inside enterprise applications simply because there was no alternative. REST came later.
Since SOAP is a protocol it is easier to build tools around it since you know how it behaves always (i.e. as the protocol is defined). For this reason and because it's mature as technology, a lot of other specifications were build around it, to cover any uses one might have for doing something with SOAP. See a list here. There are of course some for transactional semantics also. If you use
SOAP with a technology like Java or C# (which are heavyweight champions in the enterprise applications field) then you can have these transactional specifications already implemented in the framework or libraries and you just use them.
REST on the other hand is an architectural style of building applications. It's harder to limit it to a set of specifications. You can implement it in many ways. It is also going somehow against "the way of the SOAP" by staying away of creating new standards or specifications and instead just reusing the ones of the web. For this reason, there are no specs or tools to help you with transactional RESTful services. You have to build your own.
So when your application is build by self-contained web services, and these services need to cooperate on creating the applications outcome, and you need a distributed transaction to guarantee that outcome is consistent (all operations succeeding or none succeeding) then it's (more) practical to go for the technology that has the better tooling in supporting it.
Note: This question is heavily affected by the main requirement to the web application that I build: high availability and fault tolerance. All the other requirements (like scalability and number of users) is not in question here.
I have got and advice from one of the members of this community to use an Erlang web-server as a back-end for my web application.
The suggestion was that I could use something like Mochiweb as a backend and Django/Ruby on Rails as a front end using JSON and the Service Oriented Model.
The only obvious advantage of this approach that I can understand is that the development of the front-end part is 'as usual' - regular MVC stuff, Ruby on Rails or any other common framework of someone's choice.
But what about other advantages? Do they actually exist?
Sure, Erlang/OTP adds fault-tolerance to the system in question, but doesn't adding a web front-end layer diminish this fault tolerance level to much lower level?
Don't we introduce a 'single point of failure' by coupling Ruby on Rails with Mochiweb? Of course, Mochiweb can cope with faults, but what if something wrong happens on the front-end side?
Technically the Erlang/OTP platform does not do anything about fault-tolerance and high-availability on it's own. It just allows to easily implement concurrent and distributed software. Erlang web server running on a single machine can fail as all other do - just because hardware fails.
So for HA sites it's more important to have proper redundancy and fallback scenarios for cases of hardware and software failures, rather than using any specific software stack or platform. Probably it will just be slightly easier to implement in Erlang compared to other platforms (if you are familiar with it, of course), but absolutely the same results can be achieved using pure Ruby/Python/Java/C or almost any other.
The web industry have tons of experience setting up fault-tolerant frontends. It's just a matter of setting up multiple web machines (often light reverse-proxies) and some sort of HA manager (built into many loadbalancing solutions). The backend is usually the harder part.
I wouldn't use Erlang as a front-end web server if the back end is some other technology.
Many of the benefits of Erlang as a web server come about when the back end is also using Erlang. The biggest of these is lower I/O costs. When your front end and back end are completely separate software stacks, you lose that benefit.
If you're going to build something on Rails, you might as well use something you can get more help with on the front end, such as nginx.
We are trying to be forward looking in our architecture choice on some of the new systems we are designing. Pretty much we want to architecture back end system that no matter what interface we decide to use (WinForms, Silverlight, MVC, Webforms, WPF, IOS (IPad/Iphone), ect...) which i believe just screams REST. Our organization generally will only use Microsoft APIs but since i have no idea when WCF-Web-Api will be released and we want to get started soon it looks like we have no other choice.
We want to take baby steps here to increase the chances of buy off. So we don't want to have to set up another server with IIS.
In the foreseeable future we will only be using WinForms & WebForms. What i was thinking we could use Nancy on the local machine but communicate with it in a RESTFul way. That way in the future it should be as simple as setting up a server and redirecting all the clients to that server rather than locally.
I've never used either NancyFX or OpenRasta, but, from what ive heard, it sounded like a good fit.
So the questions are:
Is the way i'm thinking on approaching this a good approach
Does it sound like NancyFX or OpenRasta would be a better fit?
Any reason why we should wait for WCF-Web-API and if so does anyone have an approx release date.
OpenRasta was built for resource-oriented scenarios. You can achieve the same thing with any other frameworks (with more or less pain). OpenRasta gives you a fully-composited, IoC friendly environment that completely decouples handlers and whatever renders them (which makes it different from MVC frameworks like nancy and MVC).
I'd add that we have a very strong community, a stable codebase and we've been in this for quite a few years, we're building 2.1 and 3.0 and our featureset is still above and beyond what you can get from most other systems. Compare this to most of the frameworks you've highlighted, where none have reached 1.0.
Professional support is also available, if that's a deciding factor for your company.
But to answer your question fully, depending on your scenario and what you want to achieve, you can make anything fits, given enough work. I'd suggest reformulating your question in terms of architecture rather than in terms of frameworks.
I was today trying to figure out on working with WebService and found many articles really gospel over the Web Service and its effectiveness in the Market share.
My Questions are:
For a Complex project of critical data, is it better to opt for WebService?
What Makes WebService different from other way of fetching the data?
The answer is... it depends. Web services are not really the next Big thing, they have been a Huge Thing for years now. In business applications, web services allow a big level of interoperability and capabilities never seen before.
They help integration with legacy systems, cooperation between distinct departments, defining loosely coupled interfaces and such. You should read some about Service-oriented architecture.
If all you need is a PHP application that handles data from a single database, you might not need web services at all. If you are designing a solution that revolves around multiple data sources, with complex security involved, multiple languages and/or multiple applications, then web services become essential.
SOAP is a protocol; if working with PHP, you'll need to check out the PHP: SOAP guide to understand how it works. For every language (almost), there are existing APIs to develop web services. Anyhow you might want to check RESTful web services instead of SOAP-based ones, they are generally simpler to implement/understand. But that's another debate ;-).
Cheers.
That mostly depends on the definition of "big thing".
My experience with the WS stack and SOAP and all the acronym soup is that it takes an awful lot of workforce to deploy it. The status of the frameworks is complex, and definitely not something a hobbyist can put to work in a couple of afternoons. We have seen how many things on the net became the next big thing just because they were easy. Easy to understand, easy to interact with, easy in technology. Wikipedia, twitter, digg, youtube are internet big things, and they are, from the interaction point of view, light years away from SOAP/WS based interaction. They are KISS: simple and stupid. A whole horizontal market was opened just because of their simplicity. Even multiprocessing platforms like BOINC don't use anything near the WS stack, but they are the core of many high-throughput efforts.
Now, if you have to deal with complex multi-host transactions, authentication, credential delegation, caching... WS is there. It's the target that makes the need: banks, flight reservation, stuff like this. but they won't impact the common programmer. They require too much energy and too many different competences at once to become something usable for a horizontal market of developers.
Also, I am a REST person. I never advocated SOAP with much emphasis, but there was nothing else and it was a better evolution over XMLRPC (which, if you have to perform dumb RPC, IMHO it's still a good choice). Now I changed my mind. You mostly have resources on the web, and you interact with them with HTTP methods. SOAP is nothing but RPC on hypersteroids. No, REST is not the solution that replaces WS. At all. it's simply easier to use and to debug, albeit more difficult to design (you have to think in terms of resources instead of method calls). It's KISS. That's why it has more chances for success on the horizontal market.
It depends.
Web services can be useful if you need to expose the data across security boundaries, where a direct connection to an RDBMS would be a bad idea.
Popular method for implementing web services nowdays is to use RESTful API (eg. via Ajax/JSON). It's already "next big thing" – almost every major player has been offering it for years. Google, Flickr, Twitter, you name it.
The big advantage is that they help to implement an API layer.
If you implement your solution using a "bus" where the web services sit, it opens up your product to a far greater range of users and moves away from being a proprietary product.
It also enables people to interface using a wide range of solutions e.g web service clients can be implemented using command line, Jsp, Java, Asp, .NET, PHP etc.
They also enable code re-use e.g. if you implement GetClientDetails (ID) as a web service for one user, when the next group comes along wanting the same thing, all you have to do is give them the WSDL and they are away.