We have a situation where several of our services are shared across our system. For example one that tracks stock movements. Whenever the stock level of an article changes an event is raised.
The problem we run in to is that while sometimes another service may be interested in ALL stock change events (for example to do some aggregation), in most cases only stock changes that are the result of a specific action are interesting.
The problem we now face is this. Say have an IArticleStockChangedEvent event that contains the article number, the stock change and a ProcessId that requested the change. This event is raised for every change in the article stock.
Now some external service has a saga to change 10 articles and commands the stock service to make it so. It also implements IHandleMessages to keep track of the progress. This works well in theory, but in practise this means that the service containing this saga will be flooded with unrelated IArticleStockChangedEvent message for which it will be unable to find a corresponding saga instance. While not technically breaking anything it causes unnecessary delays in the system.
I'm not really looking forward to creating a new kind of IArticleStockChangedEvent for every saga that can possibly cause a stock change. What is the recommended approach to handle this issue?
Thanks
The knowledge about which IArticleStockChangedEvent events you need to be delivered to your service lives inside your "external" service and changes dynamically, so it's not possible (or is complex and non-scalable) to make a filter in either Stock service or at a transport level (Ex. Service Bus subscription filter).
To make an optimization, namely avoid deserialization of the IArticleStockChangedEvent, you might consider custom Behavior<IIncomingPhysicalMessageContext> where you read the Stock item's Id from message header and lookup db to see if there is any saga for that stock item and if not, short circuit the message processing.
Better solution might be to use Reply and reply with a message from Stock service.
Related
I'm new to Mass Transit and I would like to understand if it can helps with my scenario.
I'm building a sample application implemented with a CQRS event sourcing architecture and I need a service bus in order to dispatch the events created by the command stack to the query stack denormalizers.
Let's suppose of having a single aggregate in our domain, let's call it Photo, and two different domain events: PhotoUploaded and PhotoArchived.
Given this scenario, we have two different message types and the default Mass Transit behaviour is creating two different RabbitMq exchanges: one for the PhotoUploaded message type and the other for the PhotoArchived message type.
Let's suppose of having a single denormalizer called PhotoDenormalizer: this service will be a consumer of both message types, because the photo read model must be updated whenever a photo is uploaded or archived.
Given the default Mass Transit topology, there will be two different exchanges so the message processing order cannot be guaranteed between events of different types: the only guarantee that we have is that all the events of the same type will be processed in order, but we cannot guarantee the processing order between events of different type (notice that, given the events semantic of my example, the processing order matters).
How can I handle such a scenario ? Is Mass Transit suitable with my needs ? Am I completely missing the point with domain events dispatching ?
Disclaimer: this is not an answer to your question, but rather a preventive message why you should not do what you are planning to do.
Whilst message brokers like RMQ and messaging middleware libraries like MassTransit are perfect for integration, I strongly advise against using message brokers for event-sourcing. I can refer to my old answer Event-sourcing: when (and not) should I use Message Queue? that explains the reasons behind it.
One of the reasons you have found yourself - event order will never be guaranteed.
Another obvious reason is that building read models from events that are published via a message broker effectively removes the possibility for replay and to build new read models that would need to start processing events from the beginning of time, but all they get are events that are being published now.
Aggregates form transactional boundaries, so every command needs to guarantee that it completes within one transaction. Whilst MT supports the transaction middleware, it only guarantees that you get a transaction for dependencies that support them, but not for context.Publish(#event) in the consumer body, since RMQ doesn't support transactions. You get a good chance of committing changes and not getting events on the read side. So, the rule of thumb for event stores that you should be able to subscribe to the stream of changes from the store, and not publish events from your code, unless those are integration events and not domain events.
For event-sourcing, it is crucial that each read-model keeps its own checkpoint in the stream of events it is projecting. Message brokers don't give you that kind of power since the "checkpoint" is actually your queue and as soon as the message is gone from the queue - it is gone forever, there's no coming back.
Concerning the actual question:
You can use the message topology configuration to set the same entity name for different messages and then they'll be published to the same exchange, but that falls to the "abuse" category like Chris wrote on that page. I haven't tried that but you definitely can experiment. Message CLR type is part of the metadata, so there shouldn't be deserialization issues.
But again, putting messages in the same exchange won't give you any ordering guarantees, except the fact that all messages will land in one queue for the consuming service.
You will have to at least set the partitioning filter based on your aggregate id, to prevent multiple messages for the same aggregate from being processed in parallel. That, by the way, is also useful for integration. That's how we do it:
void AddHandler<T>(Func<ConsumeContext<T>, string> partition) where T : class
=> ep.Handler<T>(
c => appService.Handle(c, aggregateStore),
hc => hc.UsePartitioner(8, partition));
AddHandler<InternalCommands.V1.Whatever>(c => c.Message.StreamGuid);
I'm struggling to understand how to implement Eventual Consistency with the exposed example of BacklogItems and Tasks from Vaughn Vernon. The statement I've understood so far is (considering the case where he splits BacklogItem and Task into separate aggregate roots):
A BacklogItem can contain one or more tasks. When all remaining hours from a the tasks of a BacklogItem are 0, the status of the BacklogItem should change to "DONE"
I'm aware about the rule that says that you should not update two aggregate roots in the same transaction, and that you should accomplish that with eventual consistency.
Once a Domain Service updates the amount of hours of a Task, a TaskRemainingHoursUpdated event should be published to a DomainEventPublisher which lives in the same thread as the executing code. And here it is where I'm at a loss with the following questions:
I suppose that there should be a subscriber (also living in the same thread I guess) that should react to TaskRemainingHoursUpdated events. At which point in your Desktop/Web application you perform this subscription to the Bus? At the very initialization of your app? In the application code? Is there any reasoning to place domain subscriptors in a specific place?
Should that subscriptor (in the same thread) call a BacklogItem repository and perform the update? (But that would be a violation of the rule of not updating two aggregates in the same transaction since this would happen synchronously, right?).
If you want to achieve eventual consistency to fulfil the previously mentioned rule, do I really need a Message Broker like RabbitMQ even though both BacklogItem and Task live inside the same Bounded Context?
If I use this message broker, should I have a background thread or something that just consumes events from a RabbitMQ queue and then dispatches the event to update the product?
I'd appreciate if someone can shed some clear light over this since it is quite complex to picture in its completeness.
So to start with, you need to recognize that, if the BacklogItem is the authority for whether or not it is "Done", then it needs to have all of the information to compute that for itself.
So somewhere within the BacklogItem is data that is tracking which Tasks it knows about, and the known state of those tasks. In other words, the BacklogItem has a stale copy of information about the task.
That's the "eventually consistent" bit; we're trying to arrange the system so that the cached copy of the data in the BacklogItem boundary includes the new changes to the task state.
That in turn means we need to send a command to the BacklogItem advising it of the changes to the task.
From the point of view of the backlog item, we don't really care where the command comes from. We could, for example, make it a manual process "After you complete the task, click this button here to inform the backlog item".
But for the sanity of our users, we're more likely to arrange an event handler to be running: when you see the output from the task, forward it to the corresponding backlog item.
At which point in your Desktop/Web application you perform this subscription to the Bus? At the very initialization of your app?
That seems pretty reasonable.
Should that subscriptor (in the same thread) call a BacklogItem repository and perform the update? (But that would be a violation of the rule of not updating two aggregates in the same transaction since this would happen synchronously, right?).
Same thread and same transaction are not necessarily coincident. It can all be coordinated in the same thread; but it probably makes more sense to let the consequences happen in the background. At their core, events and commands are just messages - write the message, put it into an inbox, and let the next thread worry about processing.
If you want to achieve eventual consistency to fulfil the previously mentioned rule, do I really need a Message Broker like RabbitMQ even though both BacklogItem and Task live inside the same Bounded Context?
No; the mechanics of the plumbing matter not at all.
We are currently starting to broadcast events from one central applications to other possibly interested consumer applications, and we have different options among members of our team about how much we should put in our published messages.
The general idea/architecture is the following :
In the producer application :
the user interacts with some entities (Aggregate Roots in the DDD sense) that can be created/modified/deleted
Based on what is happening, Domain Events are raised (ex : EntityXCreated, EntityYDeleted, EntityZTransferred etc ... i.e. not only CRUD, but mostly )
Raised events are translated/converted into messages that we send to a RabbitMQ Exchange
in RabbitMQ (we are using RabbitMQ but I believe the question is actually technology-independent):
we define a queue for each consuming application
bindings connect the exchange to the consumer queues (possibly with message filtering)
In the consuming application(s)
application consumes and process messages from its queue
Based on Enterprise Integration Patterns we are trying to define the Canonical format for our published messages, and are hesitating between 2 approaches :
Minimalist messages / event-store-ish : for each event published by the Domain Model, generate a message that contains only the parts of the Aggregate Root that are relevant (for instance, when an update is done, only publish information about the updated section of the aggregate root, more or less matching the process the end-user goes through when using our application)
Pros
small message size
very specialized message types
close to the "Domain Events"
Cons
problematic if delivery order is not guaranteed (i.e. what if Update message is received before Create message ? )
consumers need to know which message types to subscribe to (possibly a big list / domain knowledge is needed)
what if consumer state and producer state get out of sync ?
how to handle new consumer that registers in the future, but does not have knowledge of all the past events
Fully-contained idempotent-ish messages : for each event published by the Domain Model, generate a message that contains a full snapshot of the Aggregate Root at that point in time, hence handling in reality only 2 kind of messages "Create or Update" and "Delete" (+metadata with more specific info if necessary)
Pros
idempotent (declarative messages stating "this is what the truth is like, synchronize yourself however you can")
lower number of message formats to maintain/handle
allow to progressively correct synchronization errors of consumers
consumer automagically handle new Domain Events as long as the resulting message follows canonical data model
Cons
bigger message payload
less pure
Would you recommend an approach over the other ?
Is there another approach we should consider ?
Is there another approach we should consider ?
You might also consider not leaking information out of the service acting as the technical authority for that part of the business
Which roughly means that your events carry identifiers, so that interested parties can know that an entity of interest has changed, and can query the authority for updates to the state.
for each event published by the Domain Model, generate a message that contains a full snapshot of the Aggregate Root at that point in time
This also has the additional Con that any change to the representation of the aggregate also implies a change to the message schema, which is part of the API. So internal changes to aggregates start rippling out across your service boundaries. If the aggregates you are implementing represent a competitive advantage to your business, you are likely to want to be able to adapt quickly; the ripples add friction that will slow your ability to change.
what if consumer state and producer state get out of sync ?
As best I can tell, this problem indicates a design error. If a consumer needs state, which is to say a view built from the history of an aggregate, then it should be fetching that view from the producer, rather than trying to assemble it from a collection of observed messages.
That is to say, if you need state, you need history (complete, ordered). All a single event really tells you is that the history has changed, and you can evict your previously cached history.
Again, responsiveness to change: if you change the implementation of the producer, and consumers are also trying to cobble together their own copy of the history, then your changes are rippling across the service boundaries.
I wish to use Redis to create a system which publishes stock quote data to subscribers in an internal network. The problem is that publishing is not enough, as I need to find a way to implement an atomic "get snapshot and then subscribe" mechanism. I'm pretty new to Redis so I'm not sure my solution is the "proper way".
In a given moment each stock has a book of orders which contains at most 10 bids and 10 asks. The publisher receives data for the exchange and should publish them to subscribers.
While the publishing of changes in the order book can be easily done using publish and subscribe, each subscriber that connects also needs to get the snapshot of the current order book of the stock and only then subscribe to changes in the order book.
As I understand, Redis channel never saves information, so the publisher also needs to maintain the complete order book in a hash key (Or a sorted set. I'm not sure which is more appropriate) in addition to publishing changes.
I also understand that a Redis client cannot issue any commands except subscribing and unsubscribing once it subscribes to the first channel.
So, once the subscriber application is up, it needs first to get the key which contains the complete order book and then subscribe to changes in that book. However, this may result in a race condition. A change in the book order can be made after the client got the key containing the current snapshot but before it actually subscribed to changes, resulting a change which it will never see.
As it is not possible to use subscribe and then use get in a single connection, the client application needs two connections to the Redis server. At this point I started thinking that I'm probably not doing things in the proper way if I need more than one connection in the same application. Anyway, my idea is that the client will have a subscribing connection and a query connection. First, it will use the subscribing connection to subscribe to changes in order book, but still won't not enter the loop which process events. Afterwards, it will use the query connection to get the complete snapshot of the book. Finally, it will enter the loop which process events, but as he actually subscribed before taking the snapshot, it is guaranteed that it will not miss any changed that occurred after the snapshot was taken.
Is there any better way to accomplish my goal?
I hope you found your way already, if not here we goes a personal suggestion:
If you are in javascript land i would recommend having a look on Meteor.js they do somehow achieve the goal you want to achieve, with the default setup you will end up writing to mongodb in order to "update" the GUI for the "end user".
In any case, you might be interested in reading about how meteor's ddp protocol works: https://meteorhacks.com/introduction-to-ddp/ and https://www.meteor.com/ddp
We are using NServicebus to design a system that has to solve an auction scenario: we want to send out a message to a set of companies that can bid on an item. After we've received all the bids we want to send the item to the highest bidder.
We initially thought this kind of scenario was perfectly suited for NServicebus: Pub/sub for sending out a message (e.g. BidOnItem or ItemAvailable), message handlers that subscribe to that message for each interested company and a saga for storing the different bids we receive and we're done.
In a normal auction we could set a timeout at say 5 minutes and then decide who gets the item based on the highest price we've received. We don't have that luxury. The problem that we've run in to is that our specific scenario has a tricky, non-negotiable business requirement: the auction is very time-sensitive. Seconds matter. What we'd like to do is decide who gets the item as soon as all companies have responded. Usually this will happen in a matter of seconds. We want to decide the second all subscribers have responded. Obviously we'll also still implement a timeout but that will be the exception rather than the rule. If we want to determine if everyone has replied we'd need something like a list of all the handlers at all the endpoints that are subscribed to the BidOnItem message. It appears the NServicebus API doesn't provide this information.
There are some future requirements we have to implement as well centered around data enrichment and approval/rejection decisions that would benefit greatly from knowing whether all handlers on a pub/sub channel have responded. I know this reeks of request/reply which is something NServicebus discourages because of the coupling it causes but this requirement feels like something that's fundamental for a lot of processes that is very hard to implement outside of the core bus infrastructure. In that sense it feels a lot like Saga.ReplyToOriginator which NServicebus does provide.
What would be the "NServicebus Way" to solve this problem?
Pub/Sub is usually not the way to go in these auction scenarios. What if your saga would do reguest/response with your bidders?
S: OnAuctionCreated (carries the list of bidders, or you could fetch them somewhere)
foreach bidder in event.Bidders
-bus.Send(RequestBidFrom(bidder))
SetTimeout(X)
S: OnBidResponse
bids.Add(response.Bidder,response.Bid)
if(bids.Count()== Data.TotalBidders)
CompleteAuction();
S:OnTimeout
CompleteAuction()