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
Related
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.
I'm creating a web-application and decided to use micro-services approach. Would you please tell me what is the best approach or at least common to organize access to the database from all web-services (login, comments and etc. web-services). Is it well to create DAO web-service and use only it to to read/write values in the database of the application. Or each web-service should have its own dao layer.
Each microservice should be a full-fledged application with all necessary layers (which doesn't mean there cannot be shared code between microservices, but they have to run in separate processes).
Besides, it is often recommended that each microservice have its own database. See http://microservices.io/patterns/data/database-per-service.html https://www.nginx.com/blog/microservices-at-netflix-architectural-best-practices/ Therefore, I don't really see the point of a web service that would only act as a data access facade.
Microservices are great, but it is not good to start with too many microservices right away. If you have doubt about how to define the boundaries between microservices in your application, start by a monolith (all the time keeping the code clean and a good object-oriented with well designed layers and interfaces). When you get to a more mature state of the application, you will more easily see the right places to split to independently deployable services.
The key is to keep together things that should really be coupled. When we try to decouple everything from everything, we end up creating too many layers of interfaces, and this slows us down.
I think it's not a good approach.
DB operation is critical in any process, so it must be in the DAO layer inside de microservice. Why you don't what to implement inside.
Using a service, you loose control, and if you have to change the process logic you have to change DAO service (Affecting to all the services).
In my opinion it is not good idea.
I think that using Services to expose data from a database is ideal due to the flexibility it provides. Development of a REST service to expose some or all of your data as a service provides flexibility to consume the data directly to the UI via AJAX or by other services which can process the data and generate new information. These consumers do not need to implement a DAO and can be in any language. While a REST Service of your entire database is probably not a Micro-Service, a case could be made for breaking this down as Read only for Students, Professors and Classes for exposing on the School Web site(s), with different services for Create, Update and Delete (CUD) available only to the Registrars office desktop applications.
For example building a Service to exposes a statistical value on data will protect the data from examination by a user/program who only needs a statistical value without the requirement of having the service implement an entire DAO for the components of that statistic. Full function databases like SQL Server or Oracle provide a lot of functionality that application developers can use, including complex queries(using indexes), statistics the application of set operations on data.
Having a database service is a completely valid pattern. In fact, this is one of the key examples of where to start to export aspects of a monolith to a micro service in the Building Microservices book.
How to organize your code around such idea is a different issue. Yes, from the db client programmer's stand point, having the same DAO layer on each DB client makes a lot of sense.
The DAO pattern may be suitable to bind your DB to one programming language that you use. But then you need to ask yourself why you are exposing your database as a web service if all access to it will be mediated by the same DAO infrastructure. Or are you going to create one DAO pattern for each client programming language binding?
If all database clients are going to be written on the same programming language, then are you sure you really need to wrap your DB as a microservice? After all, the DB is usually already a remote service with a well-defined network protocol optimized to transfer data fast and reliably. Why adding HTTP on top of it? What are you expecting to gain from adding such complexity?
Another problem with using the DAO pattern is that the DAO structure does not necessarily follow the evolution of the web service. The web service may evolve in a way that does not make old clients incompatible. You may have different clients using different features of the micro service. In this case you are not sharing the same DAO layer structure on each client.
Make sure you are not using RPC-style programming over web services, which does not make much sense. You will be basically throwing away one of the key advantages of micro services, which is the decoupling between service and client.
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.
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?