Example:
Suppose I have an actor that is managing communication with some external service, so it has a Client object within it for making requests to the external service. In order to avoid this actor becoming monolithic, I might want to create child actors for handling different pieces of interaction: maintaining a heartbeat to the service, making and coordinating complicated requests, etc. These child actors will need a reference to a Client of the service.
Given that these client objects are unlikely to be serialisable and may be stateful e.g. contain connection state, is it an anti pattern to pass them to child actors via Props? The Akka documentation seems to strongly encourage maintaining serialisable props, but this seems to be extremely limiting in this case.
The Akka documentation seems to strongly encourage maintaining serialisable props
I am not aware of this suggestion, do you mind sharing the link in the question?
From my experience, it is pretty common to pass these Client references from parent to child actors. Sometimes I may choose to pass the exact method (a function) instead of the Client reference for the ease of unit testing. As long as you're not spawning an actor across the network boundary, I don't see any reason why this is a bad thing.
Regarding the Client object you describe, for network level things (e.g., connection state etc) I will leverage akka-http Client API. If you were to keep application level things, I would prefer having a separate actor to be dedicated for such use. It sounds a bit anti-pattern to me to keep application state in non-actor provided that you have Akka actor, which is designed to host state.
I'm struggling with proper design of communication between 2 separate akka microservices/bounded contexts in akka cluster.
Lets say we have 2 microservices in cluster per node.
Both microservices are based on akka.
It's clear for me that communication within particular bounded context will be handled by sending messages from actor to actor or from actor on node1 to actor on node2 (if necessary)
Q: but is it OK to use similar communication between separate akka application? e.g. boundedContext1.actor --message--> boundedContext2.actor
or it should be done via much clearer boundaries: In bc1 raise an event - publish to broker and read the event in bc2?
//Edit currently we've implemented a service registry an we're publishing events to service registry via Akka streams.
I think there is no universal answer here.
It is like if your BCs are simple enough you can hold the BCs in one application and even in one project/library with very weak boundaries i.e. just placing them into separate namespaces and providing an API for other BCs.
But if your BCs become more complex, more independent and require its own deployment cycle then it is definitely better to construct more strong boundaries and separate microservices that communicate through message broker.
So, my answer is you should just "feel" the right way according to your particular needs. If you don't "feel" it then follow KISS principle and start with an easier way i.e. using built-in akka communication system. And if in the future your BCs will become more complex then you will have to refactor them. But this decision will be justified and it will not be an unnecessary overhead.
I am currently working on a Play! project that has the following architecture:
Controllers -> Services (actors) -> Models (Regular case classes)
For each request that comes in, we will issue a call to the service layers like so:
Service ? DoSomething(request, context)
We have a set number of these service actors behind an akka router that are created during app initialization, and is expandable on demand.
And in the service we mostly do modest data manipulation or database calls:
receive = {
case DoSomething(x, y) => {
...
Model.doSometing(...)
sender ! result
}
}
I am having second thoughts on whether we should be using actors for our services or just use Futures only.
We do not have any internal state that needs to be modified in the service actors, whatever message comes in goes to a function and spits out the result. Isn't this the big strength of the actor model?
We are doing a lot of tasks which seem to take a lot away from the actor model
We aren't doing heavy computation and remoting doesn't make sense because most of the work is for the database and roundtriping to a remote actor to make some db call is unnecessary
We do use reactivemongo, so every db call is non blocking. We can make a lot of these calls
It seems to me that removing akka and just use Futures makes our life a lot easier, and we don't really lose anything.
There certainly is no shortage of opinion on the topic of what should and shouldn't be an actor. Like these two posts:
http://noelwelsh.com/programming/2013/03/04/why-i-dont-like-akka-actors/
http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2013/actors_vs_futures.html
I don't think you're going to find an absolute answer to this question other then that it's situational and it's really up to your preferences and your problem. What I can do for you is to offer my opinion that is based on us implementing Akka for about 2 years now.
For me, I like to think of Akka really as a platform. We come for the Actor Model but we stay for all of the other goodness that the platform provides like Clustering/Remoting, FSM, Routing, Circuit Breaker, Throttling and the like. We are trying to build an SOA like architecture with our actors acting as services. We are deploying these services across a cluster, so we are taking advantage of things like Location Transparency and Routing to provide the ability for a service consumer (which itself could be another service) to find and use a service no matter where it is deployed, and in a highly available manner. Akka makes this whole process pretty simple based on the platform tools they offer.
Within our system, we have the concept of what I call Foundation Services. These are really simple services (like basic lookup/management services for a particular entity). These services generally don't call any other services, and in some cases, just perform DB lookups. These services are pooled (router) and don't usually have any state. They are pretty similar to what you are describing some of your services to be like. We then start to build more and more complex services on top of these foundation services. Most of these services are short lived (to avoid asking), sometimes FSM based, that collect data from the foundation services and then crunch and do something as a result. Even though these foundation services are themselves pretty simple, and some would say don't require an actor, I like the flexibility in that when I compose them into a higher level service, I can look them up and they can be anywhere (location transparent) in my cluster with any number of instances available (routing) for using.
So for us, it was really a design decision to baseline around an actor as a sort of micro-like service that is available within our cluster for consumption by any other service, no matter how simple that service is. I like communicating with these services, where ever they are, through a coarse grained interface in an async manner. A lot of those principles are aspects of building out a good SOA. If that's your goal, then I think Akka can be very helpful in achieving that goal. If you are not looking to do something like that, then maybe your are right in questioning your decision to use Akka for your services. Like I said earlier, it's really up to you to figure out what you are trying to do from an architecture perspective and then design your services layer to meet those goals.
I think you're on right tracks.
We do not have any internal state that needs to be modified in the service actors, whatever message comes in goes to a function and spits out the result. Isn't this the big strength of the actor model?
I found Chris Stucchio's blog (referred to by #cmbaxter above) instantly delightful. My case was so simple that architectural considerations were not a valid point. Just Spray routing and lots of database access, like you have. No state. Thus Future. So much simpler code.
Actor should be crated when you need some really long living stuff with modifying state. In other cases there are no any benefits from actors, especially from non-typed ones.
- do pattern matching every time
- control actor's lifecycle
- remember the things which should not be passed between threads
Why do all of this when you may have simple Future?
There are tasks where actors fit very well, but not everywhere
I was wondering the same and what we decide to do was to use Akka for our data access and it works very well, it's very testable (and tested), and very portable.
We created repositories, long living actors, that we bootstrapped in our App : (FYI, we are using slick for our DB Access, but also have a similar design for our MongoDB needs)
val subscriptionRepo = context.actorOf(Props(new SubscriptionRepository(appConfig.db)), "repository-subscription")
Now we are able to send a "Request" Message for data, ex:
case class SubscriptionsRequested(atDate: ZeroMillisDateTime)
that the actor will respond with
case class SubscriptionsFound(users: Seq[UserSubscription])
or Failure(exception)
In our situation (spray apps but also CLI), we wrapped those calls in a short living actor that take the context and complete on reception and closes itself. (You could handle domain specific logic in those actor, have it to extend another actor that manages its lifecycle and exception so you would only have to specify a partial function for your needs and leave the abstract actor to deal with timeouts, common exceptions etc.
We also have situations where we needed more work to be done in the initiating actor, and it very convenient to fire x messages to your repositories and have your actor storing those messages as they arrive, doing something once they are all there, firing back for completion to the sender( for instance) and close itself.
Thanks to this design, we have a very reactive repository living outside our app, completely tested with Akka TestKit and H2, completely DB agnostic, and it's dead easy, to access data from our DBs (and we never do any ASK, only Tell : Tell to repo, tell to sender, complete or x Tells to repos, pattern match on expected results until completion, tell to sender).
I have the following situation. Several services provide their functionality mainly via SOAP interfaces. There is one module that wants to consume this functionality for integration into a website. What would be the best practice to do that?
The functionality of the services is subject to change. Therefore, each single function/method should be "reroutable". The web service is probably hosted on a different machine.
Is it reasonable to map all web services to JMS queues (my first idea)? The website module would only talk to JMS then. A router would route all incoming JMS messages to the different web services (or elsewhere).
Or: There could be one dedicated web service, that integrates all functions, to be used exclusively by the web site? The advantage here would be that parameters and return values are typed.
What would you suggest? What could be another, better approach?
If I understood you right, what you're aiming at is providing a homogeneous interface, a coherent API for your webapp module, serving a purpose of a facade for multiple remote interfaces (mainly SOAP ones).
Regarding the JMS approach you've mentioned - it seems reasonable, but:
instead of many queues I'd rather go with a single JMS destination with a Camel content-based router immediately after the queue (or two queues for Request/Reply pattern) That would make things "reroutable" and isolate the web module from service changes.
your requests would be less prone to services-related errors, brief problems in service availability and such, while still retaining an ability to perform Request/Reply style calls (which are common to RPC-ish nature of SOAP).
i'd use one-way style calls wherever they are applicable (for increased reliability and reactivity).
You should not worry about lack of typing, WSDL+SOAP seems to enforce strong typing but that's an illusion driven by auto-generated stubs. You still have to marshal the data back and forth.
Instead of SOAP I'd go with JSON, as it is far cleaner and less redundant than XML (probably faster, but that's usually irrelevant). Jackson is a very efficient JSON library and it's already supported in Camel distributions. JMS ObjectMessage is a big NO (a good article on some of the ObjectMessage pitfalls )
The single-service approach seems to be a good way to separate the web-module from the service layer. It lacks the flexibility and fault-tolerance of the JMS approach but seems tad easier to implement.
If there are many calls that can be concluded in a one-way fashion, I'd say go with JMS and reroute the messages after the queue.
I venture that most but not all web services today are synchronous. A fundamental design decision existing if to implement asynchronous processing.
Is there value in implementing a processing queue system for asynchronous web services? It is a MOM/infrastructure decision with which I am toying. Instead of going system-to-system implement a middleware which will broker said transactions. The ease of management and tracking/troubleshooting of a spider web of services seems to make the most sense.
How best have you implemented asynchronous web services?
It is interesting I stumble into this question. I have exactly the same concern with the current project I am developing.
Our web services are develop using TIBCO technology, and they are also synchronous by default. We are considering creating a queue mechanism to process these requests asynchronously; the reason being: the back-end storage technology we have to interface with is notoriously slow (it is an imposed technology, and we have to deal with it)
Personally I am considering creating a 2nd WSDL definition for the asynchronous replies (which can occur from a few seconds to a few hours later than the request, depending on the load on the mentioned back-end storage.) Clients calling our Web Services will have to in turn implement a web service using this "2nd WSDL" to which we act as clients.
I'd be interested in knowing the directions you are exploring.