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.
Related
I'm new to event sourcing and have some question on my mind. Here example diagram.
Let say we have 2 instances of service BookShop and 2 instances of service Wallet.
User ask BookService_1 to buy him a book. This book service creates event BuyBookRequestCreated and push it to event bus. Event bus emits this event to two instances of service Wallet. Two instances now try to reserve enough money from user wallet and they both emit event BookMoneyReserved? Now on the other side two instances of BookShop services recive 2 events and they both try to emit event BookBought? Or maybe eventbus will send BuyBookRequestCreated to only one subscriber? But then what happends when this selected service fails?
How this pattern is handlen from API consumer point of view? If I make call to some API to buy me a book I expect it to "return 200" when the book is bought. In event sourcing pattern there is no awaiting for response from other services so in case if some other service must emit an event to complete book purchase there is no way of telling the customer if his purchase actually faild or not.
I'm a little lost in the whole microservice world. On one hand we have Grpc, protobufs and service mesh but on the other we have event sourcing and event driven architecture. When to use which? And from what I see and can understand I could use event sourcing and grpc togheter? I could just use grpc to communicate beetwen services and save events as a form of state persistance or maybe I just completly didn't get it and should read thru articles again?
Thanks for help.
I don't understand event sourcing
That's not your fault. The literature sucks.
Here example diagram.
OK, so the most important lesson I can give you about that diagram: it has nothing to do with event sourcing. It has quite a bit to do with messaging, and distributed systems, and event driven. But event sourcing is a different animal.
At the high level, a fundamental concern is that distributed systems are imperfect. So we need to accept that as a constraint in our designs, and work with it. Pat Helland's Memories, Guesses, and Apologies is a good starting point.
In normal operation, we would never have two wallet services doing the same work. They might be sharing the work (in much the same way that the Book Services share the work from the load balancer).
One way that you might share the work is to assign to each message a unique number; top wallet processes the odd numbered messages and ignores the even numbered messages, bottom wallet processes the even numbered messages and ignores the odd numbered messages.
Of course, normal operation is what you want, but not necessarily what you get -- after all, distributed systems are imperfect. For some kinds of problems, there are comfortable patterns - locking, or idempotent message handling -- and your system can continue to deliver business value.
For other kinds of problems, the answer is that some human being gets on the phone, and tells somebody else that there has been a mistake, and can we work things out?
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.
I am looking for a pub/sub mechanism that behaves like a promise but can resolve multiple times, and behaves like an event except if you subscribe after a notification has happened it triggers with the most recent value.
I am aware of notify, but deferred.notify is order-sensitive, so in that way it behaves just like an event. eg:
d.notify('notify before'); // Not observed :(
d.promise.progress(function(data){ console.log(data) });
d.notify('notify after'); // Observed
setTimeout(function(){ d.notify('notify much later') }, 100); // Also Observed
fiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/foLhag3b/
The notification system I'd like is a good fit for a UI component that should update to reflect the state of the data behind it. In these cases, you don't want to care about whether the data has arrived yet or not, and you want updates when they come in.
Maybe this is similar to Immediate mode UIs, but is distinct because it is message based.
The state of the art for message based UI updating, as far as I'm aware, is something which uses a promise or callback to initialize, then also binds an update event:
myUIComponent.gotData(model.data);
model.onUpdate(myUIComponent.gotData); // doing two things is 2x teh workz :(
I don't want to have to do both. I don't think anyone should have to, the use case is common enough to abstract.
model.whenever(myUIComponent.gotData); // yay one intention === one line of code
I could build a mechanism to do what I want, but I wanted to see if a pub/sub mechanism like this already exists. A lot of smart people have done a lot in CS and I figure this concept must exist, I just am looking for the name of it.
To be clear, I'm not looking to change an entire framework, say to Angular or React. I'm looking only for a pub/sub mechanism. Preferably an implementation of a known concept with a snazzy name like notifr or lemme-kno or touch-base.
You'll want to have a look at (functional) reactive programming. The concept you are looking for is known as a Behavior or Signal in FRP. It models the change of a value over time, and can be inspected at any time (continuously holds a value, in contrast to a stream that discretely fires events).
var ui = state.map(render); // whenever state updates, so does ui with render() result
Some popular libraries in JS are Bacon and Rx, which use their own terminology however: you'll find properties and observables.
What is the difference between the Observer Pattern, Publish/Subscribe, and Data Binding?
I searched around a bit on Stack Overflow and did not find any good answers.
What I have come to believe is that data binding is a generic term and there are different ways of implementing it such as the Observer Pattern or the Pub/Sub pattern. With the Observer pattern, an Observable updates its Observers. With Pub/Sub, 0-many publishers can publish messages of certain classes and 0-many subscribers can subscribe to messages of certain classes.
Are there other patterns of implementing "data binding"?
There are two major differences between Observer/Observable and Publisher/Subscriber patterns:
Observer/Observable pattern is mostly implemented in a synchronous way, i.e. the observable calls the appropriate method of all its observers when some event occurs. The Publisher/Subscriber pattern is mostly implemented in an asynchronous way (using message queue).
In the Observer/Observable pattern, the observers are aware of the observable. Whereas, in Publisher/Subscriber, publishers and subscribers don't need to know each other. They simply communicate with the help of message queues.
As you mentioned correctly, data binding is a generic term and it can be implemented using either Observer/Observable or Publisher/Subscriber method. Data is the Publisher/Observable.
Here's my take on the three:
Data Binding
Essentially, at the core this just means "the value of property X on object Y is semantically bound to the value of property A on object B. No assumptions are made as to how Y knows or is fed changes on object B.
Observer, or Observable/Observer
A design pattern by which an object is imbued with the ability to notify others of specific events - typically done using actual events, which are kind of like slots in the object with the shape of a specific function/method. The observable is the one who provides notifications, and the observer receives those notifications. In .net, the observable can expose an event and the observer subscribes to that event with an "event handler" shaped hook. No assumptions are made about the specific mechanism which notifications occur, nor about the number of observers one observable can notify.
Pub/Sub
Another name (perhaps with more "broadcast" semantics) of the Observable/Observer pattern, which usually implies a more "dynamic" flavor - observers can subscribe or unsubscribe to notifications and one observable can "shout out" to multiple observers. In .NET, one can use the standard events for this, since events are a form of MulticastDelegate, and so can support delivery of events to multiple subscribers, and also support unsubscription. Pub/Sub has a slightly different meaning in certain contexts, usually involving more "anonymity" between event and eventer, which can be facilitated by any number of abstractions, usually involving some "middle man" (such as a message queue) who knows all parties, but the individual parties don't know about each other.
Data Binding, Redux
In many "MVC-like" patterns, the observable exposes some manner of "property changed notification" that also contains information about the specific property changed. The observer is implicit, usually created by the framework, and subscribes to these notifications via some binding syntax to specifically identify an object and property, and the "event handler" just copies the new value over, potentially triggering any update or refresh logic.
Data binding re Redux
An alternative implementation for data binding? Ok, here's a stupid one:
a background thread is started that constantly checks the bound property on an object.
if that thread detects that the value of the property has changed since last check, copy the value over to the bound item.
I am a bit amused that all the answers here were trying to explain the subtle difference between Observer and Pub/Sub patterns without giving any concrete examples. I bet most of the readers still don't know how to implement each one by reading one is synchronous and the other is asynchronous.
One thing to note is: The goal of these patterns is trying to decouple code
The Observer is a design pattern where an object (known as a subject) maintains a list of objects depending on it (observers), automatically notifying them of any changes to state.
Observer pattern
This means an observable object has a list where it keeps all its observers(which are usually functions). and can traverse this list and invoke these functions when it feels a good time.
see this observer pattern example for details.
This pattern is good when you want to listen for any data change on an object and update other UI views correspondingly.
But the Cons are Observables only maintain one array for keeping observers
(in the example, the array is observersList).
It does NOT differentiate how the update is triggered because it only has one notify function, which triggers all the functions stored in that array.
If we want to group observers handlers based on different events. We just need to modify that observersList to an Object like
var events = {
"event1": [handler1, handler2],
"event2": [handler3]
}
see this pubsub example for details.
and people call this variation as pub/sub. So you can trigger different functions based on the events you published.
I agree with your conclusion about both patterns, nevertheless, for me, I use Observable when I'm in the same process and I use the Pub/Sub in inter-process scenarios, where all parties only know the common channel but not the parties.
I don't know other patterns, or let me say this way, I've never needed another patterns for this task. Even most MVC frameworks and data binding implementations use usually internally the observer concept.
If you're interested in inter-process communication, I recommend you:
"Enterprise Integration Patterns: Designing, Building, and Deploying Messaging Solutions" -
https://www.enterpriseintegrationpatterns.com/
This book contains a lot of ideas about how to send messages between processes or classes that can be used even in intra-process communication tasks (it helped me to program in a more loose-coupled way).
I hope this helps!
One concrete difference is that an Observable is always engaged when an observer no longer wants to observe. But a subscriber can stop the subscription and the publisher will never be aware of these intent to unsubscribe
This should be easy to follow, but after some reading I still can find an answer.
So, say that the user needs to change his mobile number, to accomplished that, we might have a command as: ChangedUserMobileNumber
holding the new number. The domain responsible for handling the command will perform the change in the aggregate and publish an event: UserMobilePhoneChanged
There is a subscriber for that event in another domain, which also holds the user mobile number in its aggregate but according to our software architect, events can not old any data so what we end up is rather stupid to say the least:
The Domain 1, receives the command to update the mobile number, the number is updated and one event is published, also, because the event cannot hold data, the command handler in the Domain 1 issues yet another command which is sent to Domain 2. The subscriber of that event lives in Domain 2 too, we then have a Saga to handle both the event and the command.
In terms of implementation we are using NServiceBus, so we have this saga to handle these message and in it we have this line of code, where the entity.IsMobilePhoneUpdated field stored in a saga entity is changed when the event is handeled.
bool isReady = (entity.IsMobilePhoneUpdated && entity.MobilePhoneNumber != null);
Effectively the Saga is started by both the command and the event raised in the Domain 1, and until this condition is met, the saga is kept alive.
If it was up to me, I would be sending the mobile number in the event itself, I just want to get a few other opinions on this.
Thanks
I'm not sure how a UserMobilePhoneChanged event could be useful in any way unless it contained the new phone number. User asks to change a number, the event shoots out that it has. Should be very simple indeed. Why does your architect say that events shouldn't contain any information?
In the first event based system i've designed events also had no data. I also did enforce that rule. At the time that sounded like a clever decision. After a while i realised that it was dumb, and i was making a lot of workarounds because of it. Also this caused a lot of querying form the event subscribers, even for trivial data. I had no problem changing this "rule" after i realised i'm doing it wrong.
Events should have all the data required to make them meaningful. Also they should only have the data that makes sense for that event. ( No point in having the user address in a ChangePhoneNumber message )
If your architect imposes such a restriction, it's not going to be easy to develop a CQRS system. How are the read models updated? Since the events have no data then you either query something to get the data ( the write side ? ) of find some way of sending a command to the read model ( then what's the point of publishing events? ). To fix your problem you should try to have a professional discussion with this architect, preferably including other tech heads and without offending anybody try to get him to relax this constraint.
On argument you could use is Event Sourcing. Event Sourcing is complementary to CQRS and would not make sense without events that have data. Even more when using event sourcing, the only data you have is the data stored in the events. Even if you don't actually implement event sourcing you can use it's existence as a reason for events to have data.
There is little point in finding a technical solution to a people problem.