I am a total newbie to the world of SOA. As such, I am looking at some "SOA frameworks/technologies", and trying to understand how to utilize them to build a highly scalable (Facebook class) website.
There are several "pains" I am trying to solve here:
Composability (+ managing dependencies, Pub/Sub)
Language-independence of services
Scalability & Performance
High availability
I looked into some technologies that answer a subset of the above criteria:
Thrift - Facebook's cross-platform RPC platform
WCF - supports SOAP, JSON & REST, so it can be considered language-interoperable. Generates WSDL files that can be use to generate java proxies.
Microsoft DSS - just inclued it in my survey, but it doesn't seem relevant as it is highly state-driven and .NET specific.
Web Services
Now, I understand how I get some aspects of composability and language-independence out of the above. But, I haven't found much concrete information (not buzz) about how to use the above / other tools for scalability and high availability. So finally I get to my question:
How does one leverage SOA technologies to solve the pains I defined above? Where can I find technical guides for that? I am looking for more than just system diagrams, but rather actual libraries, code samples, APIS...
I think the question has more to do with the concepts involved than the tools. Answers to the items:
Understand and internalize bounded context. Keeping unrelated pieces separate its important to get real reuse on different services. Related technologies won't help you on this, its you that separate the app in appropriate contexts, which you can appropriately reuse for different services.
Clear endpoint for communication based on known protocols allows implementing different pieces with different technologies
Having the operations flow like independent actions based on different protocols, gives you a lot of places where you can add tiers. Is a particular sub-process of the overall process using lots of resources and the server can't take it anymore, just move to a separate server. Load kept growing, and that server isn't taking it anymore, add an additional server and load balance. You also have more opportunity to use caching and connection pooling.
Have a critical sub-process that needs to be available all the time, add a server so you can have a fail over. Have an overall process that needs to be "available" all the time, use queues for pieces that can be processed later.
Do you really need to support that type of load? Set appropriate performance/load/interoperability targets that relate to the specific scenario. If you really need to support that type of load, I recommend you get someone on board who has dealt with it.
If it is something for a load that might eventually be, identify the bounded contexts and design the interaction between those with a SOA mindset. Keeping the code clean is all you have to do for the rest, use TDD, loose coupling, focused integration tests, etc in your code base. With good code, if you later need to separate pieces of the system, it will be a lot easier.
There are interesting and relevant things said about services and architecture by Amazon's CTO - Werner Vogels:
An interview about the Amazon technology platform
A post on his blog - "Eventually Consistent - Revisited"
A 50 min presentation about Availability & Consistency
IDesign.net has a bunch of great downloads for WCF.
Worth a look at: http://www.manning.com/davis/ ?
Check out the Mule project which bundles the CXF services stack and also the Mule REST pack which provides RESTful alternatives. I think you'll see it addresses all of your pains and there are lots of examples in the documentation as well as the distribution.
May I recommend the book: Enterprise Service Oriented Architectures published by Springer Verlag.
All of the advice here is well and good, but don't worry about it until you really need to.
Focus on building a usable, functional application that people really like. When you start running into problems, then start handling bottlenecks.
You will never be able to foresee every way an application will fail, so how can you tell if [[insert tech here]] is your answer?
Related
I am reading about challenges of concurrent and networked software in pattern oriented software architecure vol 2.
Service access often involves invoking remote operations on resuable
components like OMG event service, etc. Supporting the static and
dynamic evolution of services and applications is antoher key
challenge in networked software system.
Evoution can occur in following way
Interfaces to and connectivity between component service roles can
change, often at run-time, and new service roles can be implemented
and installed into and installed into existing components.
It is even more challenging to determine how to access services that
are configured into a system 'on-demand' and whose implementations are
unknown when the system was designed origanally. Here design challenge
are two-fold.
First, an applicatoin must export new services, even though it may not know their detailed interfaces.
Second, an applicaiton must integrate these services into its own control flow and processing sequence transparently and robustly, even
at run-time.
I need your help in understanding above text by answering following questions.
What does author mean by "Interfaces to and connectivity between component service roles can change, often at run-time" ? Request to explain with easy to undestand example.
What does author mean by two points mentioned on-demand challenges which mentioned above. Request elobartion on above two points.
Thanks for your time and help.
1.What does author mean by "Interfaces to and connectivity between component service roles can change, often at run-time" ?
I'm not sure exactly. Interfaces change overtime because:
New technology standards can be adopted - say moving from SOAP to REST, or form XML to JSON, but that would happen slowly overtime through deployment - where as for me "runtime" is a memory space in which things run, and I don't see interfaces changing themselves taht fast - otherwise how could anyone integrate with them?
The API or interface contract itself changes to fulfill business need.
2.What does author mean by two points mentioned on-demand challenges which mentioned above.
Hmmm, good design patterns tend to survive time well (they never change, because they are never broken - like SOLID). The book you are refering to was written in 2000 I think - a lot has changed since then, so whilst the pattern may survive maybe the way we'd now describe it has changed (i.e what he means by "export new services" is open to interpretation)...
1.First, an application must export new services, even though it may not know their detailed interfaces.
Separation Of Concerns (basic OO stuff), all parts of your app don't (shouldn't) inherently know what the other parts are doing internally; likewise, as long as someone (including an external system) is satisfying the interface then who cares how it does so internally.
2.Second, an application must integrate these services into its own control flow and processing sequence transparently and robustly, even
at run-time.
I take this to mean that the program should never break, it should always compile, and if the application is dynamically creating and executing code (say based on user input) then there needs to be checks in-place so that the dynamic code doesn't break the app either.
I'm not satisfied with the answers given by the SOAP vs REST questions notably here:
Performance of SOAP vs. XML-RPC or REST
because it's just general philosophical answers and not pragmatic answers with some study cases.
Nobody can give precise cases of when soap would be more suitable than rest, especially as for performance point of view ?
Update:I think REST is winning the war.
Performance is not the deciding factor.
First I should say, asking a SOAP-vs-REST question is a little cockeyed, because SOAP is a XML envelope format, and REST is an architecture. So I will make a little assumption and suppose that you are really considering SOAP-vs-POX or SOAP-vs-JSON or SOAP-vs-some other data formatting approach.
The deciding factor should be this:
Do you now need, or will you need in the future, the SOAP envelope?
The SOAP Envelope allows things like framework-provided encryption, digsig, routing, and authorization checks, among other things. You can of course, do those things with REST (or more accurately, with plain-old-XML, or JSON, etc) but you have to do more work yourself, to make that happen.
If Performance - whatever you construe it to mean - really is your #1 criterion, then you should probably abandon SOAP and POX and move to protobufs or something else optimized for performance. These can be faster to serialize and faster to transmit.
If you think this answer is "too philosophical" and you really want hard figures, well, then I suppose you'll need to conduct some tests. The actual perf will vary greatly on the toolkits you choose, the shape of the messages, and the extra data services (like encryption and so on) that you use. But in the end, perf won't be, or shouldn't be, decisive either way.
If your SOAP toolkit is 20% easier to use. debug, and maintain as your POX toolkit, then you should use SOAP, regardless of the performance. People (coders, architects, testers) are much more expensive than CPUs and networks these days. You can always buy another 2 cpus, or a bigger network, if necessary, and if your design is correct. But you can't buy 20% less time developing, at any cost, if your framework is hard to use, or if it drives away your people. Unless you are running a geo-scale network, you will do better to optimize for the people, instead of for the network.
You can find an article comparing REST and SOAP here:
http://www.jopera.org/files/www2008-restws-pautasso-zimmermann-leymann.pdf
Authors conclusions seemed to be:
Use RESTful services for tactical, ad hoc integration over the Web
Prefer WS-* Web services in professional enterprise application integration scenarios with a longer lifespan and advanced QoS requirements
Personally I do not like terminology like "professional enterprise" because it is loose and informal. However in my opinion authors made some good points in the article. Maybe to conclude and to give some own thoughts:
If you want to make API public - do it in RESTful way. Why? It is simple to use for a client application so it will make your service more popular. For example Amazon is exposing both REST and SOAP APIs, but 85% of their users have chosen REST version Amazon API - SOAP vs. REST
Use SOAP and WS-* stack if you will create (or you have some control of the process of creating) both consumers and producers of your services and you do need advanced features of WS-*. This will probably required more resources also because SOAP applications tends to be "heavier" (more features, but more sophistication also).
Also considering performance REST could be faster (messages are definitely shorter and you do not need to parse xml).
Hope it will help.
In your example of flash client - it is really hard to tell without knowing the details, however if one do not need all this security and transactional features of WS-* I think building REST application would be simpler and faster.
Answering to comment
I should use soap because i'm in so
called "professional enterprise"
And assuming of course that your choice isn't really dictated by big software vendors.
SOAP is suited for bigger enterprises because it encourages more formal approach. It offers specifications, which are huge, so your developers may need time to learn them and maybe even some professional training --> so spending companies resources. It also offers tools - and not all of them are open source, so this can also mean additional resources. But if your team will learn this way of integrating services it will probably be efficient and resulting code will be high quality.
REST in contrary is more a philosophy of developing applications. So, no huge specifications, no specialized tools. No resource spending. This may work nice if you have a small team of good programmers - they will not need so many guidelines if they know the basic principles . Unfortunately it is also easier to do things wrong.
Another thing to consider is the applications size - the richer the API, the more services you want to integrate, the harder it will be to do it RESTful. Also building small SOAP application wouldn't be probably a good idea - whole overhead and entrance cost is just too high.
You need to evaluate pros and cons for your project. It is impossible to give recommendation without knowing all the details I think.
And finally - this has nothing to do with reasonable arguments but more with politics. I think that management level people seem to prefer WS-* stack and SOAP (it has support of "big enterprises" so it is easier for them to justify their choose). On the other hand people from academic background[1] prefers REST - because there is still a lot of research that can be conducted in the area.
[1] I'm somewhere in between, so I can observe both behaviors ;-)
Call me a troll if you want, but I'm serious: how exactly is the new SOA trend any different than the client-service architecture that I was building 15 years ago? I keep hearing SOA but I don't see how it's different than what we've always done.
Back 10 years ago, my company had multiple clients (in multiple languages) which talked to the same service. It wasn't XML (it was a binary protocol called Microsoft DCOM) and there wasn't auto-discovery through WSDL but that's OK since reading the docs was just as easy. Our system was even "open" in the sense we documented it enough to allow 3rd parties to talk to our services. We were not pioneers - every other company I knew 10 years ago was doing the same thing.
The ONLY difference I see between then and now is that now there's a single service available on the internet, whereas 10 years ago, each customer would host his own instance of the service. But that's not an architecture issue - where the service physically lives is transparent to anyone using the service.
So what exactly is SOA that's different than what we've been doing for years? Is SOA simply a marketing term representing a best practice that actually became common a long long time ago? Or am I missing some subtely to SOA that's different than what we've been doing all along?
Forget about XML. Forget about WSDL. SOA is not a technology you can buy, though it's often marketed that way.
The real point of SOA is all about IT organization. The point of SOA is to avoid having a huge bunch of "applications" that have isolated data pools and either don't talk to each other at all (and thus often duplicate data), or only in an inefficient, buggy way through adapter layers or EAI systems.
For large companies, this is a serious problem - they have literally hundreds of separate apps that are insufficiently integrated. There's duplicate and inconsistent data everywhere and the result is that customers get pissed off and real money is lost because the billing department keeps sending invoices for a cancelled order and the customer service rep can't even find the order because it's cancelled in the order tracking system, but not the billing system.
SOA is supposed to solve this by designing every app from the ground up to publish its services in a standardized, cross-platfrom manner so that other apps can access the data and don't have to duplicate it.
From a business perspective, this is highly desirable. The buzzword hype and the acronym soup is just IT companies' attempts to cash in on that desirability. Unfortunately, this has (mis)led many people, including CEOs into believing that SOA is a product you can buy and it will magically make your IT more efficient, without realizing that this will only happen if you also reorganize your entire IT (and quite possibly your business units as well) to be SOA-compatible.
Let me use the famous whipping boy of Integration Hell: Telco.
Way back in the 90's, cell phone companies were plethoric in my neighborhood, almost as plentiful as the long distance resellers made possible by the communications deregulation of the mid 90's. Well, time goes on, and Bell Atlantic becomes the powerhouse that is Verizon, and swallows up company after company (and at least one Baby Bell). Every single one of these companies has technologies in place, in towers, in switching equipment, in billing systems that are COMPLETELY incompatible with one another.
So the company goes off and says, okay, we have these models for how we do business, let's put a friendly, consistent face on ALL of our technology in the form of WSDL/SOAP/XSD - every language and system we have today can be interfaced to this! Slowly but surely, the company is making all of it's systems capable of reporting on capabilities, being interrogated for load and billing purposes, and exposed for future visionaries to exploit in manners that haven't been accounted for yet.
Anyone can build a SOA client. Anyone with wget and a text editor. And anyone can parse the results (XML).
That is what's fundamentally different from past client/server architectures. I was just talking the other day to someone about interfacing Cobol and Smalltalk based systems to SOA architectures. That's an easy problem to solve. Tell me you can say the same for your DCOM systems.
SOA is nothing but a way of design, in which the modules comunicates with each others through "services". It is just that, and now the next question is: what is exactly a "service" and what is its difference with a regular "method"??
A service is an operation that performs a single, atomic business operation. This atomicity make it highly reusable from many modules. Then a complex business operation is just the orchestation of the invokation of many of these services in a specific order.
SOA has nothing to do with specific technology, is just an specific way of designing.
Professor Frank Leymann from the University of Stuttgart takes SOA as a key concept for his Service oriented Computing (SOC) research work as he speaks about SOA. He is seen to be asked about the definition of SOA and the ensuing conversation could be a good read.
Please note that our roadmap is about "service oriented computing (SoC)", i.e. the compute paradigm behind service-orientation. Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) is an architectural realization of this compute paradigm. You may compare this with "client/server computing" as paradigm and "browser/web server" or "DB-client/stored procedure" as two (of various other) architectural realizations of this paradigm.
...
SOA is not completely new. Some individual aspects of SOA are used in practice for a long time. For example, take a look at "loose coupling": Enterprises are using reliable messaging technology since decades to integrate applications, i.e. to loosely couple them. Don't get me wrong, there are new concepts in SOA, e.g. concepts resulting from the combination of concepts put together in SOA, i.e. they result from emergence.
Web Service specifications make the corresponding technologies available cross platform. I.e. the corresponding specifications do not invent fundamentally new concepts but define how these concepts and corresponding implementations work in heterogeneous environments. The resulting interoperability is groundbreaking, making SOA real.
In summary, SOA is a mixture of mature things and new emerging things.
There is also a SoC paper reference dated April 2006.
A google search identifies Prof. Frank Leymann and his works.
Neal Ford has many strong opinions regarding SOA. You might find his viewpoint interesting.
Tactics vs. Strategy (SOA & The Tarpit of Irrelevancy)
Standards Based vs. Standardized (SOA & the Tarpit of Irrelevancy)
Tools & Anti-Behavior (SOA & the Tarpit of Irrelevancy)
Rubick's Cubicle (SOA & the Tarpit of Irrelevancy)
The Triumph of Hope over Reason (SOA & The Tarpit of Irrelevancy)
Guerrilla SOA (SOA & The Tarpit of Irrelevancy)
I think SOA is both a marketing term and an integration of existing solutions with the idea of instead of selling the whole software or machine, we sell the services.
For me, a Service Oriented Architecture comes about when an Enterprise wishes to integrate a selection of disparate applications which concern a common domain into a set of interoperable services which operate against a single data source.
In the case of a new startup company with an idea for an item of software/suite of softwares, I can't see how a company can kick off with a Service Oriented Architecture from the off. At first, each solution (which may well evolve into a service such that it may become interoperable) should seek to solve its problem space in isolation.
Perhaps it will be in the roadmap for an enterprise capability or suite for each solution to become an interoperable service as the solutions are completed and enter service. For this, perhaps the development teams will undertake a modular/component oriented approach to building the soluton (eventual service), so as to make it easier to include the solution as a service in a Service Oriented Architecture.
In the case where existing islands of software are to become interoperable services in a Service Oriented Architecture, the approach allows for the software items - which may be distributed and may be written in different languages - to communicate via an exposed API and/or common protocol (for example a flavor of Web Service) and generic data format (for example XML).
SOA is an approach or idea. It is not a framework or a tool. When WDSLs and EJBs get name-dropped, this is often forgotten... as is that the idea of SOA is not new at all.
Most of the answers here seems to convey that SOA (Service Oriented architecture) is about building application in a standardized manner so that other applications can interact with it in platform independent manner.
I am not sure if meaning has changed since but I have had an opportunity to work with a company that offers SOA suite and following are my thoughts on it.
Of course when you design an application you cannot guarantee it will be cross platform compliant. Take for example stock Trading systems. They use Fix protocol to transfer messages. Do you expect it now to return data in XML format so that it can be so called SOA compliant? Definitely not! SOA is an architectural approach that can help you decouple your application/services and let them interact with each other. Backbone of SOA is a ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) which is used to transfer data from one service to other. SOA architecture should take care of formats conversions. For example -
FIX(Service 1) -> (XML ---ESB---> XML) -> JSON (Service 2)
These conversion modules are commonly called as adapters and are generally part of SOA suite. For a bit more information refer to another answer -
Difference between SOA and ESB
Sure SOA is a word is hyped for marketing purpose. Technically speaking it as simple as de-serializing and serializing data so that services can be decoupled and platform independent but the idea behind it is concrete.
Also refer Wiki page for the same.
In reality, SOA is a collection of well-defined services. Basically SOA use loosely coupled service to get the desire result easily. Implementation details of a service are hidden from the client/consumer so any change in the implementation doesn’t affect the service until the contract between them is change. Service providers are components that execute some business logic based on predetermined inputs and outputs, and expose this functionality through an SOA implementation. This allows systems based on SOA to respond more quickly and cost effectively for the business. The main difference between component and SOA is that, SOA provide a open standards message which is not specific to any programming language or platform. As a result, you can achieve a high degree of loose coupling and interoperability across platforms and technologies. In a traditional client-server world, the provider will be a server and the consumer will be a client.You can read more about SOA here :Service Oriented architecture (SOA)
A service-oriented architecture (SOA) is an architectural pattern in which softwares are designed as building block. i.e. Modular development, which makes flexibility to assemble any way we want. If you want to start new project instead of starting from scratch, we can reuse the services and if you want to new service we can easily integrate with existing service to make new project. So we can save lot of time and money.The basic principles of service oriented architecture are independent of vendors, products and technologies.
Analogy: Toys build using Lego building blocks.
In fact, SOA also utilizes client-servier architecture. In addition, SOA is a way to design your software. Suppose that your application can break into simple and independent tasks like search a book, add new book, recommend a book according to user preference and so forth. If you consider a service (an API) for each of task, actually, you are using SOA. The advantage of this architecture is doesn't matter you're building a web app or mobile app, you only need the developed aforementioned services (APIs).
Service-oriented architecture (SOA) is a design approach where multiple services
collaborate to provide some end set of capabilities. A service here typically means a
completely separate operating system process. Communication between these services
occurs via calls across a network rather than method calls within a process boundary.
SOA emerged as an approach to combat the challenges of the large monolithic
applications. It is an approach that aims to promote the reusability of software; two or
more end-user applications, for example, could both use the same services. It aims to
make it easier to maintain or rewrite software, as theoretically we can replace one service
with another without anyone knowing, as long as the semantics of the service don’t
change too much.
I have no experience with web services. Historically I've built client-server systems using proprietary communication protocols (even they happen to be XML). I just spent a few hours looking over Axis2 and it sent a shudder down my spine. The learning curve of WS scares me, and seeing all that XML surround so little functionality makes me wonder if it's worth the trouble.
How do you decide whether you need to use Web Services or a custom communication protocol? What are the advantages/disadvantages of each approach and what use-cases are they best suited for?
Please post a clear guideline, not an opinion piece :)
Build RESTful web APIs; then you get a lot of automatic caching and etc benefits that you don't get if you use other methods (SOAP, XML-RPC, etc)
See this post for more details
Another benefit is that if you build a RESTful API for your code to use, you can potentially let your users take advantage of it too - they often have uses for your product that you never dreamed of.
"Web Services" as defined by the W3C means using SOAP over HTTP. SOAP is severe overkill in most cases; it's only really appropriate (IMO) when you're making a public service available to the world, like an API for interacting with your website, for example.
Anything else (especially internal, private communications) rarely need anything more complex than XML-RPC. Only if performance is an issue should you consider a more condensed protocol; XML-RPC is so simple and widely-supported that the ease of development and debugging more than makes up for the performance loss of using bloaty ol' XML.
Remember that there are a number of frameworks out there that make programming web services very trivial stuff. In the VB / C# world .Net makes it a joy. I'm not really sure about specific frameworks for other languages but I am sure most have at least one.
The standardisation and simplicity of implementation and reuse of web services make them very attractive. As previously pointed out- yes, they make communications very verbose. If you are worried about this why not calculate how much data you actually will be trasmitting. chances are, with current network and internet speeds, it will be trivial - even with the XML overhead.
I would always use the custom data formats as a last resort and not a first. What widely used method you use it up to you but it's unlikely you would go wrong with Web Services model.
Maintainability and extensibility are the main benefits. The use of widely used technology your solution will be easier for someone else to understand plus you can use ready to roll libraries as consumers and providers.
I have recently broken my custom protocol habit. I am now using Apache on the server side and libCurl plus libxml2 to load and parse the XML on the client which is written in C++.
The server side can be either PHP or a CGI written in a more serious language. Depends what you want to do.
Webservices have the advantage of being somewhat standard, so it's possible for programs you've never heard of to use a webservice you wrote. Using HTTP can help them communicate over proxies and other network obstacles without any extra work from you. The XML, although rather verbose and ugly, is rather easier to read when debugging than binary data.
When you're transferring stuff over the network, it's unlikely that serialisation/deserialisation to xml will be the limiting factor in performance. It can be a bit of hassle, although a library to do it for you will help a lot.
SOAP and XML -- "all that XML surround so little functionality makes me wonder if it's worth the trouble."
Totally. SOAP is heavy-weight, and -- to a large extent -- a workaround to the need for static binding throughout the Java technology stack.
REST, on the other hand, is much lighter weight. Further, REST with JSON or REST with YAML is very lightweight, and very easy to implement. It builds right on top of the off-the shelf HTTP protocol.
REST requires you to define resources (named via URI's), and transactions based on the canonical CRUD rules (GET, POST, PUT and DELETE). Very simple and canonical.
In my personal (old cranky dude) opinion, web services should only be used as a way to make some of your internal information available to third parties (i.e. other companies, people outside your organization etc.). Of course, that is also the originally intended purpose of XML. :-)
If you have access to a direct connection with the databases containing the information your application needs - that is the way to go. It's faster and simpler - which in application development means "better" and "less buggy".
I have a website (ASP.NET) and some winforms(.Net 2.0) for a project (written in C#). I use the webservice (IIS6) for task that both require like sending email inside the business.
I think Webservice is nice but I would like from your experience what should and what should not be in a webservice?
In My Opinion:
Web services should be reserved for code that
You either can't or don't want to distribute; or,
code that needs to seriously scale up.
One example is custom business logic that multiple applications need access to.
Code you don't want to put into web services include:
code that is performance based;
code that applies only to the application in question.
Well it sounds like you have a limited Service Oriented Architecture (at least, that's what I think you're getting at), which according to Gartner means you'll be rich soon. :)
I find that the benefit of SOA for me really comes down to the heterogeneity of the systems involved (sounds like yours doesn't qualify there because it's all .NET), and the negative of SOA is primarily because of the verbose nature of XML. True, you don't need XML for SOA, but it's the current majority, IMHO.
But if you're not concerned about the bandwidth/parsing penalties, who cares? Maybe you're not piping through 10,000 service calls a minute. With this style of implementation, you're following DRY, just with a WS instead of a sub, and you're adhering to a standard that is by nature compatible with multiple systems.
There's worse approaches.
It seems like the new trend for web services/SOA is to more or less expose a light-weight middle tier that your host application can use. Instead of having individual method calls exposed through a service (as in your example), SOA-oriented applications have extensive Data/Operation contracts that act as the "traditional" middle tier assembly.
As little as possible, while still being useful.
By default, DON'T put every field of the return objects in the return data, and DON'T expose every method of an existing class.
read this too...