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.
I am trying to understand how to use the FHIR Questionnaire resource, and have a specific question regarding this.
My project is specifically regarding how a citizen in our country could be responding to Questionnaires via a web app, which are then submitted to the FHIR server as QuestionnaireAnswers, to be read/analyzed by a health professional.
A FHIR-based system could have lots of Questionnaires (Qs), groups of Qs or even specific Qs would be targeted towards certain users or groups of users. The display of the questionnare to the citizen could also be based on a Care-plan of a sort, for example certain Questionnaires needing filling-in in the weeks after surgery. The Questionnaires could also be regular ones that need to be filled in every day or week permanently, to support data collection on the state of a chronic disease.
What I'm wondering is if FHIR has a resource which fits into organizing the 'logistics' of displaying the right form to the right person. I can see CarePlan, which seems to partly fit. Or is this something that would typically be handled out-of-FHIR-scope by specific server implementations?
So, to summarize:
Which resource or mechanism would a health professional use to set up that a patient should answer certain Questionnaires, either regularly or as part of for example a follow-up after a surgery. So this would include setting up the schedule for the form(s) to be filled in, and possibly configure what would happen if the form wasn't filled in as required.
Which resource (possibly the same) or mechanism would be used for the patient's web app to retrieve the relevant Questionnaire(s) at a given point in time?
At the moment, the best resource for saying "please capture data of type X on schedule Y" would be DiagnosticOrder, though the description probably doesn't make that clear. (If you'd be willing to click the "Propose a change" link and submit a change request for us to clarify, that'd be great.) If you wanted to order multiple questionnaires, then CarePlan would be a way to group that.
The process of taking a complex schedule (or set of schedules) and turning that into a simple list of "do this now" requests that might be more suitable for a mobile application to deal with is scheduled for DSTU 2.1. Until then, you have a few options for the mobile app:
- have it look at the CarePlan and complex DiagnosticOrder schedule and figure things out itself
- have a server generate a List of mini 1-time DiagnosticOrders and/or Orders identifying the specific "answer" times
- roll your own mechanism using the Other/Basic resource
Depending on your timelines, you might want to stay tuned to discussions by the Patient Care and Orders and Observations work groups as they start dealing with the issues around workflow management starting next month in Atlanta.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm attempting to write my requirements out as User Stories. Moving from a waterfall world, I am much more familiar with Use Cases.
One of the things I like about Use Cases is each interaction with the system is well-defined, as well as all the alternate and exception flows of action.
UC-01
Success Scenario:
The user navigates to the customer
The user clicks the Add Contract button
The user fills in the Contract Name, Contract #, Start Date and End Date fields
The system asks for confirmation
The user fills clicks the save button, and the contract is saved
Exceptions
5a. The user aborts, and the contract is not saved
Alternate flow
1a. The user uses the filter to select the customer
Where would the exception and alternate flows be captured in an Agile approach?
They wouldn't be captured as such.
You are approaching user stories from the wrong angle. Coming from waterfall this is quite a common misunderstanding.
Your story in this example should be something like:
As a user I want to add a contract to a customer so that [insert value here]
From the example you can note two things:
I can't finish it because I have no idea of what the value of this story is to the customer. This is quite important because it drives any negotiation over the story. For example, one doesn't want to spend a lot of time on stories which have a very marginal value.
There isn't much detail. This is on purpose, because the story tries to capture the problem or the opportunity, not the solution. As a user, there are many theoretical ways in which I can achieve my aim of adding a contract to a customer.
The focus of stories is letting the users achieve their goals.
Normally you can write details about how you currently speculate that the story will be implemented on the "back of the card" or in a notes field in your ALM tool, but the point I am trying to make is that stories are negotiable in how they are implemented.
Your developers are expected to interact with your customer representative during the iteration to discuss/prototype/try out the various different possible solutions so that the aim of the story is achieved efficiently and effectively.
A very simple and yet quite exemplary and typical example: what if you forget an edge case, alternate flow or exception? With stories, that's no problem: the developer discovers it, has a chat with the product representative, and they make up a plan to handle it.
You can do this because it's clear that handling these cases is part of the user story. Not so with the requirement, which is prescriptive on what the solution should be, instead of what it should achieve.
> Where would the exception and alternate flows be captured in an Agile approach?
A Use Case is a form of feature documentation.
This documentation can be created
before implementation (as specificatoin in waterfall)
during or after implementation or not at all (agil)
In Scrum you would just have a feature-request "Add Customer" in the Backlog without the scenarios.
Many agile practices do not dictate that you have to write your requirements out as user stories with acceptance criteria. All that is needed is a list of requirements (aka Product Backlog) that is ordered. When giving these requirements to the team in a sprint planning session they should be the minimal amount of information that is still clear enough for the team to understand and build. There is a fine line between doing too little grooming and over analysing the requirement; this takes time to get right.
Having said that, user stories are commonly used as they make sense to multiple parties involved in the process where other forms of requirements are limited to a specific audience; i.e. you have to teach people how to read and understand use cases but do not have to do that for user stories. Obviously writing it is a different problem.
I like #Sklivvz and #k3b answers.
Regarding your example.
First: As Sklivvz wrote, the User Story defines the problem and the goal. I differ in the opinion regarding side tracks and exceptions. Those are, in my eyes, small stories to. With there own priority. I.e. the ability to cancel the process could be of higher prio than some validation problem story.
My Answer in short: Write a story for the main goal, side goals, exceptions and alternate flows.
positive side effect: The product owner (you?) has the chance to prioritize those stories.
agree with some of the above and would like to add the following (hope this is useful).
Use Cases are not specifically/only related to waterfall, they are merely a means to visual behaviours (use cases) of a system and the relationships between those behaviours and other system behaviours, and external entities to the system (actors).
There is no reason why a user story cannot be further described by use cases and use case scenarios.
Remember, just because you are practicing (I guess, but not restricted too) Agile that does not means you cannot design stuff. Just don't let the design have more value over the result i.e the product (although in complex . safety systems this should be the case).
When you capture stories initially, they should be very brief and focused on benefits.
When you've discussed solution with the team and ready to start implementation, you should document it with more details.
I like Given/When/Then format and I'd re-write this Use Case into this (real goal may be different, but still you'll get the main idea):
Title:
As a user I want to add contract to customers so that I can track contracts history
Given customers list
When user clicks to Customer
Then he sees Customer Details view
And Add Contract button
[mockup]
Given Customer Details view
When user clicks Add Contract button
Then he see a popup with fields:
Contract Name - field spec: [default value, max lenth, etc]
Contract # - [field spec]
Start Date - [field spec]
End Date - [field spec]
[form mockup]
Given user filled form correctly
When he click Save button
Then he sees confirmation dialog ["Do you really want to add this contract?"]
[NOTE: I think this confirmation is stupid and not required]
Given user see a confirmation dialog
When he clicks Yes
Then the contract is saved
And user sees success message "Contract is saved for customer XXX"
Given user see a confirmation dialog
When he clicks No
Then the contract is not saved
And confirmation dialog closes
NOTE: most likely this scenario is a separate user story
Given home page
When I click Add Contract link
Then I see Contract form
And "Select customer" drop down field
...
As you see, you can quite easily use Given/When/Then format to describe user stories. It is very important to make sure that true value of user story is captured. Otherwise it is very easy to make some decisions that will be really bad from the business point of view.
I'm struggling to apply RESTful principles to a new web application I'm working on. In particular, it's the idea that to be RESTful, each HTTP request should carry enough information by itself for its recipient to process it to be in complete harmony with the stateless nature of HTTP.
The application allows users to search for medications. The search accepts filters as input, for example, return discontinued medicines, include complimentary therapy etc..etc. In total there are around 30 filters that can be applied.
Additionally, patient details can be entered including the patients age, gender, current medications etc.
To be Restful, should all this information be included with every request? This seems to place a huge overhead on the network. Also, wouldn't the restrictions on URL length, at least for GET, make this unfeasible?
The "Filter As Resource" is a perfect tact for this.
You can PUT the filter definition to the filter resource, and it can return the filter ID.
PUT is idempotent, so even if the filter is already there, you just need to detect that you've seen the filter before, so you can return the proper ID for the filter.
Then, you can add a filter parameter to your other requests, and they can grab the filter to use for the queries.
GET /medications?filter=1234&page=4&pagesize=20
I would run the raw filters through some sort of canonicalization process, just to have a normalized set, so that, e.g. filter "firstname=Bob lastname=Eubanks" is identical to "lastname=Eubanks firstname=Bob". That's just me though.
The only real concern is that, as time goes on, you may need to obsolete some filters. You can simply error out the request should someone make a request with a missing or obsolete filter.
Edit answering question...
Let's start with the fundamentals.
Simply, you want to specify a filter for use in queries, but these filters are (potentially) involved and complicated. If it was simple /medications/1234, this wouldn't be a problem.
Effectively, you always need to send the filter to the query. The question is how to represent that filter.
The fundamental issue with things like sessions in REST systems is that they're typically managed "out of band". When you, say, go and create a medication, you PUT or POST to the medications resource, and you get a reference back to that medication.
With a session, you would (typically) get back a cookie, or perhaps some other token to represent that session. If your PUT to the medications resource created a session also, then, in truth, your request created two resources: a medication, and a session.
Unfortunately, when you use something like a cookie, and you require that cookie for your request, the resource name is no longer the true representation of the resource. Now it's the resource name (the URL), and the cookie.
So, if I do a GET on the resource named /medications/search, and the cookie represents a session, and that session happens to have a filter in it, you can see how in effect, that resource name, /medications/search, isn't really useful at all. I don't have all of the information I need to make effective use, because of the side effect of the cookie and the session and the filter therein.
Now, you could perhaps rewrite the name: /medications/search?session=ABC123, effectively embedding the cookie in the resource name.
But now you run in to the typical contract of sessions, notably that they're short lived. So, that named resource is less useful, long term, not useless, just less useful. Right now, this query gives me interesting data. Tomorrow? Probably not. I'll get some nasty error about the session being gone.
The other problem is that sessions typically are not managed as a resource. For example, they're usually a side effect, vs explicitly managed via GET/PUT/DELETE. Sessions are also the "garbage heap" of web app state. In this case, we're just kind of hoping that the session is properly populated with what is needed for this request. We actually don't really know. Again, it's a side effect.
Now, let's turn it on its head a little bit. Let's use /medications/search?filter=ABC123.
Obviously, casually, this looks identical. We just changed the name from 'session' to 'filter'. But, as discussed, Filters, in this case, ARE a "first class resource". They need to be created, managed, etc. the same as a medication, a JPEG, or any other resource in your system. This is the key distinction.
Certainly, you could treat "sessions" as a first class resource, creating them, putting stuff in them directly, etc. But you can see how, at least from a clarity point of view, a "first class" session isn't really a good abstraction for this case. Using a session, its like going to the cleaners and handing over your entire purse or briefcase. "Yea, the ticket is in there somewhere, dig out what you want, give me my clothes", especially compared to something explicit like a filter.
So, you can see how, at 30,000 feet, there's not a lot of difference in the case between a filter and a session. But when you zoom in, they're quite different.
With the filter resource, you can choose to make them a persistent thing forever and ever. You can expire them, you can do whatever you want. Sessions tend to have pre-conceived semantics: short live, duration of the connection, etc. Filters can have any semantics you want. They're completely separate from what comes with a session.
If I were doing this, how would I work with filters?
I would assume that I really don't care about the content of a filter. Specifically, I doubt I would ever query for "all filters that search by first name". At this juncture, it seems like uninteresting information, so I won't design around it.
Next, I would normalize the filters, like I mentioned above. Make sure that equivalent filters truly are equivalent. You can do this by sorting the expressions, ensuring fieldnames are all uppercase, or whatever.
Then, I would store the filter as an XML or JSON document, whichever is more comfortable/appropriate for the application. I would give each filter a unique key (naturally), but I would also store a hash for the actual document with the filter.
I would do this to be able to quickly find if the filter is already stored. Since I'm normalizing it, I "know" that the XML (say) for logically equivalent filters would be identical. So, when someone goes to PUT, or insert a new filter, I would do a check on the hash to see if it has been stored before. I may well get back more than one (hashes can collide, of course), so I'll need to check the actual XML payloads to see whether they match.
If the filters match, I return a reference to the existing filter. If not, I'd create a new one and return that.
I also would not allow a filter UPDATE/POST. Since I'm handing out references to these filters, I would make them immutable so the references can remain valid. If I wanted a filter by "role", say, the "get all expire medications filter", then I would create a "named filter" resource that associates a name with a filter instance, so that the actual filter data can change but the name remain the same.
Mind, also, that during creation, you're in a race condition (two requests trying to make the same filter), so you would have to account for that. If your system has a high filter volume, this could be a potential bottleneck.
Hope this clarifies the issue for you.
To be Restful, should all this information be included with every request?
No. If it looks like your server is sending (or receiving) too much information, chances are that there are one or more resources you haven't yet identified.
The first and most important step in designing a RESTful system is to identify and name your resources. How would you do that for your system?
From your description, here's one possible set of resources:
User - a user of the system (maybe a doctor or patient (?) - Role might need to be exposed as a resource here)
Medication - the stuff in the bottle, but it also might represent the kind of bottle (quantity and contents), or it might represent a particular bottle - depending on if you're a pharmacy or just a help desk.
Disease - the condition for which a Patient might want to take a Medication.
Patient - a person who might take a Medication
Recommendation - a Medication that might be beneficial to a Patient based on a Disease they suffer from.
Then you could look for relationships among resources;
User has and belongs to many Roles
Medication has and belongs to many Diseases
Disease has many Recommendations.
Patient has and belongs to many Medications and Diseases (poor chap)
Patient has many Recommendations
Recommendation has one Patient and has one Disease
The specifics are probably not right for your particular problem, but the idea is simple: create a network of relationships among your resources.
At this point it might be helpful to think about URI structure, although keep in mind that REST APIs must be hypertext-driven:
# view all Recommendations for the patient
GET http://server.com/patients/{patient}/recommendations
# view all Recommendations for a Medication
GET http://servier.com/medications/{medication}/recommendations
# add a new Recommendation for a Patient
PUT http://server.com/patients/{patient}/recommendations
Because this is REST, you'll spend most of your time defining the media types used to transfer representations of your resources between client and server.
By exposing more resources, you can cut down on the amount of data that needs to be transferred during each request. Also notice there are no query parameters in the URIs. The server can be as stateful as it needs to be to keep track of it all, and each request can be fully self-contained.
REST is for APIs, not (typical) applications. Don't try to wedge a fundamentally stateful interaction into a stateless model just because you read about it on wikipedia.
To be Restful, should all this information be included with every request? This seems to place a huge overhead on the network. Also, wouldn't the restrictions on URL length, at least for GET, make this unfeasible?
The size of parameters is usually insignificant compared to the size of resources the server sends. If you're using such large parameters that they are a network burden, place them on the server once and then use them as resources.
There are no significant restrictions on URL length -- if your server has such a limit, upgrade it. It's probably years old and chock-full of security vulnerabilities anyway.
No all of that does not have to be in every request.
Each resource (medication, patient history, etc) should have a canonical URI that uniquely identifies it. In some applications (eg, Rails-based ones) this will be something like "/patients/1234" or "/drugs/5678" but the URL format is unimportant.
A client that has previously obtained the URI for a resource (such as from a search, or from a link embedded in another resource) can retrieve it using this URI.
Are you working on a RESTful API that other apps will use to search your data? Or are you building a end-user focused web application where users will log in and perform these searches?
If your users are logging in, then you're already stateful as you'll have some type of session cookie to maintain the logged in state. I would go ahead and create a session object that contains all the search filters. If a user hasn't set any filters, then this object will be empty.
Here's a great blog post about using GET vs POST. It mentions a URL length limit set by Internet Explorer of 2,048 characters, so you want to use POST for long requests.
http://carsonified.com/blog/dev/the-definitive-guide-to-get-vs-post/