I'm creating a raffle site as a small side project. It will handle multiple raffles each with an end time. At the end of each raffle a single winner is chosen.
Are Laravel Jobs the best way to go with this? Do I just create a single forever-repeating job to check if any raffles have ended and need a winner?
If not, what would be the best way to go?
I don't think that forever-repeating scripts are generally a good idea.
I just create a single forever-repeating job
This is almost never a good idea. It has its applications in legacy code bases but websockets and events are best considered for this job. Also, you have the benefit of using a really good framework like Laravel, so take advantage of it
Websockets
If you want people to be notified in real time in the browser.
If you have all your users subscribe to a websocket channel when they load the page, you can easily send a message to a websocket server to all subscribed clients (ie browsers) to let them know who the winner is.
Then, in your client side code (Javascript), you can parse that message to determine who the winner is and render a pop up that let's the user know.
Events
If you don't mind a bit of a delay, most definitely use events for this.
At the end of every action that might potentially end a raffle (ie, a name is chosen at random by a computer - function chooseName()). Fire an event that notifies all participants in the raffle.
https://laravel.com/docs/5.2/events
NB: I've listed the above two as separate issues, but actually, the could be used together. For example, in the event that a name is chosen at random, determine if the raffle is over and notify clients via a websocket connection.
Why I wouldn't use delayed Jobs
The crux of the reason - maintainability
Imagine a scenario where something extends the time of your raffle by a week. This could've happened because a raffle was cheated on or whatever (can't really think of all the use cases in that area).
Now, your job has a set delay in place - is it really a good programming principle to have to change two things when only one scenario changed? Nope. Having something like an event in place - onRaffleEnd - explicitly looks for the occurrence of an event. Laravel doesn't care when that event happens.
Using delayed Jobs can work - it's just not a good programming use case in your scenario and limits what you're able to do in the longer run. It will force you to make more considerations when unforeseen circumstances come along as well as when you want to change things. This also decentralizes the logic related to your raffle. Whilst decoupling code is good practice, having logic sit in completely different places makes maintenance a nightmare.
Related
I have multiple servers, at any point, one and only one will be the leader whcih can respond to a request, all others just drop the request. The issue is that the client does not know which server is the leader.
I have tried using a pub socket on the client for the parallel request out, however I can't work out the right semantics for the response. In terms of how to get the server to respond to that specific client.
A hacky solution which I have tried is to have a sub socket on the client to pub sockets on all the servers, with the leader responding by publishing a message with a filter such that it only goes to the client.
However I am unable to receive any responses this way, the server believes that it sent the message and the client believes it subscribed to "" but then doesn't receive anything...
So I am wondering whether there is a more proper way of doing this? I have thought that potentially a dealer/router with sending to a specific client would work, however I am unsure how to do that.
Essentially I am trying to do a standard Req/Rep however doing the req in parallel to all the nodes, rather than round robin.
UPDATE: By sending the routing id of the dealer in the pub request, making the remote call idempotent (just returning pre-computed results on repeated attempts), and then sending the result back via a router, with message filtering on the receiving side, it now works.
Q : " is (there) a more proper way of doing this? "
Yes.
Start to apply the Maslow's Hammer rule:
“When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail.”
In other words, do not try use (one) hammer for solving every problem. PUB/SUB-archetype was designed to serve those-and-only-those multi-party Formal-Communications-Pattern archetypes, where many SUB-scribe to .recv() some PUB-lisher(s) .send()-broadcast messages, but nothing other.
Similarly, REQ/REP-archetype was defined and implemented so as to serve one-and-only-one multi-party distributed Formal-Communications-Pattern ( and will obviously not meet any use-case, which has any single other or even a slightly different requirement ).
Users often require some special, non-trivial features, that obviously were not a part of the said trivial Formal-Communications-Pattern archetype primitives ( those ready-made blocks, made available in the ZeroMQ toolbox ).
It is architecs' / designers' role to define, analyse and implement any more complex user-specific distributed-behaviour definition ( a protocol ) and to implement it, most often using a layered combination of the ready-made ZeroMQ primitives.
If in doubts, take a sheet of paper and pencil, draw a small crowd of kids on playground and sketch their "shouts", their "listening", their "silence", "waiting" and "doubts", their many or few "replies", their "voting" and "anger" of not being voted for by friends, their fight for a place on the Sun and their "persistence" not to let others take theirs turn and let 'em sit on the "swing" after releasing the so far pleasurable swinging oneselves.
All this is the part of finding the right mix of ( protocol-orchestrated ) levels of control and levels of freedom to act.
There we get the new, distributed-behaviour, tailor-made for your specific use-case.
Probability to find a ready-made primitive tool to match and fulfill any user-specific use case is limitlessly close to Zero ( sure, unless one's own, user-specific use-case requirements match all those of the primitive archetype, but that is not a user-specific use-case, but a re-use of an already implemented archetype for the very same situation, that was foreseen by the ZeroMQ fathers, wasn't it? )
Again, welcome to the art of Zen-of-Zero.
Maylike to readthis and this and this
This is more of a theorical question.
Well, imagine that I have two programas that work simultaneously, the main one only do something when he receives a flag marked with true from a secondary program. So, this main program has a function that will keep asking to the secondary for the value of the flag, and when it gets true, it will do something.
What I learned at college is that the polling is the simplest way of doing that. But when I started working as an developer, coworkers told me that this method generate some overhead or it's waste of computation, by asking every certain amount of time for a value.
I tried to come up with some ideas for doing this in a different way, searched on the internet for something like this, but didn't found a useful way about how to do this.
I read about interruptions and passive ways that can cause the main program to get that data only if was informed by the secondary program. But how this happen? The main program will need a function to check for interruption right? So it will not end the same way as before?
What could I do differently?
There is no magic...
no program will guess when it has new information to be read, what you can do is decide between two approaches,
A -> asks -> B
A <- is informed <- B
whenever use each? it depends in many other factors like:
1- how fast you need the data be delivered from the moment it is generated? as far as possible? or keep a while and acumulate
2- how fast the data is generated?
3- how many simoultaneuos clients are requesting data at same server
4- what type of data you deal with? persistent? fast-changing?
If you are building something like a stocks analyzer where you need to ask the price of stocks everysecond (and it will change also everysecond) the approach you mentioned may be the best
if you are writing a chat based app like whatsapp where you need to check if there is some new message to the client and most of time wont... publish subscribe may be the best
but all of this is a very superficial look into a high impact architecture decision, it is not possible to get the best by just looking one factor
what i want to show is that
coworkers told me that this method generate some overhead or it's
waste of computation
it is not a right statement, it may be in some particular scenario but overhead will always exist in distributed systems
The typical way to prevent polling is by using the Publish/Subscribe pattern.
Your client program will subscribe to the server program and when an event occurs, the server program will publish to all its subscribers for them to handle however they need to.
If you flip the order of the requests you end up with something more similar to a standard web API. Your main program (left in your example) would be a server listening for requests. The secondary program would be a client hitting an endpoint on the server to trigger an event.
There's many ways to accomplish this in every language and it doesn't have to be tied to tcp/ip requests.
I'll add a few links for you shortly.
Well, in most of languages you won't implement such a low level. But theorically speaking, there are different waiting strategies, you are talking about active waiting. Doing this you can easily eat all your memory.
Most of languages implements libraries to allow you to start a process as a service which is at passive waiting and it is triggered when a request comes.
So, I'm working on a CQRS/ES project in which we are having some doubts about how to handle trivial problems that would be easy to handle in other architectures
My scenario is the following:
I have a customer CRUD REST API and each customer has unique document(number), so when I'm registering a new customer I have to verify if there is another customer with that document to avoid duplicity, but when it comes to a CQRS/ES architecture where we have eventual consistency, I found out that this kind of validations can be very hard to address.
It is important to notice that my problem is not across microservices, but between the command application and the query application of the same microservice.
Also we are using eventstore.
My current solution:
So what I do today is, in my command application, before saving the CustomerCreated event, I ask the query application (using PostgreSQL) if there is a customer with that document, and if not, I allow the event to go on. But that doesn't guarantee 100%, right? Because my query can be desynchronized, so I cannot trust it 100%. That's when my second validation kicks in, when my query application is processing the events and saving them to my PostgreSQL, I check again if there is a customer with that document and if there is, I reject that event and emit a compensating event to undo/cancel/inactivate the customer with the duplicated document, therefore finishing that customer stream on eventstore.
Altough this works, there are 2 things that bother me here, the first thing is my command application relying on the query application, so if my query application is down, my command is affected (today I just return false on my validation if query is down but still...) and second thing is, should a query/read model really be able to emit events? And if so, what is the correct way of doing it? Should the command have some kind of API for that? Or should the query emit the event directly to eventstore using some common shared library? And if I have more than one view/read? Which one should I choose to handle this?
Really hope someone could shine a light into these questions and help me this these matters.
For reference, you may want to be reviewing what Greg Young has written about Set Validation.
I ask the query application (using PostgreSQL) if there is a customer with that document, and if not, I allow the event to go on. But that doesn't guarantee 100%, right?
That's exactly right - your read model is stale copy, and may not have all of the information collected by the write model.
That's when my second validation kicks in, when my query application is processing the events and saving them to my PostgreSQL, I check again if there is a customer with that document and if there is, I reject that event and emit a compensating event to undo/cancel/inactivate the customer with the duplicated document, therefore finishing that customer stream on eventstore.
This spelling doesn't quite match the usual designs. The more common implementation is that, if we detect a problem when reading data, we send a command message to the write model, telling it to straighten things out.
This is commonly referred to as a process manager, but you can think of it as the automation of a human supervisor of the system. Conceptually, a process manager is an event sourced collection of messages to be sent to the command model.
You might also want to consider whether you are modeling your domain correctly. If documents are supposed to be unique, then maybe the command model should be using the document number as a key in the book of record, rather than using the customer. Or perhaps the document id should be a function of the customer data, rather than being an arbitrary input.
as far as I know, eventstore doesn't have transactions across different streams
Right - one of the things you really need to be thinking about in general is where your stream boundaries lie. If set validation has significant business value, then you really need to be thinking about getting the entire set into a single stream (or by finding a way to constrain uniqueness without using a set).
How should I send a command message to the write model? via API? via a message broker like Kafka?
That's plumbing; it doesn't really matter how you do it, so long as you are sure that the command runs within its own transaction/unit of work.
So what I do today is, in my command application, before saving the CustomerCreated event, I ask the query application (using PostgreSQL) if there is a customer with that document, and if not, I allow the event to go on. But that doesn't guarantee 100%, right? Because my query can be desynchronized, so I cannot trust it 100%.
No, you cannot safely rely on the query side, which is eventually consistent, to prevent the system to step into an invalid state.
You have two options:
You permit the system to enter in a temporary, pending state and then, eventually, you will bring it into a valid permanent state; for this you could allow the command to pass, yield CustomerRegistered event and using a Saga/Process manager you verify against a uniquely-indexed-by-document-collection and issue a compensating command (not event!), i.e. UnregisterCustomer.
Instead of sending a command, you create&start a Saga/Process that preallocates the document in a uniquely-indexed-by-document-collection and if successfully then send the RegisterCustomer command. You can model the Saga as an entity.
So, in both solution you use a Saga/Process manager. In order for the system to be resilient you should make sure that RegisterCustomer command is idempotent (so you can resend it if the Saga fails/is restarted)
You've butted up against a fairly common problem. I think the other answer by VoicOfUnreason is worth reading. I just wanted to make you aware of a few more options.
A simple approach I have used in the past is to create a lookup table. Your command tries to register the key in a unique constraint table. If it can reserve the key the command can go ahead.
Depending on the nature of the data and the domain you could let this 'problem' occur and raise additional events to mark it. If it is something that's important to the business/the way the application works then you can deal with it either manually or at the time via compensating commands. if the latter then it would make sense to use a process manager.
In some (rare) cases where speed/capacity is less of an issue then you could consider old-fashioned locking and transactions. Admittedly these are much better suited to CRUD style implementations but they can be used in CQRS/ES.
I have more detail on this in my blog post: How to Handle Set Based Consistency Validation in CQRS
I hope you find it helpful.
I have a website where each user can have several orders. Each order has its own status. A background process, keeps updating the status of each order as necessary. I want to inform the user in real-time on the status of his orders. As such, I have developed an API endpoint that returns all the orders of a given user.
On the client-side, I've developed a React component that displays the orders, and then every second an AJAX request is performed to the API to get all the orders and their status, and then React will auto-update if necessary.
Is making 1 AJAX call per second to get all orders of a user a bad practice? What are other strategies that I can do?
Yes, it is. You can use Socket to accomplish this. Take a look at Socket.IO
Edit: My point is, why to use AJAX to simulate a task that can be done with a feature that is designed for it? Sockets are just made to do this kind of thing.
Imagine if your user lost internet connection for example. With Socket.IO you can handle this very nicely. But I don't think it will be that easy with AJAX.
And thinking about scalability, Socket.IO is designed to be performant with whatever transport it settles on. The way it gracefully degrades based on what connection is possible is great and means your server will be overloaded as little as possible while still reaching as wide an audience as it can.
AJAX will do the trick, but it's not the best design.
There is no one solution fit all answer for this question.
First off, this is not a chat app, a delay of less than 1 second doesn't change the user experience by much, if any.
So that leaves us with technical reasons, it really depends on many factors:
How many users you have (overall load), how many concurrent users are waiting for their orders, what infrastructure you are using, do you have other important things to build or you just want to spend more time coding things for fun?
If you have a handful of users, there is nothing wrong with querying once per second, it's easy, less maintenance overhead, and you said you have it coded already.
If you have dozens or more of concurrent users waiting for the status it's probably best to use Websockets.
In terms of infrastructure, too many websockets are expensive (some cloud hosting have limits on the number of sockets), so keep that in mind if you want to go with that route.
At work, we have a huge framework and use events to send data from one part of it to another. I recently started a personal project and I often think to use events to control the interactions of my objects.
For example, I have a Mixer class that play sound effects and I initially thought I should receive events to play a sound effect. Then I decided to only make my class static and call
Mixer.playSfx(SoundEffect)
in my classes. I have a ton of examples like this one where I initially think of an implementation with events and then change my mind, saying to myself it is too complex for nothing.
So when should I use events in a project? In which occasions events have a serious advantage over others techniques?
You generally use events to notify subscribers about some action or state change that occurred on the object. By using an event, you let different subscribers react differently, and by decoupling the subscriber (and its logic) from the event generator, the object becomes reusable.
In your Mixer example, I'd have events signal the start and end of playing of the sound effect. If I were to use this in a desktop application, I could use those events to enable/disable controls in the UI.
The difference between Calling a subroutine and raising events has to do with: Specification, Election, Cardinality and ultimately, which side, the initiator or the receiver has Control.
With Calls, the initiator elects to call the receiving routine, and the initiator specifies the receiver. And this leads to many-to-one cardinality, as many callers may elect to call the same subroutine.
With Events on the other hand, the initiator raises an event that will be received by those routines that have elected to receive that event. The receiver specifies what events it will receive from what initiators. This then leads to one-to-many cardinality as one event source can have many receivers.
So the decision as to Calls or Events, mostly has to do with whether the initiator determines the receiver is or the receiver determines the initiator.
Its a tradeoff between simplicity and re-usability. Lets take an metaphor of "Sending the email" process:
If you know the recipients and they are finite in number that you can always determine, its as simple as putting them in "To" list and hitting the send button. Its simple as thats what we use most of the time. This is calling the function directly.
However, in case of mailing list, you don't know in advance that how many users are going to subscribe to your email. In that case, you create a mailing list program where the users can subscribe to and the email goes automatically to all the subscribed users. This is event modeling.
Now, even though, in both above option, emails are sent to users, you are a better judge of when to send email directly and when to use the mailing list program. Apply the same judgement, hope that you would get your answer :)
Cheers,
Ajit.
I have been working with a huge code base at my previous work place and have seen, that using events can increase the complexity quite a lot and often unnecessarily.
I had often to reverse engineer existing code in order to fix it or to extend it.
In both cases, it is a lot easier to understand what is going on, when you can simply read a list of function calls instead of just seeing the raise of an event.
The event forces you to look for usages in order to fully understand what is happening. Not a problem with modern IDEs, but if you then encounter many functions, which also raise events, it quickly becomes complex. I had encountered cases, where it mattered in what order functions did subscribe to an event, even though most languages don't even gurantee a calling order...
There are cases when it is a really good idea to use events. But before you start eventing, consider the alternative. It is probably easier to read and mantain.
A Classic example for the use of events is a UI framework, which provides elements like buttons etc.
You want the function "ButtonPressed()" of the framework to call some of your functions, so that you can react to the user action.
The alternative to an event that you can subscribe to, would for example be a public bool "buttonPressed", which the UI framework exposes
and which you can regurlary check for beeing true or false. This is of course very ineffecient, when there are hundreds of UI elements.