Edit v1:
I have been going through some system design videos and learnt about microservice architecture using message queues and event-driven architecture.
But I don't seem to find any substantial point of difference between the two.
Both have different components/services publishing or subscribing to eventBus/messagingQueues and performing the tasks associated with the published event.
Is microservice architecture with messaging queues a subset of event driven architecture or is there something more to it that I need to figure out.
Original V0:
I have been going through some system design videos and learnt about microservice architecture and event-driven architecture.
But I don't seem to find any substantial point of difference between the two.
Both have different components/services publishing or subscribing to eventBus/messagingQueues and performing the tasks associated with the published event.
Is microservice architecture a subset of event driven architecture or is there something more to it that I need to figure out.
Event Driven Architecture is a system design concept where we use "techniques" to achieve synchronous or asynchronous communication in our system. More likely than not we want asynchronous communication.
Such techniques can be pub/sub, long polling, Queueing, websockets and etc.
Microservice is an approach to designing our system where we make our services decoupled to one another or at least we try our best to. For example, Facebook's newsfeed service is independent of other services like Profile, photos and messaging. One benefit of this is "separation of concerns", so for example if newsfeed goes down we can still continue to upload photos and chat our friends. If FB was "monolith", one service going down could have taken down the whole site. Another benefit of microservice is deployability, the smaller the service the faster to test and deploy.
Let's take pizza for example, deciding whether to cut it in squares or triangular, or how big/small the slices are is thinking microservices. Which one to eat first and next is thinking event-driven. Do you go for the larger slices, mixed, small ones or meatier ones? Just like how our systems can decide intelligently what events to trigger next.
Just remember that these are concepts to help you understand an existing system, or help you decide how you would build your system. In the real-world when you onboard to a new company you'll find yourself asking questions like
How service-oriented is the system?
How eventful is the flow of data?
Short answer to your question... they're not necessarily related but inevitably we implement them together when scaling one or the other.
For example given this microservice architecture
[checkout service] ---> [email service]
Let's say the user waits very long for checkout and email to finish. 90% of the wait is coming from the email service. In reality the user should be able to continue browsing the other pages while they wait for the email.
In this example we solved the long wait time by adding Queue
[checkout service] ---> [Queue] ---> [email service]
We've improved user experience by making our microservice more eventful. When the user clicks the checkout button, a response is returned immediately allowing the user to continue browsing while the "email event" is dispatched to the queue.
Short answer: No, these are not the same and not subsets.
Both have different components/services publishing or subscribing to eventBus/messagingQueues and performing the tasks associated with the published event.
This is wrong. Microservices are not necessary about events and publishing/subscribing.
In this case Wikipedia tackles this very question.
From a formal perspective, what is produced, published, propagated,
detected or consumed is a (typically asynchronous) message called the
event notification, and not the event itself, which is the state
change that triggered the message emission. Events do not travel, they
just occur. However, the term event is often used metonymically to
denote the notification message itself, which may lead to some
confusion. This is due to Event-Driven architectures often being
designed atop message-driven architectures, where such communication
pattern requires one of the inputs to be text-only, the message, to
differentiate how each communication should be handled.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event-driven_architecture
I'll be honest, I treated them the same when designing and writing code. But I guess technically there is a difference, as per the paragraph quoted above.
Technically we cannot use the word "Same" in this case. Below will give a clear relation between these artifacts:
Event-driven Microservices rely on message queues (to store/forward messages) to send/receive events, wrapped in messages.
Event-driven architectures usually leverage messaging technology in order to transport the information that something has happened in the past from one place to another or many other places.
Message queues can also be used in a non-event driven architecture, for instance, to perform asynchronous request/response communication.
In addition, when using an event-driven approach the information that is transmitted is usually different, it is just indicating what (business) event has happened with usually fewer information than provided by normal messages.
For instance, you can send a message to create a new order in an online shop system and the message could contain all the information the receiver needs to process it. The important thing is also that there is dedicated receiver of the message.
In the event-driven approach some component would rather send some order checkout requested event (or similar) without knowing what other component or what other components (think of publish/subscribe mechanisms) will "listen* to that event and perform corresponding actions. In such an architecture it would also make sense to send other events before the actual checkout happens, such as new shopping cart created or item added to cart event.
So the event-driven approach also implies some kind of choreography between your Microservices where more complex business operations can include lots of events published and processed by different components without having one central component which orchestrates who gets what information in what order.
Of course, from my experience, it makes perfect sense to combine event-driven choreography and non-event driven orchestration in a Microservices architecture depending on the use cases.
Related
I am thinking what is the best way to structure your micro-services, in the past the team I was working with used Axon Framework and PostgreSQL and each microservice had its own event store in the PostgreSQL database, then we built communication between using REST.
I am thinking that it would be smarter to have all microservices talk to the same event store as we would be able to share events faster instead of rewriting the communication lines using REST.
The questions that follows from the backstory is:
What is the best practice for having an event store
Would each service have its own? Would they share the same eventstore?
Where would I find information to inspire and gather more answers? As searching the internet for best practices and how to structure the Event Store seems like searching for a needle in a haystack.
Bear in mind, the question stated is in no way aimed at Axon Framework, but more the general idea on building scalable and good code. As the applications would work with each own event store for write model and read models.
Thank you for reading and I wish you all the best
-- Me
I'd add a slightly different notion to Tore's response, although the mainline is identical to what I'm sharing here. So, I don't aim to overrule Tore, just hoping to provide additional insight.
If the (micro)services belong to the same Bounded Context, then they're allowed to "learn about each other's language."
This language thus includes the events these applications publish and store.
Whenever there's communication required between different Bounded Contexts, you'd separate the stores, as one context shouldn't be bothered by the specifics of another context.
Hence it is beneficial to deduce what services belong to which Bounded Context since that would dictate the required separation.
Axon aims to support this by allowing multiple contexts with the Axon Server, as you can read here.
It simply allows the registration of applications to specific contexts, within which it will completely separate all message streams (so commands, events, and queries) and the Event Store.
You can also set this up from scratch yourself, of course. Tore's recommendation of Kafka is what's used quite broadly for Event Streaming needs between applications. Honestly, any broadcast type of infrastructure suits event distribution, as that's how events are typically propagated.
You want to have one EventStore per service, just as you would want to have one relation database per service for a non EventSourced system.
Sharing a database/eventstore between services creates coupling and we have all learned the hard way that this is an anti-pattern today.
If you want to use a event log to share events across services, then Kafka is a popular choice.
Important to remember that you only do event-sourcing within a service bounded context.
I want to communicate my services using events. I gonna publish (internally) all my domain events and allow any other service to subscribe to them. But such approach couples those services togheter. I am not longer allowed to change my events. This is even worse than local coupling because I dont event know my consumers any more. This limits the ability of developing/refactoring to unacceptable dedree. I am thinging about versioning my events which solves most of the issues. But how to subscribe to versioned events? Introducing common interface that groups all event`s versions and then downcast event within listener to accepted one does not sound like a vital solution. I also take into account publishing all supported versions of the event to the bus. By definition each subsriber will handle just one version. I dont want my domain to by involved in this matters so I need to build kind of infrastructure listener that will be translate catched events to other versions. I cant find anything about that topic in the Internet which automatically makes me think if I am not thoroughly wrong :)
UPDATE: After a lot of thought, I no longer want to publish my domain events. I think it is no desirable to expose internal service mechanics to the outer world. It also could violate some domain data access restriction. I think, the way to go is to map my domain events to some more corase integrational events. But I still need way to wersion them probably :)
UPDATE2: After some consultations an idea came up. Assuming we stick to the concept of integration events. Such events may be considered just as type and event id. So outer listener just focus on event type. If event occur then listener will be provided with event id. This enable listener to fetch real event from the stream/bus/wtf in given version. $eventsStore->get($eventGuid, $eventType, 'v27') for example (PHP syntax)
I gonna publish (internally) all my domain events and allow any other service to subscribe to them.
This is a common pattern in Even-Driven Architecture. I assume that you publish the events on an Event Broker, e.g. Apache Kafka and that Consumers subscribe to topics on the Event Broker.
I am not longer allowed to change my events. This is even worse than local coupling because I don't event know my consumers any more. This limits the ability of developing/refactoring to unacceptable degree. I am thinking about versioning my events which solves most of the issues.
Nah, published contracts should be versioned and no backward incompatible changes can be added to them. If you need a change that is not backward compatible, you have to introduce a new version of the published contract - and keep the old one as long as there is consumers. This is no different from REST-based interfaces - you have to fulfill your contracts.
With REST you may do this by using both /v1/orders and /v2/orders at the same time. With an Event-Driven Architecture you use two topics e.g. orders-v1 and orders-v2 - and these two contain data following a schema, e.g. Avro.
With an Event-Driven Architecture, where the services are decoupled (with a broker in between), you can actually phase out the old producer, if you add a smaller transformer, e.g. that consume orders-v2 and transform the events to the old format and publishes them on orders-v1 - so both v1 and v2 is still published.
Building Event-Driven Microservices is a good book about this.
Yet another question on how to or how not to split up a microservice :-D
The scenario:
What do we need?
Sending emails at different points of time within the work flow of an ecommerce order process. These mails will be containing order information.
What do we have?
1 x persistence service which retrieves order information
Several services which subscribe to order events and processes the relevant use case (e.g. Confirmation, delivery, invoice)
1 x service which can be triggered to send a mail
What's the next step?
Designing the architectural component which transforms the order information so they will fit the data structure of the email rendering service.
The current options are
1 having each processing service transform already existing order information for the mail template and send them to the mail rendering service.
2 have each processing service call a new service which would aggregate and transform the order information and call the mail rendering service.
Currently we're not sure yet if the data structures for the mail templates will be mostly common or if there will be differences.
So what do you think of these options in terms of cohesion, coupling and separation of concerns?
Do you need any more information? Any constructive thoughts are welcome!
Your software architecture should reflect your organizational structure, see Conway's law
Do you have multiple teams, and you want to minimize dependencies between the teams.
Are "services" large and complex enough to justify them being separated into modules?
Does the size of the product justify having advanced devops in place to orchestrate the microservices?
Do you need the flexibility in terms of deployment and replaceability of individual "services"?
If you can answer yes to most of these questions, it would make sense to go for microservices. Otherwise, you are just making your life complicated.
Frankly, microservices require a lot of coordination overhead which makes sense only if the product is large enough. Most (small) projects are just fine with monolithic and MVC architecture.
This is how I propose to proceed man, it's how one of my project's architecture does all SMTP related stuff.
API receives an HTTP request
It persists data needed to the database.
It offloads the long-running and memory intensive processes to mail builder.
Optional, mail builder builds attachment files (XLSX, PDF, etc)
Mail builder uploads to File Server
Mail builder offloads generic SMTP sending to SMTP service.
I suggested this format because it allows you to scale the instance of each piece (Mail builder will have tons of instances) depending on bottlenecks in your processing pipeline.
Given that you have asked this question in microservices, I am assuming you are asking the question in reference to cloud native patterns.
I suggest you start with looking at microservices pattern. An excellent site for the patterns is https://microservices.io/patterns/microservices.html.
Your question does not have the necessary details to provide an educated advice on what patterns are suitable and what are not. So, I suggest you look at these few patterns...
https://microservices.io/patterns/data/shared-database.html
https://microservices.io/patterns/data/database-per-service.html
Also take a look at event sourcing pattern
https://microservices.io/patterns/data/event-sourcing.html
Hope this helps.
As far as my little current experience allows me to understand, one of the core concepts about "microservice" is that it relies on its own database which is independent from other microservices.
Diving into how to handle distributed transactions in a microservices system, the best strategy seems to be the Event Sourcing pattern whose core is the Event Store.
Is the event store shared between different microservices? Or there are multiple independent event stores databases for each microservice and a single common event broker?
If the first option is the solution, using CQRS I can now assume that every microservice's database is intended as query-side, while the shared event store is on the command-side. Is it a wrong assumption?
And since we are in the topic: how many retries I have to do in case of a concurrent write in a Stream using optimistic locking?
A very big big thanks in advance for every piece of advice you can give me!
Is the event store shared between different microservices? Or there are multiple independent event stores databases for each microservice and a single common event broker?
Every microservice should write to its own Event store, from their point of view. This could mean separate instances or separate partitions inside the same instance. This allows the microservices to be scaled independently.
If the first option is the solution, using CQRS I can now assume that every microservice's database is intended as query-side, while the shared event store is on the command-side. Is it a wrong assumption?
Kinda. As I wrote above each microservice should have its own Event store (or a partition inside a shared instance). A microservice should not append events to other microservice Event store.
Regarding reading events, I think that reading events should be in general permitted. Polling the Event store is the simplest (and the best in my opinion) solution to propagate changes to other microservices. It has the advantage that the remote microservice polls at the rate it can and what events it wants. This can be scaled very nice by creating Event store replicas, as much as it is needed.
There are some cases when you would want to not publish every domain event from the Event store. Some say that there are could exist internal domain events on that the other microservices should not depend. In this case you could mark the events as free (or not) for external consuming.
The cleanest solution to propagate changes in a microservice is to have live queries to whom other microservices could subscribe. It has the advantage that the projection logic does not leak to other microservice but it also has the disadvantage that the emitting microservice must define+implement those queries; you can do this when you notice that other microservices duplicate the projection logic. An example of this query is the total order price in an ecommerce application. You could have a query like this WhatIsTheTotalPriceOfTheOrder that is published every time an item is added to/removed from/updated in an Order.
And since we are in the topic: how many retries I have to do in case of a concurrent write in a Stream using optimistic locking?
As many as you need, i.e. until the write succeeds. You could have a limit of 99999, just to be detect when something is horribly wrong with the retry mechanism. In any case, the concurrent write should be retried only when a write is done at the same time on the same stream (for one Aggregate instance) and not for the entire Event store.
As a rule: in service architectures, which includes micro services, each service tracks its state in a private database.
"Private" here primarily means that no other service is permitted to write or read from it. This could mean that each service has a dedicated database server of its own, or services might share a single appliance but only have access permissions for their own piece.
Expressed another way: services communicate with each other by sharing information via the public api, not by writing messages into each others databases.
For services using event sourcing, each service would have read and write access only to its streams. If those streams happen to be stored on the same home - fine; but the correctness of the system should not depend on different services storing their events on the same appliance.
TLDR: All of these patterns apply to a single bounded context (service if you like), don't distribute domain events outside your bounded context, publish integration events onto an ESB (enterprise service bus) or something similar, as the public interface.
Ok so we have three patterns here to briefly cover individually and then together.
Microservices
CQRS
Event Sourcing
Microservices
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/architecture/microservices/
Core objective: Isolate and decouple changes in a system to individual services, enabling independent deployment and testing without collateral impact.
This is achieved by encapsulating change behind a public API and limiting runtime dependencies between services.
CQRS
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/architecture/patterns/cqrs
Core objective: Isolate and decouple write concerns from read concerns in a single service.
This can be achieved in a few ways, but the core idea is that the read model is a projection of the write model optimised for querying.
Event Sourcing
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/architecture/patterns/event-sourcing
Core objective: Use the business domain rules as your data model.
This is achieved by modelling state as an append-only stream of immutable domain events and rebuilding the current aggregate state by replaying the stream from the start.
All Together
There is a lot of great content here https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/msp-n-p/jj554200(v=pandp.10)
Each of these has its own complexity, trade-offs and challenges and while a fun exercise you should consider if the cost outway the benefits. All of them apply within a single service or bounded context. As soon as you start sharing a data store between services, you open yourself up to issues, as the shared data store can not be changed in isolation as it is now a public interface.
Rather try publish integration events to a shared bus as the public interface for other services and bounded contexts to consume and use to build projections of other domain contexts data.
It's a good idea to publish integration events as idempotent snapshots of the current aggregate state (upsert X, delete X), especially if your bus is not persistent. This allows you to republish integration events from a domain if needed without producing an inconsistent state between consumers.
We are designing a reporting system using microservice architecture. All the services are supposed to be subscribers to the event bus and they communicate by raising events. We also decided to expose each of our services using REST api. Now the question is , is it a good idea to create our services as web api [RESTful] applications which are also subscribers to the event bus? so basically there are 2 ponits of entry to each service - api and events. I have a feeling that we should separate out these 2 as these are 2 different concerns. Any ideas?
Since Microservices architecture are Un-opinionated software design. So you may get different answers on this questions.
Yes, REST and Event based are two different things but sometime both combined gives design to achieve better flexibility.
Answering to your concerns, I don't see any harm if REST APIs also subscribe to a queue as long as you can maintain both of them i.e changes to message does not have any impact of APIs and you have proper fallback and Eventual consistency mechanism in place. you can check discussion . There are already few project which tried it such as nakadi and ponte.
So It all depends on your service's communication behaviour to choose between REST APIs and Event-Based design Or Both.
What you do is based on your requirement you can choose REST APIs where you see synchronous behaviour between services
and go with Event based design where you find services needs asynchronous behaviour, there is no harm combining both also.
Ideally for inter-process communication protocol it is better to go with messaging and for client-service REST APIs are best fitted.
Check the Communication style in microservices.io
REST based Architecture
Advantage
Request/Response is easy and best fitted when you need synchronous environments.
Simpler system since there in no intermediate broker
Promotes orchestration i.e Service can take action based on response of other service.
Drawback
Services needs to discover locations of service instances.
One to one Mapping between services.
Rest used HTTP which is general purpose protocol built on top of TCP/IP which adds enormous amount of overhead when using it to pass messages.
Event Driven Architecture
Advantage
Event-driven architectures are appealing to API developers because they function very well in asynchronous environments.
Loose coupling since it decouples services as on a event of once service multiple services can take action based on application requirement. it is easy to plug-in any new consumer to producer.
Improved availability since the message broker buffers messages until the consumer is able to process them.
Drawback
Additional complexity of message broker, which must be highly available
Debugging an event request is not that easy.