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
Related
I am taking over a project to replace an ancient legacy system from the ground up. Before I came on, the company hired a consultant who put together a basic sketch of the system and pushed SOA heavily. This resulted in a long list of "entity services", with the intention of them being composed into more complex service combinations. For instance, a user wanting committee info would hit the "Committee" service, which then calls the "Person" service to get its members, and the "Meeting" service to get its meetings, and so on.
I understand the flexibility gains in this, but my concerns are about performance. It seems to me that a system built with such a fine level of granularity to its services spends too many resources on translating service messages, and the performance will be unacceptable. It also seems to me that the flexibility gains can still be made using basic reusable objects, although in that case the benefit of a technology-agnostic interface is lost to gain performance.
For more background: The organization requesting this software does not currently have a stable of third-party software suites that need integrating with. This software will replace all suites. There are also currently no outside consumers who need to access the data outside of the provided website interface -- all service calls will be from other pieces inside our system. The choice of SOA in this case seems entirely based on the concept of "preparation".
So my question -- what level of granularity is acceptable in a stable of services without sacrificing performance? Am I being too skeptical of the performance hits we'll take implementing all our entities as services? Should functionality be available as web services only when they are needed, with the "preparation" focus instead going into designing the business layer for the probability of services later being dropped on top of it?
First off, finding the "sweet spot" in the number of services is difficult for sure. Too many services, and your integration costs suffer, too few, and your implementation costs suffer. You have to find a good balance.
My advice to you is to follow Juval Lowy's methodology in that you should break down your services by areas of volatility, or areas of change. This will give you your granularity level. You should also read his WCF book if you can.
As for the performance, WCF will inherently support many thousands of calls per second depending on your use cases and hardware. Services calling services is not a problem. The platform will support it if you do your part. For example, use the right binding for the right scenario (named pipes to call services on the same machine and TCP to call services across machine where possible). You should also implement a vertical slice of the application and do performance testing before building the rest of the application. This will verify your architecture.
When I say "Service", I mean the complete vertical component that can perform a complete independent operation. And I don't prefer going in more granularity unless there is exceptional requirement. In my view of SOA, A service should perform the meaningful business function that can be independently performed. A service should not require another service to complete its function.
What level of granularity is acceptable in a stable of services without sacrificing performance?
Individual entities. As described by the consultant.
Am I being too skeptical of the performance hits we'll take implementing all our entities as services?
Yes. Way too skeptical.
A decent framework can optimize some of these requests so that they don't involve a lot of network overheads.
As with SQL databases, the problems are largely solved. You'll find that the underlying applications that you're presenting as services are the bottlenecks. The SOA layer is largely plumbing. The bits still need to move through the pipes, the SOA layer just organizes them more intelligently than most of the alternatives.
Should services only be implemented when they are needed, with the "preparation" focus instead going into designing the business layer for the probability of services later being dropped on top of it?
Yes.
That's what "Agile" means.
Find a user story. Build just the services (and entities) for that story.
You will have some significant overhead for the first few stories in getting your SOA framework all squared away and deployable as a simple, repeatable release step.
Never do extensive "preparation" for things you "may" need in some improbable future. Read up on Agile and how to prioritize a backlog.
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.
Sorry for the very involved question, but this is something I've been researching for a while now and it is really frustrating me. I feel like in today's age we have a million and one ways to implement services tat are cross-platform (SOAP) and easy to build (thanks to .NET, java, and other frameworks). However, these technologies have been in the community for 5-10 years, but we are (or at least I am) constantly plagued with the same issues:
Identification (Tracking services) - UDDI; e.g., had to remind a co-worker the 3 times this month where a service is at, despite the fact there is a wiki that discusses the service and a PDF version of the same documentation that lives in a repository where we keep our service docs.
Scalability - Out of the box clustering; As organizations, we spend a lot of money on paying our admins just to watch the utilization of our services and make decisions like, does this service need more RAM, more CPU, more interfaces? How do I load balance this?
Monitoring - error logging, etc; I can't count how many times I have to set up tracing on services in order to see why a bug is happening that only seems to affect one customer, or have to code logic into the service to serialize exceptions, log exceptions to dbs, fail gracefully, etc.
Deployment - easy to deploy; none of this deploying DLLs to 5 load balanced servers
Each one of these problems requires some type of custom solution implemented by the organization. Documentation and UDDIs for #1. Virtualization and load balancing hardware / software for #2. Tracing, writing exceptions to databases / logs, etc for #3. Custom deployment software for #4. I work for a mid-sized organization. I can't even imagine how a company the size of Sun, Google, or Microsoft would tackle these dilemmas.
Maybe my vision is unrealistic, but I dream of having a Framework per se that lives on top of a server cluster that manages all of the above. I was ecstatic to read about Microsoft's AppFabric since it really seems to extend some of the functionality of BizTalk to WCF service implementors: Caching, Hosting, Monitoring, etc. However, from what I've seen, I still don't feel it lives up to my dream for an all-in-one solution that assists the developer and organization in writing services that are scaled across clusters easily, deployed into the cluster easily, and identifiable, possibly even version-able.
So, I don't mean this post to be about my dream. I do actually have a question. For starters, is my dream / want completely unrealistic? Furthermore, what solutions are there available that attempt to solve these problems without confining us to a new and more proprietary way (BizTalk) of developing services? An lastly, in concern to a complete SOA / ESB solution, where do we see the most potential in the market right now or in the future?
I think that you are talking about different kinds of problems here.
1). Developers who don't read documentation. This is an endemic problem, not limited to SOA - just look at some questions on StackOverflow. At least the developer is asking you whether there is a service, rather then just duplicating logic in their own code. I don't see any technical solution to these kinds of problems, you've already provided good registries and documentation, but some developers prefer to talk to people. Maybe, even, this is actually a good thing - human interaction has value above the technical content of the interaction. Or maybe, you're too nice: "No, I won't answer that question, look it up."
2). Scaling. There are technologies addressing this issue. (Disclaimer I work for IBM, who sell some, so I'll reference these - I'm not intending to imply that IBM are the only vendor with solutions in this space.) There are products such as this that can provision a new machine, install a software stack and add it to a cluster to address workload changes. Then at a finer grained level of control in the Java EE world the Application Server can dynamically shape traffic and adjust clusters. See WebSphere Virtual Enterprise
3). Monitoring. I don't "get" what you expect here. In all likelyhood such tricky bugs will require application level trace. For some problems such as finding memory leaks and performance bottlenecks there are very good tools, at least in the Java EE world.
4). I can't speak to the .Net world, but I'd say that Java EE app servers do a reasonable job of deploying the apps across clusters smoothly, and in the cases where we use JNI and need DLLs deploying then we can use products such as the Tivoli stack I mention to manage this.
So, in summary, I do think that vendors are trying to address these issues. And I don't think your life would be simpler without SOA. Imagine instead the same problems applied to myriad separate, independent applications.
Here's my two cents.
I've been a developer at a company that used SOA incorrectly. The worst solution they implemented was field level validation of form elements on a desktop app using SOA. To perform acceptably these require very low latency. A 2-4 second wait to change to a new field gets old fast. The service ran over the network on a biztalk server. Everyone hated it.
If you're going to do this you really need to spend a lot of time dealing with network latency, service failure, timing, and timeout issues.
Don't get carried away and think SOA is the solution to every problem. Used at a high level it's great, used at a low level it makes your applications fragile, slow, and impossible to debug.
If you talk to IBM or one of the big SOA vendors, they got a products that cover each scenario.
Identification (Tracking services) - UDDI; e.g., had to remind a co-worker the 3 times this month where a service is at, despite the fact there is a wiki that discusses the service and a PDF version of the same documentation that lives in a repository where we keep our service docs.
Registry and Repository server. Nice thing is that it does governance (promotion, demotion, versioning, approval) and your ESB typically does a "lookup" for the latest and greatest against the register server.
Scalability - Out of the box clustering; As organizations, we spend a lot of money on paying our admins just to watch the utilization of our services and make decisions like, does this service need more RAM, more CPU, more interfaces? How do I load balance this?
Transaction monitoring software like IBM Tivoli Composite Application Manager for SOA. Basically, it tracks things from a horizontal point of view and to see if there is a service disruption from a end user/end app point of view.
As far as your clustering.... you have to pick good middleware and architecture. Personally speaking, get stuff that is "cloud" ready. App Servers with NoSQL connected by MOM.
Monitoring - error logging, etc; I can't count how many times I have to set up tracing on services in order to see why a bug is happening that only seems to affect one customer, or have to code logic into the service to serialize exceptions, log exceptions to dbs, fail gracefully, etc.
Enterprise standards for your developers and for your vendors. Integration of all business and system events into a single dashboard. (Most companies spilt them). This is done already at most enterprise shops.
Deployment - easy to deploy; none of this deploying DLLs to 5 load balanced servers
Ahh.. Microsoft IIS Web Deployment Tool 2.0. You can sync 100s of MS servers by just updating the master. It's really easy.
I consider a self-described / auto-descriptive service as a good thing in a SOA architecture, since (almost) everything you know to call the service is present in the service contract (such a WSDL).
Sample of a non self-described service for me is Facebook Query Language (FQL http://wiki.developers.facebook.com/index.php/FQL), or any web service exchanging XML flow in a one String parameter for then parsing XML and performing treatments.
Last ones seem further more technically decoupled, since technically you can switch implementations without technical impact on the caller, handling compatibility between implementations/versions at a business level. On the other side, having no strong interface (diluted into the service and its version), make the service tightly coupled to the existing implementation (more difficulty to interchange the service and to ensure perfect compatibility).
This question is related to How to Implement Loose Coupling with a SOA Architecture
So, are self-described / auto-descriptive services loosely or tightly coupled in a SOA architecture ? What are the impacts regarding ESBs ?
Any pointer will be appreciated.
The thing is that loosely coupled SOA services will tend to interact with each other using publish/subscribe semantics not supported by WSDL (which only supports request/response).
When you introduce an ESB like NServiceBus, it focuses on messages and ownership rather than the method invocations that tools generate from WSDL. Those messages can then be represented either as classes in code or in an XSD for interoperability.
The transportation of XML messages from one endpoint to another when done with standard web services does look quite silly as the contract doesn't appear in the WSDL, and that's one of the places where ESBs come in.
Hope that helps.
Not having dealt much with creating web-services, either from scratch, or by breaking apart an existing application, where does one start? Should a web-service encapsulate an entity, much like a class does, or should the service have more/less to it?
I realize that much of this is based on a case by case analysis of what the needs are, but are there any general guide-lines or best practices or even small nuggets of information that web-service veterans can impart to a relative newbie?
Our web services are built around functional areas. Sometimes this is just for a single entity, sometimes it's more than that.
For example, if you have a CRM, one of your web services might revolve around managing Contacts. Creating, updating, searching for, etc. If you do some type of batch type processing, a web service might exist to create and submit a job.
As far as best practices, bear in mind that web services add to the processing overhead. Mainly in serializing / deserializing the data as it goes across the wire. Because of this the main upside is solely in scalability. Meaning that you trade an increased per transaction processing time for the ability to run the service through multiple machines.
The main parts to pull out into a web service are those areas which are common across multiple applications, or which you intend to expose publicly, or which would benefit from greater load balancing.
Of course, you need to analyze your application to see where any bottlenecks really are. In some cases it doesn't make sense. For example, if you have a single application that isn't sharing its code and/or the bottleneck is primarily database related.
Web Services are exactly what they sound like Services for the Web.
A web service should be built as an API for the service layer of your app.
A service usually encapsulates an entity larger than a single class.
To learn more about service layers and refactoring to add a service layer read about DDD.
Good Luck
The number 1 question is: To what end are you refactoring your application functionality to be consumned as a bunch of web services?