In a lot of the apps I work on, we have this problem where we heavily rely on 1st and 3rd party APIs. So much so, in some of our apps, it is useless to try to login without those APIs being in place. Either critical pieces of data are not there or the entire app is like a server side render SPA where it houses no data on its own but pulls that data from an API at the time of a request (we cache it when we can).
This raises a huge problem when trying to develop the app locally since we do not have a sandbox environment. Our current solution is to create a service layer in between our business logic and the actual HTTP calls. We then, in our local environments, swap out the HTTP implementation for a class that just returns fake data. This works pretty well most of the time except for a couple of issues:
This only really gives us one state of the application at a time. Unlike data in the database, we are not able to easily run different seeders to replicate different scenarios.
If we run into a bug in production, we have no way of replicating the api response without actually diving into the code and adding some conditional to return that specific response. With data that is stored in the database, it is easy to login to TablePlus and manually setup some condition or even pull down select table from production.
In our mocks, our functions can get quite large and nasty if we do try to have it dynamically respond with a different response based on the resource id being request, as an example.
This makes the overhead to create each test for each scenario quite high in my opinion. If we could use something similar to a database factory to generate a bunch of different request-response pairs, we could test a lot more cases and if we could somehow, dynamically, setup certain scenarios when we are trying to replicate bugs we are running into production.
Since our applications are built with Laravel and PHP, unlike the database, mocks don't persist from one request to another. We cannot simple throw open a tinker and start seeding out API integrations with data like we can in the database.
I was trying to think of a way to do it with a cache and set request-response pairs. This could also be move to the database but would prefer not to have that extra table there that is only used locally.
Any ideas?
Related
After coding for a couple of years, I have implemented many different software services into applications I was coding, using API documentation that software owner has provided. And I thought that was all about APIs I need to know, that it's just a way to make to software services communicate with each other.
But now I got a task to create an application, I wont go into detail, but let's say it just needs to implement CRUD operations and that it should use Vue on front and Laravel on back. And in the explanation of a task it is mentioned that I should use REST API for triggering those operations. And that's the part that confuses me!
Since I have never created an application from scratch, I was only working on already stable applications, fixing bugs and implementing new functionalities (and I guess this is the what it looks like for the most of the people who work in big companies today), and that's why I thought that those two frameworks (Vue and Laravel) have already implemented REST APIs since they can communicate between themselves.
Why am I specifically asked to use REST API to trigger those operations? Is there any way other than using an API to make front communicate with back (even I am using frameworks already)? If not, do they want me to create my REST API for communication and not use the one that is already provided by frameworks? I am confused, why did they mention to use REST API as if it wasn't default option, something that shouldn't even even be questionable, just an expected behavior.
why did they mention to use REST API as if it wasn't default option
For many years, offering an API in the backend for JS frontend consumption was not the default option. Traditional "round trip" applications use a form that submits to the server with a full page refresh, and I'd hazard a guess that most web applications live today still work like that.
With the advent of Vue, React, Angular etc, there is an expectation that fetching data and sending data is done via APIs in an AJAX operation. This gives applications a more seamless feel, and they're faster, since only a relatively small amount of data needs to be sent or received.
In small Laravel/Vue applications, the frontend and backend are often in the same repo, and are deployed together as a single unit. However, as the size and complexity of an application increases, there is value in splitting up these pieces into microservices, which can be deployed separately, without tricky system dependencies complicating the deployment pipeline and sign-off process. Using an API lends itself well to that approach.
Indeed, as the backend increases, the API is not one service, but several, split by process area (e.g. user, sign-up, checkout, dashboard, etc).
Do Laravel and Vue always use ... APIs to communicate?
So, to answer your main question, you don't have to use APIs/AJAX with Vue and Laravel. You can still use standard HTTP forms and redraw the whole screen if you want.
Do Laravel and Vue always use RESTful APIs to communicate? [my emphasis]
Another way of interpreting the question is that perhaps you have received instructions from someone who was differentiating a REST API from a different kind of API. On the web, GraphQL is becoming more popular. Server-to-server, SOAP (XML) used to be very common, and is still in use in many enterprises.
FOA, The gap is not going to fill "ASAP" because it requires domain knowledge that you are missing. And yes RESTful API is the best way unless you want multi-dimensional communication across multiple platforms.
I'm trying to start a little microservice application, but I'm a little bit stuck on some technicalities.
I'm trying to build an issue tracker application as an example.
It has 2 database tables, issues and comments. These will also be separate microservices, for the sake of the example.
It has to be a separate API that can be consumed by multiple types of clients e.g. mobile, web etc..
When using a monolitic approach, all the codebase is coupled together, and when making a request to let's say the REST API, I would handle for example the '/issues/19' request
to fetch the issue with the id '19' and it's corresponding comments by means of the following pseudocode.
on_request_issue(id) # handler for the route '/issues/<id>'
issue = IssuesModel.findById(id)
issue.comments = CommentsModel.findByIssueId(id)
return issue
But I'm not sure on how I should approach this with microservices. Let's say that we have microservice-issues and microservice-comments.
I could either let the client send a request to both '/issues/19' and '/comments/byissueid/19'. But that doesn't work nice in my point of view, since if we're having multiple things
we're sending alot of requests for one page.
I could also make a request to the microservice-issues and in that one also make a request to the microservice-comments, but that looks even worse to me than the above, since from what
I've read microservices should not be coupled, and this couples them pretty hard.
So then I read about API gateways, that they could/should receive a request and fan out to the other microservices but then I couldn't really figure out how to use an API gateway. Should
I write code in there for example to catch the '/issues/19' request, then fan out to both the microservice-issues and microservice-commetns, assemble the stuff and return it?
In that case, I'm feeling I'm doing the work double, won't the API gateway become a new monolith then?
Thank you for your time
API gateway sounds like what you need.
If you'll keep it simple, just to trigger internal API, it will not become your new monolith.
It will allow you do even better processing when your application grows with new microservices, or when you have to support different clients (browser, mobile apps, watch, IOT, etc)
BTW, the example you show sounds like a good exercise, in reality, for most webapps, it looks like over design. I would not break every DB call to its own microservices.
One of the motivations for breaking something to small(er) services is service autonomy, in this case the question is, when the comments service is down should you display the issue or not- if they are always coupled anyway, they probably shouldn't reside in two services, if they aren't then making two calls will let you get this decoupling
That said, you may still need an API Gateway to solve CORS issues with your client
Lastly, comments/byissueid is not a good REST interface the issueId should be a parameter /comments/?issueId=..
I am trying to create a Microservice architecture for a hobby project and I am confused about some decisions. Can you please help me as I never worked using Microservice before?
One of my requirements is that my AngularJS GUI will need to show some drop-down or List of values (example: a list of countries). This can be fetched using a Microservice REST call, but where should the values come from? Can I fetch these from my Config Server? or should it come from Database? If the latter, then should each of the Microservice have their own Database for lookup value or can it be a common one?
How would server-side validation work in this case? I mean, there will certainly be a Microservice call the GUI will make for validation but should the validation service be a common Microservice for all Use Cases/Screens or should it be one per GUI page or should the CRUD Microservice be reused for validation as well?
How do I deal with a use-case where the back-end is not a Database but a Web-service call? Will I need some local DB still to maintain some state in between these calls (especially to take care of scenario where the Web-service call fails) and finally pass on the status to GUI?
First of all, there is no single way design micro-service , one has to choose according to the use case and project requirement.
Can I keep these in a Config Server? or should it come from Database?
Again, it depends upon the use case and requirement. However, because every MS should have their own DB then you can use DB if the countries have only names. But if they have some relationship with City/State then you should use DB only.
If DB should each of the Microservice have their own DB for lookup
value or can it be a common one?
No, IMO multiple MS should not depend on a single DB.Because if the DB fails then all the MS will fail, which should not be done. Each MS should work alone with depending on other DB or MS.
should the validation service be a common microservice for all
UseCases/Screens
Same as point 2
How do I deal with a use-case where the backend is not a Database call
but another Web-service call? Will I need some local DB still to
maintain some state in between these calls and finally pass on the
status to GUI?
If you are using HTTP then you should not save the state of any request. If you want to redirect the request to another MS then you can use Feign client which provides a very good way to call rest-api and other important features like: Load balancing.
Microservice architecture is simple. Here we divide each task into separate services(like Spring-boot application).
Example in every application there will be login function,registration function so on..each of these will a separate services in micro-service architecture.
1.You can store that in database, since in feature if you want add more values it is easy to add.
You can maintain separate or single db. Single db with separate collections or table for each microservices.
Validation means you are asking about who can use which microservice(Role based access)???
3.I think you have to use local db.
Microservices is a collection loosely coupled services. For example, if you are creating an ecommerce application, user management can be a service, order management can be a service and refund & chargeback management can be another service. Now each of these services can be further divided into smaller units, lets call them API Endpoints. For example - user management can have login as an endpoint and signup as another endpoint.
If you want to leverage the power of Microservice architecture in its true sense, here is what I would suggest. For the above example, create 3 Springboot Applications for each service. First thing that you should do after this, is establish trust between those applications. I would prefer JWTs for trust establishment. After that everything is a piece of cake. Here are the answers you are looking for :
You should ideally use a database, as opposed to keeping the values in config server, for fetching a list of countries so that you need not recompile your code every time a new country is added.
You can easily restrict access using #PreAuthorize if Role based access is what you are referring to.
You can use OkHttp or any other HttpClient in this usecase. And you certainly need not maintain any local db. However, you can cache the output of the webservice call if that is a requirement.
P.S.: Establishing trust between microservices can be a complex task if you dont understand all the delicacies. In which case, I would recommend going ahead with a single Springboot application; which is a monolithic architecture. I would still recommend JWTs though.
I'm new to CouchDb and am trying to comprehend how to properly make use of it. I'm coming from MongoDB where I would always write a web layer and put it in front of mongo so that I could allow users to access the data inside of it, etc. In fact, this is how I've used all databases for every web site that I've ever written. So, looking at Couch, I see that it's native API is HTTP and that it has built in things like OAuth support, and other features that hint to me that perhaps I should no longer have my code layer sitting in front of Couch, but instead write Views and things and just give out accounts to Couch to my users? I'm thinking in terms of like an HTTP-based API for a site of mine, or something that users would consume my data through. Opening up Couch like this seems odd to me, though. Is OAuth, in Couch's sense, meant more for remote access for software that I'd write and run internal to my own network "officially", or is it literally meant for the end users?
I know there might be things that could only be done through a code layer on top of CouchDB, like if you wanted additional non-database related things to occur during API requests, also. So thinking along those lines I think I will still need a code layer, anyway.
Dealer's choice.
Nodejitsu has a great writeup on this sort of topic here.
Not knowing your application specifics I'll take a broad approach...
Back-end
If you want to prevent users from ever seeing your database then make it back-end. You can pipe everything through something like node.js and present only what the user needs to see and they'll never know anything about the database.
See Resource View Presenter
Front-end
If you are not concerned about data security, you can host an entire app on CouchDB; see CouchApp. This approach has the benefit of using the replication mechanism to control publishing your site/data. The drawback here is that you will almost certainly run into some technical limitations that will require moving CouchDB closer to the backend.
Bl-end
Have the app server present the interface and the client pull the data from the database separately. This gives the most flexibility but can be a bag of hurt because even with good design this could lead to supportability and scalability issues.
My recommendation
Use CouchDB on the backend. If you need mobile clients to synchronize then use a secondary DB publicly exposed for this purpose and selectively sync this data to wherever it needs to go.
Simply put, no.
There's no way to secure Couch properly on a public facing site. There's no way to discriminate access at a fine enough granular level. If someone has access to any of the data, they have access to all of the data.
Not all data on a site is meant for public consumption, save for the most trivial of sites.
I have started working in C# for almost a few months and I am looking for something more challenging and interesting. I use a media player called media monkey that supports custom vb scripts, well I made one that writes a file to a dir that has the current song playing, and is updated every time a new song is playing by rewriting what was there before.
Now I want to add this information to a database and keep a record of this and possibly add the information on my home page. I know I can hack a way for it to work, but I want to know what would be the "professional way" of doing things.
I came up with the following and got stuck. I would need an ODBC driver to connect to a database which seems messy, would a web service work? How would that work? Can a VbScript call a dll file to call upon a web service to modify data on a seperate server? Is that safe to do?
Many professional C# apps are n-tier. In your case, you would probably layer it like this:
On the server:
-Database Store
-Database Access/Business layer(sometimes two distinct components, depending on how complex the app is)
-Web Service
On the client:
-Web Service Client
-Any other layers to support client functionality.
So the Database Store would be something like some tables in an Oracle or Microsoft SQL Server, and would on your server.
Database Access/Business layer would be your code that retrieves and stores data to/from your database. It might also contain business objects, which are basically classes that have properties representing your data from your database. The benefit of the data access layer is that sometimes reading and writing to a database can require specialized code, and you don't want that code sprinkled throuought your application. So instead you can call functions in your data access layer that loads needed data into objects, so the rest of your application is just interacting with a regular old .NET object/class. These are called POCOs, which stands for something like Plan Old CLR Object. There are lots of variations on this of course, as people have taken different approaches to the problem of isaloting database access. Also it serves the purpose of minimizing breaking changes whenever the database changes. Since the database access logic is not sprinkled throughout the app, then there are fewer places that need to be updated if the database changes (such as adding new columns to a table or changing a name).
Sometimes the business layer will be it's own layer, and would contain most of the "logic" of the application. It would sit between the data access and web service layers. Using concepts from Service Oriented Architecture (SOA), you might have an authentication service, and a web request handling service. These services are a lot like a class that is always instantiated, there waiting to process requests. Your web request handling service would take a request, and maybe first call into the authentication service to verify credentials before honoring the request. SOA is one of those things I think should be used only when appropriate. It some cases just using Object Oriented techniques will give you the same benefits. Not always though. SOA, when done right, is more scalable, so it really depends on whether SOA offers you additional benefits that you need.
The Webservice would be responsible for receiving requests from the web, parsing/interpreting them, and acting on those requests by making calls into your business layer to update or retrieve data.
So the concept here would be that you could have many users of your service who publish their song updates through your service.
Your client would have a "web service client" layer which would be responible for formatting requests into messages, sending them to the web service, and retrieving messages from the web service. You would put very little application "logic" in your web service layer.
Now all this is probably overkill and inefficient for what you are wanting to do since you just want something for yourself, but it's the basic anatomy of a lot of webservice applications and would be a good learning exercise. The whole purpose of the layers is decoupling and simplicity. While more layers/components makes the application overall more complex, it means each component is simpler. This means it's easier to wrap your head around problems when you are only dealing with one component which interacts with only a couple other components(the sourounding layer). So there is a careful balance between few components and many components. Too few and they become monolithic and difficult to manage. Too many, and they become intertwined in complex ways. I have heard it said something along the lines of "If a class is getting too big and too complex, then split it up into a few more classes". In essence, don't start subdividing stuff for the heck of it just because it sounds like the right thing to do. Evaluate how complex your component is going to be before deciding if you want to split it up. Sometimes for simple cases your have a layer serving more than one purpose, for the sake of getting it done faster and making the overall design simpler. The point is, apply these concepts where appropriate. You will learn what is appropriate with experience, and you obviously understand that you can learn the most by "doing".
"Can vbscript call a COM component?" You can compile .NET DLLs with COM support. Many older things can call COM dlls.
I googled: vbscript dll
and got this: VB Script and DLLs
"Is that safe to do?" Your webservice will be where you would be most concerned with security. It's safe only if you design with security in mind and don't screw up. We all screw up sometimes though, which means there is no guarantee of it being perfectly secure.