Is it good idea to separate out implementation of each http verb in different micro service?
For example
GET books/{id} - micro service A
POST books/{id} - micro service B
This appears to be overkill for "books" api but in a typical enterprise an api resource/verb do a lot more than a hello work api.
Is it good idea to separate out implementation of each http verb in
different micro service?
The boundaries of microservices are usually drawn by separable business concerns. The main reason to do that is for enabling separate teams to be responsible for the complete lifecycle of a service, with minimal external dependencies. This allows for a faster release cycle of services in a complex system.
For understanding the microservices architectural style I recommend reading the material from Martin Fowler.
Related
good afternoon
I am reviewing the concepts of SOA and I have this question.
SOA-> COVERS in 2 technologies, SOAP(xml) AND REST(xml,json,txt,etc)
Microservices that is based on SOA, uses SOAP or is only based on REST?
obs: if it is clear that the microservice goes by the level of decoupling, independence and only specific tasks, but my question is if I can have microservices based on SOAP?
I have read a lot of documentation, I have that doubt.
Thanks a lot.
Microservices are more of a concept/software architecture style where you have independently and scalable services.
If your organisation/project requires soap protocol (which often happens in legacy projects when you want to switch from soa to microservces) you can also do microservices with it.
The closest I got to finding the actual difference is this article.
But I didn't understand what would make me choose one over the other and if microservices can also use a REST API and communicate via http.
I mainly didn't understand what a microservice is and if it can come instead of a webservice, other than the purpose of
breaking large software applications into loosely coupled modules
A microservice is a software architecture, which can be implemented with webservices.
A webservice is just a technology (one of many) for providing services over "web" or HTTP.
The main point is: a web service is (as the name announces) something that you would expect to "deal" with HTTP - in other words it does something in the context of the world wide web.
Whereas a microservice is not subject to the WWW context. At its core a microservice is supposed to provide one specific service - but there is no restriction to the http protocol for example.
Often a microservice implements a restful "web service" - but it doesn't have to be that way!
Beyond that, microservices are often meant as counter model to a huge monolithic application that serves many different kind of requests.
I got simple answer here that says :
Microservices is a new software architecture. It is based on web services. But it can be any service implemented as an independent feature that has its own database and can be deployed independently.
Microservices is an architecture wherein all the components of the system are put into individual components, which can be built, deployed, and scaled individually.
Microservices are the extension of web services.
Web services are typically vertical in nature(Provider-Consumer communication) whereas microservices are horizontal in nature
Microservices are seen as architecture due to the following.
microservices have belonged to one specific application.
microservices are addressing specific concern so that can be said as lightweight.
Changes are isolated in nature because the change in one microservice doesn't affect other (Ex. Changes done in login microservice does not affect the payment microservice)
Scaling individual microservices are easy.
Microservice usually has its own database.
Microservices : -
Microservice is a software architecture that can be used alongside web services. This method involves the splitting of large software applications into decoupled modules where microservices run unique processes and communicate through APIs. Its development can be through the use of either messaging, event-driven APIs, or using non-HTTP backed RPC mechanisms.
Microservices architecture saves the day when large applications fail or are down. If a particular service fails in communication, the overall application cannot be affected by the failure of a single module. The combination of microservices in Java, C#, Python, and mobile software development languages is possible. It can be independently deployed in service models for a business domain.
Web Services :-
A web service is just one of several technologies that can provide services over “web” or HTTP. As a specific type of service-oriented architecture (SOA), web services represent a web application’s functionality.
It defines a mechanisms interaction between an API and the main code by using standard HTTP protocol and universal formats of data representation such as XML, JSON, and so on. This allows software applications developed by different technologies to communicate with each other.
Web services are not involved with frontend development. They are not connected to any development languages or user device software platforms. The combination of different web services into a single one is also possible if written in different languages and for separate operating systems, just like in microservices.
Microservice is a subset of web services. Also used to name Architectures like "Architecture based on microservices"
Microservice is an artifact, not an architecture. Several world class companies know that
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/elasticbeanstalk/latest/dg/environments-cfg-alb-shared.html
Before the microservice artifact, we had the classic web service or rest api. Even before this we had the Soap web services with XML.
So, as a summary when someone talk about microservice, he means a subset of web service with some characteristics that differentiate it from classic web services or rest api.
One main characteristic is a unique database or Database per Service
Here another characteristics from the goods like AWS. Some of them apply to rest apis or soap services. I will mark with bold some very specific for microservices.
https://aws.amazon.com/microservices/
Agility
Flexible Scaling
Easy Deployment
Technological Freedom
Reusable Code
Resilience
https://microservices.io/
Highly maintainable and testable
Loosely coupled
Independently deployable
Organized around business capabilities
Owned by a small team
https://www.baeldung.com/cs/microservices-db-design
Database per Service
CQRS
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/architecture/microservices/design/data-considerations
Microservice is a piece of autonomous application that performs for a larger application architecture.
Web service is an approach to make the application available to other applications by web ui.
The project I'm currently involved requires that business logic must be implemented in Web Service that will be consumed by the Presentation Tier Components (i.e. Web Applications).
The company has an Enterprise Service Bus, and up-to-date almost every Web Service developed is exposed through this bus. I asked some colleagues around about when to expose Service through ESB and I got this answers:
If there's an ESB, expose everything through it: There are several benefits like Load-Balancing and location transparency
If the ESB will only act as a Proxy -i.e no message transformation- just don't use it: You'll overload the ESB and lose performance. You'll better do a point-to-point connection.
You should expose a component through ESB if there's a protocol transformation (like exposing a Stored Procedure as a SOAP Service). If this isn't present you better go Point-to-Point.
So I'm curious if there's a general agreement or best-practice of when to expose a Web Service through it or not. Any reading/reference would be a great help.
From my point of view and after 4 years of experience with SOA technologies, using an ESB will always overload the system since you are adding a new layer and making all your communications go through it. Transformation (either messaging or protocol) and routing aren't to hard to accomplish without an ESB and point to point communication will have a bit higher throughput. Same happens also with business process automation, there are ways to get there without the need of an ESB.
In the other hand, the use of an ESB has several benefits in the scope of a corporation but it must be within a vision and strategy. One of the best examples is a company that has been working for a long time with a wide range of tools, each of them for a specific purpose and that made the company be distributed in teams which work in silos, ones isolated from the others. After a long time that makes interaction between teams complex and slow. A well planned SOA strategy will help to integrate all those tools and start replacing them for more meaningful lightweight items.
So, IMHO, Using an ESB just to solve a couple of "issues" in a single project without a corporate strategy isn't a good idea and, eventually, the word SOA will be banned in your company, when the problem isn't SOA by itself by rather the lack of vision and corporate strategy.
The only rule of thumb that I found regarding the use of ESBs is: The requirement of transformation, routing, business process automation (with or without human interaction), etc. in a single project is not a symptom of going SOA (almost every project has to perform transformations, routing and business process automation), but when those needs are the ones for a whole corporation then it's worth to think about it from a business point of view, never a technical one. If there isn't a business perspective, then SOA will fail.
This is a really wide topic and discussion can last for ages, I will suggest you a couple of links for further reading:
Some SOA Case Studies
Top 10 Reasons why SOA fails
I think I know the answer to this one, but I have just spotted someone doing exactly the opposite - who is a very skilled developer, were they just having a bad day?
Q: Is it OK to call a service from within a service in an SOA architected system?
I suspect not, but i'll ask anyway...
I can't think of any reason why not. I can think of multiple reasons why a service could call another service. I've architected and implemented multiple services that do this. I'm also aware of other architectures that set up this sort of system.
Definitely yes. This SOA pattern is commonly called choreography where one web service processes and then passes the message to another down a processing pipeline. Google it and you will find some good references.
Another case may be more technical reason like routing, where you have frontend webservices that routes your messaged to different backend services based on security policy, content, bridge different technology or transport protocol etc.
The answer to this is as always "it depends..." let me explain what I mean.
Calling another service in a SOA is of course a totally acceptable thing to do, it is at the heart of SOA to be able to compose new things out of existing services.
The more important part is how you call the services, consider a SOA system where multiple services collaborate in a call chain call each one enlisting the other in the transactional scope. Doing this sort of thing without careful planning will have a massive impact on your systems performance. The same call chain designed using well partitioned services that are scoped at the correct unit of work suffers less.
Consider system robustness, in a typical architecture one service tends to become more popular than others and lands up having many other services calling it. A failure of this one service brings down the entire system due to all the other services being dependent on the call to this one service.
Consider the difference between synchronous and asynchronous calls, when do you use what? That is the impact of each?
How do you design and partition services to limit the cost of crossing the service boundary on each call?
Lots of questions, but if you look around there are many places to find answers, I suggest starting with these.
I would suggest you read articles by Thomas Erl and Roger Sessions, this will give you a firm handle on what SOA is all about.
Building a SOA
SOA Design Pattern
Achieving integrity in a SOA
Why your SOA should be like a VW Beetle
SOA explained for your boss
WCF Service Performance
think about the architectural goal of "separation of concerns". instead of each service knowing how to do everything, it can rely on other specialized services for shared pieces of functionality
I have some different scenario. What if you want to implement service level clustering in your SOA? For example, say persistence service is resides on one machine and is responsible for handling all persistence tasks in the cluster. So, on other machine which needs persistence functionality, need to connect to the that machine only(ignore fail over factor).
Now while login, if User service has instance of Persistence service directly, then you will not be able to implement service level clustering.
We have our SOA middleware and I called service from each other directly. But when we implemented service level clustering using JMS/ActiveMQ, we faced the problem for those interconnected services.
What exactly is web service composition?
Composition refers to the way something is build, the new term at the moment is mash-up which basically means utilising a variety of different services in a composite application. So that functionality of disparate application can be used in one application.
I think your referring to service granularity - which means how much functionality a service exposes. a coarse grained service will expose a whole process as a consumable unit whereas a fine grained service will expose a specific unit of logic from a larger process. Obviously, it is up to the service architects to determine what granularity of service works best in the given environment.
This also, in a way has to do with the style of SOAP message you are using whether it is RPC style or document and that a service should be atomic and not hold external state. Meaning it does not need to know any more information other than that in the SOAP message to perform its function.
Hope this gives you a good starting point. The trouble with service-orientation is that it differs depending on who you read, but the main points stay the same!
Jon
Some web services which are provided for clients are abstract and composition of some smaller web services and it's called web service composition.
Sometimes there are more than one web service in order to use as the mentioned small web services, so we choose them based on QoS (Quality of Service) and many researches have been done on this subject.
Web service composition involves integration of two or more web service to achieve more added value of business functionality. A work flow composer is responsible of aggregating different web services to act as a single service according to functional requirements as well as QoS constrains. BPEL is one of the popular composers uses XML language to perform service composition. Fine-grained services perform single business task and provides higher flexibility and reusability. However, coarse-grained service involves performing complex business functionality leading to lower flexibility