I was wondering what should be the granularity of the topic names in an event-driven service-oriented architecture.
Let's imagine we have a user management system where users can perform different actions like signing up, signing in, modifying some profile attributes, etc. If we wanted to notify the rest of the services of these changes, I can think of some possibilities for the topic naming:
One topic per each of the classic CRUD operations in each of the models (excluding read since the state of the user does not change). We would have user-created, user-updated, user-deleted. This approach is generic enough, but there would be potentially many services subscribed to user-updated topic and discarding all those events that do not modify a specific field.
One topic per business-relevant change. In addition to user-created and user-deleted, we could have events like user-email-updated, user-signed-in (which otherwise would be fired as a user-updated event where the date of the last sign-in was changed), etc. My feeling is that even though it would be handy for those subscribers only interested in a very specific change, it would be harder for those services that need to sync whatever happens to the user, as they would have to be subscribed to an increasing number of topics to keep track of all the changes in the user model.
A mix between 1 and 3, where both events user-updated and user-email-updated would be sent when the user updates the email, but just user-updated would be sent if the user changes the profile.
The way to go is to implement the 2nd option but implement it with a topic hierarchy to allow subscribers to choose the granularity of their interest (as in subscribing to users.* or *.updated or user.actions.login etc. )
Some technologies (e.g. RabbitMQ) has this capability built-in, for others you can implement a topic registry and provide the infrastructure to manage subscriptions yourself
Related
While user registration process in my domain several actions occur: user created (with email/password or with linked social network account), user login is done.
I have (see) two options how to register the events:
One UserRegistred event (which contains all the info, password hashes, external social accounts)
Multiple events UserCreated, UserPasswordSet, UserExternalAccountLinked, UserLoggedIn
Events from second option (UserPasswordSet, UserExternalAccountLinked, UserLoggedIn) may appear on their own later while performing corresponded operations.
I understand that question and options may be subjective, but I would like hear opinions of experienced ES/DDD users about the issue.
I don't claim to be experienced, but I think it's simpler output multiple events rather than having a complex simple event.
The pros are:
Simplicity - projections (including the aggregate itself) and other event handlers don't need to understand a complex UserRegistered event as well as the fine grained events
Less churn on the event schemas - e.g. if you change details of your authentication events, fewer event types will need to change (since there's no UserRegistered event to change)
Clarity - the events better capture the sequence of state changes involved in user registration
I can think of a minor con:
Non-atomic registration. It's likely projections could handle a single user registered event and atomically create the read model in a state that the client can immediately query. If you have multiple events, the read model might handle them one by one, meaning the user may be temporarily in a half-registered state, that you might not want to handle in your clients.
This can be avoided by having your read projection consume all available events and make its update in a single transaction, so that the sequence of events causes only a single transaction commit, and hence you never see a half-registered user. This is more efficient in any case, but might not be that simple, depending on your read store.
Alternatively, you can automatically filter out half-registered users when querying the service
In a classical microservice architecture, you have relevant domain events published on some messaging system which allows other parts of the system to react.
Now imagine you have three microservices: Customers, Orders and Recommendation. The Recommendation microservice needs information from Customers and Orders to provide its functionality, such as the list of all customers and all the orders, which is going to be analyzed from some machine learning algorithm. Now, you need to have the state of Customers "join" Orders on the Recommandation microservice:
You have the Recommandation microservice listen to domain events published by Customers and Orders and built its own state. This leads to logic duplication since you probably have that same logic inside Customers and Orders already
On each relevant domain message from Customers and Orders, you just go to them and ask the state of a specific customer or order. This works fine, however if you have N services rather than just one which needs to build a materialized view, you will cause a big load on Customers and Orders
You get Customers and Orders themselves publish "heavy-weight" events (not domain events) that allows any other microservice to build a materialized view without processing domain events. This allows you both a) not to duplicate the logic b) not to keep asking the same information
Has pattern n.3 some drawbacks we couldn't figure out and if not, how do you implement it in Lagom?
I will try to explain a few more bits in the hope to give you some more perspective on that matter and how you can achieve it in a reliable way in Lagom.
We have a few concepts that we must keep in mind. The most important one which is the source of all is Event Sourcing itself. Event Sourcing means that any State in the system has its source in Events.
The first State that we will deal with is the State of the PersistentEntity. This State is prominent because, together with the Command and Event Handler, it defines the consistency boundary of your model.
But there other States in the system. Actually, we can create as much as we want because we have the Event Journal. A read-model is also a State and it’s also generated from the events.
There are many reasons why you shouldn’t publish the State of the PersistentEntity to other systems. The first one being a matter of avoiding coupling. You don’t want your data to leak to other services. That’s all about having an anti-corruption layer (ACL).
So, from here we could say: before publishing Order and Customer to Recommendation Service, I will transform it to OrderView and CustomerView (ACL 101).
The question now is when will you do it? If you try to publish it in Kafka after you have handled a command, you don’t have any guarantee that the State will be published. There are no XA transactions between the event journal and the Kafka topic. So, there is a chance that the events are persisted, but for some reason, the State is not published in Kafka.
If you want data to get out of a service in a reliable way and without creating coupling between services, you have the following options:
Use the broker API and publish the events to a topic. You should not publish the events as they are, but transform them into the format of your external API (ACL).
Use a read-side processor to generate a view of it, again the external API format you want to make available. If you want, you can publish that ViewState to a topic so other services can consume it directly.
That said, there is nothing wrong in publishing something in a topic that is not a real event, but some derived State. The problem is how you can guarantee that it is effectively published. Doing that from inside the PersistentEntity is risky because you have at-most-once semantics. The most reliable way of doing it is a read-side process that gives you at-least-once semantics.
Further comments inline...
Listen to domain events from customer and orders and rebuild the state
in the recommandation service. This is a horrible idea because you
would need to duplicate the logic that handles events across different
bounded context
That's not a horrible idea. That's how you make your services independent from each other. The logic that you will need to implement to consume the events are not the same. As you said, it's a different bounded context, as such it only gets what it needs.
Leaking the State from a BC to another is more problematic for the reasons I mentioned above (anti-corruption layer).
To achieve decoupling you do need more coding and there is nothing wrong with that. At the end of the day, the reason for building microservices is to avoid coupling and be able to let the services evolve and scale without interfering with each other. There is a price to pay for that and the price is to write more code. You need to evaluate the thread-offs.
You can consume your own events, produce an OrderView and CustomerView and publish into Kafka, but that's the same as consuming the events directly on the Recommendation Service.
Note that you also need to store OrderView and CustomerView somewhere in the Recommendation Service. So you end up storing it three times. On the original service (view table), in Kafka and in the Recommendation Services.
That's why publishing events in a topic is the best option to propagate data between services.
Every time we receive a domain event from customers or orders, go to
them and ask them the state. This is horrible because if you have more
than one microservice that needs their state, you will end up
producing load on customers and orders
That is indeed a horrible idea because you will make the Recommendation Service be dependent on the other two services. If Order or Customer is down, the Recommendation will be down as well. That's what a broker helps to solve.
Have customers and orders not only publish events but also state and
having all the services that need to build materialized views listen
the state they need How do you apply the last pattern with Lagom? We
found no way to listen to state changes, just to events. One solution
we considered implied publishing with pubSub the state in the onEvent
handler of a persistent entity but I am not sure this is the right
place to make it happen.
Using pubSub in the onEvent handler is the worst solution of all. For the following reasons:
pubSub has at-most-once sematincs (see comments above)
Event handlers are called many times. Whenever you re-hydrate an Entity, the events are replayed and the the event handlers will be used for that. Which mean that you will re-publish the state each time. Actually, you would solve the at-most-once pubSub problem, but not the way you might expect/desire.
You could use the afterPersist callback for that, but that's not reliable neither because pubSub is at-most-once.
PubSub inside a PersistentEntity should not be used for something that you need to be reliable. It's a best-effort capability, that's all.
This question is mostly out of curiosity. I read this article about WS-ReliableMessaging by Marc de Graauw some time ago and agreed that reliable messaging should be applied on the business level as whenever possible.
Now, the question is, he explains clearly what his approach is in a point-to-point fashion. However, I fail to see how you could implement reliable messaging on the business level in a Publish/Subscribe situation.
I will try to demonstrate the difference by showing commands (point-to-point) vs. events (publish/subscribe). Note that these examples are highly simplified.
Command: Transfer(uniqueId, amount, sourceAccount, recipientAccount)
If the account holder sends this transfer, he could wait for the confirmation MoneyTransferred (assuming this event will contain a reference to the uniqueId in the Transfer command.
If the account holder doesn't received the MoneyTransferred within a given timeout period, he could send the same command again. (of course assuming the command processor is idempotent)
So I see how reliable messaging could work on business level in a point-to-point fashion.
Now, say we the previous command succeeded and produced a MoneyTransferred event. Somewhere in the system we have an event processor (MoneyTransferEmailNotifier) that handles MoneyTransferred events and will send an email notification to the recipient of the transfer.
This MoneyTransferEmailNotifier is subscribed to MoneyTransferred events. But note that system sending the MoneyTransferred event does not really care who or how many listeners there are to this event. The whole point is the decoupling here. I raise an event and don't care if there zero or 20 listeners that subscribe to this event.
At this point, if there is no reliable messaging (minimally at-least-once-delivery) provided by the infrastructure, how can we prevent the loss of the MoneyTransferred event? I do want the recipient to get his e-mail notification.
I fail to see how any real 'business-level' solution will resolve this.
(1) One of the solutions I can think of is by explicitly subscribing to events on 'business level' and thereby bypassing any infrastructure component. But aren't we at that moment introducing infrastructure in our business?
(2) The other 'solution' would be by introducing a process manager that does something like this:
PM receives Transfer command
PM forwards Transfer command to the accounts subsystem
If successful, sends command SendEmailNotification(recipient) to the notification subsystem
This does seem to be the solution that DDD prescribes, correct? But doesn't this introduce more coupling?
What do you think?
Edit 2016-04-16
Maybe the root question is a little bit more simplistic: If you do not have an infrastructural component that ensures at-least or exactly-once delivery, how can you ensure (when you're in an at-most-once infrastructure) that your events emitted will be received?
Not all events need to be delivered but there are many that are key (like the example of sending the confirmation email)
This MoneyTransferEmailNotifier is subscribed to MoneyTransferred events. But note that system sending the MoneyTransferred event does not really care who or how many listeners there are to this event. The whole point is the decoupling here. I raise an event and don't care if there zero or 20 listeners that subscribe to this event.
Your tangle, I believe, is here - that only the publish subscribe middleware can deliver events to where they need to go.
Greg Young covers this in his talk on polyglot data (slides).
Summarizing: the pub/sub middleware is in the way. A pull based model, where consumers retrieve data from the durable event store gives you a reliable way to retrieve the messages from the store. So you pull the data from the store, and then use the business level data to recognize previous work as before.
For instance, upon retrieving the MoneyTransferred event with its business data, the process manager looks around for an EmailSent event with matching business data. If the second event is found, the process manager knows that at least one copy of the email was successfully delivered, and no more work need be done.
The push based models (pub/sub, UDP multicast) become latency optimizations -- the arrival of the push message tells the subscriber to pull earlier than it normally would.
In the extreme push case, you pack into the pushed message enough information that the subscriber(s) can act upon it immediately, and trust that the idempotent handling of the message will prevent problems when the redundant copy of the message arrives on the slower channel.
If nobody needs reliable messaging on transport level, how to implement reliable PubSub on business level?
The original article does not state that "nobody needs reliable messaging on transport level", it states that the ordering of messages should be enforced at the business level because, in some cases, if this ordering is an important characteristic of the business.
In any case, PubSub is at the infrastructure level, you can't say that you implement PubSub at the business level. It doesn't make sense.
But then how you could ensure only-once-delivery at the business level? By using a Saga/Process manager. On of the important responsibilities of them is exactly that. You can combine that with idempotent Aggregates. Also, you could identify terms that emphasis ordering from the Ubiquitous language like transaction phase and include them in your domain models (for example as properties of the events).
If you do not have an infrastructural component that ensures at-least
or exactly-once delivery, how can you ensure (when you're in an
at-most-once infrastructure) that your events emitted will be
received?
If you do not have at-least-once then you could use the first event that it is initiating the hole process. I would use event polling and a Saga that ensure that every important step in the process is reached at the right moment.
In your case, as the sending of the email is an important business aspect, I would include it as a step in the process.
I'm new to EDA and I've read a lot about benefits and would probably be interested to apply it during my next project but still haven't understood something.
When raising an event, which pattern is the most suited:
Name the event "CustomerUpdate" and include all information (updated or not) about the customer
Name the event "CustomerUpdate" and include only information that have really been updated
Name the event "CustomerUpdate" and include minimum information (Identifier) and/or a URI to let the consumer retrieves information about this Customer.
I ask the question because some of our events could be heavy and frequent.
Thx for your answers and time.
Name the event "CustomerUpdate"
First let's start with your event name. The purpose of an event is to describe something which has already happenned. This is different from a command, which is to issue an instruction for something yet to happen.
Your event name "CustomerUpdate" sounds ambiguous in this respect, as it could be describing something in the past or something in the future.
CustomerUpdated would be better, but even then, Updated is another ambiguous term, and is nonspecific in a business context. Why was the customer updated in this instance? Was it because they changed their payment details? Moved home? Were they upgraded from silver to gold status? Events can be made as specific as needed.
This may seem at first to be overthinking, but event naming becomes especially relevant as you remove data and context from the event payload, moving more toward skinny events (the "option 3" from your question, which I discuss below).
That is not to suggest that it is always appropriate to define events at this level of granularity, only that it is an avenue which is open to you early on in the project which may pay dividends later on (or may swamp you with thousands of event types).
Going back to your actual question, let's take each of your options in turn:
Name the event "CustomerUpdate" and include all information (updated
or not) about the customer
Let's call this "pattern" the Fat message.
Fat messages (also called snapshots) represent the state of the described entity at a given point in time with all the event context present in the payload. They are interesting because the message itself represents the contract between service and consumer. They can be used for communicating changes of state between business domains, where it may be preferred that all event context be present during message processing by the consumer.
Advantages:
Self consistent - can be consumed entirely without knowledge of other systems.
Simple to consume (upsert).
Disadvantages:
Brittle - the contract between service and consumer is coupled to the message itself.
Easy to overwrite current data with old data if messages arrive in the wrong order (hint: you can mitigate this by using the event sourcing pattern)
Large.
Name the event "CustomerUpdate" and include only information that have
really been updated
Let's call this pattern the Delta message.
Deltas are similar to fat messages in many ways, though they are generally more complex to generate and consume. A good example here is the JSONPatch standard.
Because they are only a partial description of the event entity, deltas also come with a built-in assumption that the consumer knows something about the event being described. For this reason they may be less suitable for sending outside a business domain, where the event entity may not be well known.
Deltas really shine when synchronising data between systems sharing the same entity model, ideally persisted in non-relational storage (eg, no-sql). In this instance an entity can be retrieved, the delta applied, and then persisted again with minimal effort.
Advantages:
Smaller than Fat messages
Excels in use cases involving shared entity models
Portable (if based on a standard such as jsonpatch, or to a lesser extent, diffgram)
Disadvantages:
Similar to the Fat message, assumes complete knowledge of the data entity.
Easy to overwrite current data with old data.
Complex to generate and consume (except for specific use cases)
Name the event "CustomerUpdate" and include minimum information
(Identifier) and/or a URI to let the consumer retrieves information
about this Customer.
Let's call this the Skinny message.
Skinny messages are different from the other message patterns you have defined, in that the service/consumer contract is no longer explicit in the message, but implied in that at some later time the consumer will retrieve the event context. This decouples the contract and the message exchange, which is a good thing.
This may or may not lend itself well to cross-business domain communication of events, depending on how your enterprise is set up. Because the event payload is so small (usually an ID with some headers), there is no context other than the name of the event on which the consumer can base processing decisions; therefore it becomes more important to make sure the event is named appropriately, especially if there are multiple ways a consumer could handle a CustomerUpdated message.
Additionally it may not be good practice to include an actual resource address in the event data - because events are things which have already happened, event messages are generally immutable and therefore any information in the event should be true forever in case the events need to be replayed. In this instance a resource address could easily become obsolete and events would not be re-playable.
Advantages:
Decouples service contract from message.
Information about the event contained in the event name.
Naturally idempotent (with time-stamp).
Generally tiny.
Simple to generate and consume.
Disadvantages:
Consumer must make additional call to retrieve event context - requires explicit knowledge of other systems.
Event context may have become obsolete at the point where the consumer retrieves it, making this approach generally unsuitable for some real-time applications.
When raising an event, which pattern is the most suited?
I think the answer to this is: it depends on lots of things, and there is probably no one right answer.
Update from comments: Also worth reading, a very old, classic, blog post on messaging: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-gb/archive/blogs/nickmalik/killing-the-command-message-should-we-use-events-or-documents (also here: http://vanguardea.com/killing-the-command-message-should-we-use-events-or-documents/)
Martin Fowler gave a great talk about "The Many Meanings of Event-Driven Architecture" (the content is based on this paper) in which he mentioned the Event-Carried State Transfer pattern.
It seems to be close to your second option "Delta message" with the difference that it doesn't try to describe an entity, but instead describe a named business fact that happened and carry over all the necessary data to understand this fact.
I don't think it matters how you have modeled your persistence layer when it comes to designing domain events. Likewise, I don't think it matters how your consumer has modeled its own persistence layer when designing domain events.
Thus, I don't think it's wise to put as an advantage the fact that you can apply the event as a patch directly on your data (from a consumer point of view), because it pushes the producer to design their events given the persistence model of a consumer.
In that case, I would tend to think that you're designing persistence patches, instead of domain events.
What do you think?
I am designing some events that will be raised when actions are performed or data changes in a system. These events will likely be consumed by many different services and will be serialized as XML, although more broadly my question also applies to the design of more modern funky things like Webhooks.
I'm specifically thinking about how to describe changes with an event and am having difficulty choosing between different implementations. Let me illustrate my quandry.
Imagine a customer is created, and a simple event is raised.
<CustomerCreated>
<CustomerId>1234</CustomerId>
<FullName>Bob</FullName>
<AccountLevel>Silver</AccountLevel>
</CustomerCreated>
Now let's say Bob spends lots of money and becomes a gold customer, or indeed any other property changes (e.g.: he now prefers to be known as Robert). I could raise an event like this.
<CustomerModified>
<CustomerId>1234</CustomerId>
<FullName>Bob</FullName>
<AccountLevel>Gold</AccountLevel>
</CustomerModified>
This is nice because the schema of the Created and Modified events are the same and any subscriber receives the complete current state of the entity. However it is difficult for any receiver to determine which properties have changed without tracking state themselves.
I then thought about an event like this.
<CustomerModified>
<CustomerId>1234</CustomerId>
<AccountLevel>Gold</AccountLevel>
</CustomerModified>
This is more compact and only contains the properties that have changed, but comes with the downside that the receiver must apply the changes and reassemble the current state of the entity if they need it. Also, the schemas of the Created and Modified events must be different now; CustomerId is required but all other properties are optional.
Then I came up with this.
<CustomerModified>
<CustomerId>1234</CustomerId>
<Before>
<FullName>Bob</FullName>
<AccountLevel>Silver</AccountLevel>
</Before>
<After>
<FullName>Bob</FullName>
<AccountLevel>Gold</AccountLevel>
</After>
</CustomerModified>
This covers all bases as it contains the full current state, plus a receiver can figure out what has changed. The Before and After elements have the exact same schema type as the Created event. However, it is incredibly verbose.
I've struggled to find any good examples of events; are there any other patterns I should consider?
You tagged the question as "Event Sourcing", but your question seems to be more about Event-Driven SOA.
I agree with #Matt's answer--"CustomerModified" is not granular enough to capture intent if there are multiple business reasons why a Customer would change.
However, I would back up even further and ask you to consider why you are storing Customer information in a local service, when it seems that you (presumably) already have a source of truth for customer. The starting point for consuming Customer information should be getting it from the source when it's needed. Storing a copy of information that can be queried reliably from the source may very well be an unnecessary optimization (and complication).
Even if you do need to store Customer data locally (and there are certainly valid reasons for need to do so), consider passing only the data necessary to construct a query of the source of truth (the service emitting the event):
<SomeInterestingCustomerStateChange>
<CustomerId>1234</CustomerId>
</SomeInterestingCustomerStateChange>
So these event types can be as granular as necessary, e.g. "CustomerAddressChanged" or simply "CustomerChanged", and it is up to the consumer to query for the information it needs based on the event type.
There is not a "one-size-fits-all" solution--sometimes it does make more sense to pass the relevant data with the event. Again, I agree with #Matt's answer if this is the direction you need to move in.
Edit Based on Comment
I would agree that using an ESB to query is generally not a good idea. Some people use an ESB this way, but IMHO it's a bad practice.
Your original question and your comments to this answer and to Matt's talk about only including fields that have changed. This would definitely be problematic in many languages, where you would have to somehow distinguish between a property being empty/null and a property not being included in the event. If the event is getting serialized/de-serialized from/to a static type, it will be painful (if not impossible) to know the difference between "First Name is being set to NULL" and "First Name is missing because it didn't change".
Based on your comment that this is about synchronization of systems, my recommendation would be to send the full set of data on each change (assuming signal+query is not an option). That leaves the interpretation of the data up to each consuming system, and limits the responsibility of the publisher to emitting a more generic event, i.e. "Customer 1234 has been modified to X state". This event seems more broadly useful than the other options, and if other systems receive this event, they can interpret it as they see fit. They can dump/rewrite their own data for Customer 1234, or they can compare it to what they have and update only what changed. Sending only what changed seems more specific to a single consumer or a specific type of consumer.
All that said, I don't think any of your proposed solutions are "right" or "wrong". You know best what will work for your unique situation.
Events should be used to describe intent as well as details, for example, you could have a CustomerRegistered event with all the details for the customer that was registered. Then later in the stream a CustomerMadeGoldAccount event that only really needs to capture the customer Id of the customer who's account was changed to gold.
It's up to the consumers of the events to build up the current state of the system that they are interested in.
This allows only the most pertinent information to be stored in each event, imagine having hundreds of properties for a customer, if every command that changed a single property had to raise an event with all the properties before and after, this gets unwieldy pretty quickly. It's also difficult to determine why the change occurred if you just publish a generic CustomerModified event, which is often a question that is asked about the current state of an entity.
Only capturing data relevant to the event means that the command that issues the event only needs to have enough data about the entity to validate the command can be executed, it doesn't need to even read the whole customer entity.
Subscribers of the events also only need to build up a state for things that they are interested in, e.g. perhaps an 'account level' widget is listening to these events, all it needs to keep around is the customer ids and account levels so that it can display what account level the customer is at.
Instead of trying to convey everything through payload xmls' fields, you can distinguish between different operations based on -
1. Different endpoint URLs depending on the operation(this is preferred)
2. Have an opcode(operation code) as an element in the xml file which tells which operation is to used to handle the incoming request.(more nearer to your examples)
There are a few enterprise patterns applicable to your business case - messaging and its variants, and if your system is extensible then Enterprise Service Bus should be used. An ESB allows reliable handling of events and processing.