For my deployment I have a number of 3rd party systems that can only send HTTP POST requests with metrics (I need in the queue) and they cannot be re-configured. My goal is to have specific endpoints (or vhosts) that when POST'd to will automatically route to the correct queue, without needing the necessary routing key and other standard rabbitmq JSON data. As this modification is not possible in the 3rd party systems.
I can't find any way to do this natively as of now, but I believe it may be possible to configure a HTTP reverse proxy in the front, whereby any data sent to the specific endpoint, will be re-directed to the correct rabbitMQ HTTP endpoint, where I could then bolt in the nessary JSON data so it can be parsed by rabbitmq and placed in the realvent queue. I wanted to check if this is the only logical solution to this, or am I missing something obvious that can be done within rabbitmq's administration page or via config files.
Related
I have started to develop an ecommerce application using a microservices architecture. Every microservice will have a separate database. For now, I know I want to use a Node.js microservice to handle products and also serve as a search engine for them. I plan on having a Ruby on Rails server-microservice that should handle all the requests and then if the request is not meant to be processed by it, (e.g. the request is to add a new product) to send this information somehow using RabbitMQ to the Node.js microservice, and let it perform the action. Is this an acceptable architectural design or I'm completely off route?
Ruby on Rails server-microservice that should handle all the requests (You can do better)
A. For this, what you need is an Reverse Proxy.
A reverse proxy is able to forward each incoming request to the microservice that's responsible for processing it.
It can also act as a Load Balancer : it'll distribute the incoming requests accross many services (if, for instance, you want to deploy multiple instances of the same service)
...
B. You will also need an API Gateway for managing Authentication & Authorization, and handling Security, Traceability, Logging, ... of the requests.
For (A) & (B), you can you use either Nginx or Kong
Use RabbitMQ in case you want to establish Event-based and/or Asynchronous communication among your microservices. Here's a simple example : Everytime a user confirms an Order, OrderService informs ProductService to update the quantity of the product that's been ordered.
The advantage of using RabbitMQ here is that OrderService won't stay on a blocking state while waiting for ProductService to let him know whether he received the info or not, or he updated the quantity or not ... he'll move on and handle the other incoming requests.
We are making a cloud native enterprise business application on dotnet core mvc platform. The dotnet core default api gateway between frontend application and backend microservices is Ocelot used in Async mode.
We have been suggested to use RabbitMQ message broker instead of Ocelot. The reasoning given for this shift is asynchronous request - response exchange between frontend and microservices. Here, we would like to declare that our application would have few hundred cshtml pages spanning over several frontend modules. We are expecting over thousand users concurrently using the application.
Our concern is that, is it the right suggestion or not. Our development team feels that we should continue using Ocelot api gateway for general request - response exchange between frontend and microservices and use RabbitMQ only for events which are going to trigger backgroup processing and respond after a delay when the job gets completed.
In case you guys feel that yes we can replace Ocelot, then our further concerns about reliable session based request and response. We should not have to programmaticaly corelate response to session requests. Here it may please be noted that with RabbitMQ we are testing with dotnet core MassTransit library. The Ocelot API Gateway is designed to handle session based request-response commnunication.
In RabbitMQ should we make reply queue for each request or should the client maintain a single reply queue for all requests. Should the reply queue be exclusive or durable.
Can single reply queue per client be able to serve to all request or will it be correct to make multiple receive endpoint based on application modules/cshtml pages to serve all our concurrent users with efficient way.
Thanking you all, we eagerly wait for your replies.
I recommend to implement RabbitMQ. You might need to change ocelot to rabbit mq.
I thought using RPC is bad practice but all the resources I am finding point to using RPC in order to get a response from a queue after publishing a request. Are there any other ways of doing it? Is it the best practice?
Thanks
MassTransit has built-in support for producing requests (which can be published, or sent directly to a specific endpoint). The request client can be created manually or added to a dependency injection container, and one or more response types can be handled.
MassTransit uses the bus endpoint to receive responses by default.
To register the request client in the container, the AddRequestClient method is used as shown below.
services.AddMassTransit(x =>
{
// configure transport/host/etc.
x.AddRequestClient<CheckOrderStatus>();
});
RPC is a common pattern, and producing requests when a response is required, it a regularly used approach. Another option is combining a command with an event, and observing the event separate from the request producer. However, if a linear programmatic flow is required, using RPC via the request client is an easy solution.
i am taking a course in web data so i understand that when we want to retrive a webpage on a browser we do a request response cycle using a communication protocol like http or https and a web service is a piece of software which i dont know where it is stored or how it is accessed so we can make two applications from different architectures communicate using a serialization language like XML or JSON i dont know what is the difference between a web service and http they are both a way to connect 2 different computers together and what confused me the more is api which according to the research i did is something used to access web services.
Let's begin with defining all the terms in your question since it's a bit all over the place.
HTTP (Hypertext-Transport Protocol): Allows you to transfer data over the web. Your browser will perform a request using HTTP to your web service.
Service: Any software that performs a specific task. We are interested in a web service, which is typically invoked via HTTP, however this can be anything else such as a Linux signal.
For now, let's assume it listens on HTTP.
API (Application Programming Interface): An interface by which all clients of your software have to abide by to use it. For example, in our web service, we can dictate an API so requests follow some convention.
Let's put it all together now.
You're making a website that wants to calculate the sum of two numbers. First, users will go to http://yoursite.com, and then the browser will always do an HTTP request to the domain yoursite.com on port 80. This will hit either your hosting site or some backend server.
Here you have the option if you're using something like GitHub pages to serve static content or you have some server (i.e., serverd) that will load a file and serve it.
So now the web-browser did an HTTP request and your webpage should load with an index.html. The user can now click on buttons, and everything looks good until they press Calculate -- what happens now?
We want to offload the computation to our backend. We perform an HTTP request to our backend server. We can define an API, that is in our case an endpoint, so that the HTTP request can hit it and it'll return the sum of the two numbers.
How do we return the result? We need to represent the data somehow, and this can be done through a body payload that is encoded as either JSON or XML. Again, this is a serialization format and can encode it in various different ways. JSON is nice because you can parse it easily with JavaScript on the client side.
Great -- so now we got an entire site and it works! Now we can do an HTTP request from our browser straight to the backend according to our setup endpoint and it should fulfill our request. Notice how now we're using the API from the backend server from within our site.
Other keywords you can may run into: CORS, AJAX, Apache Server; good luck!
I'm building a WCF router which needs to act as a proxy for a number of internal web services (WCF and ASMX). The routing part is fairly straight-forward, but I can't understand how the service metadata exchange would work in this solution.
In other words: how would a client obtain metadata for an internal service behind the router? Do I need to manually supply WSDL files to the consumer? Can I somehow setup the router to return the metadata for an appropriate internal service?
Or perhaps my architecture is completely wrong?
I see 2 options here:
It may be an option to create a "non-transparent" proxy, if you don't want to expose the internal addresses. The advantage is that you can do more than just routing messages (i.e. such proxy may serve as a "security boundary", unwrapping ciphered messages and passing them plain to the internal endpoint). It can also provide an "interoperable level", exposing a WCF service as simple SOAP using same datatypes/message XML structure. The downside is that you'll have to update its code along with the proxied services
You may implement a WSDL rewriter. With it, you can mask the internal service URL on-the-fly - depending on your conditions, a simple string replace may or may not suffice.
Refer to:
Message Inspectors
IWsdlExportExtension
The same "router service" can also be used to get the individual WSDL for internal services behind the router.
Check out this thread
Have you considered using a simple HTTP Proxy instead? All WCF using REST or SOAP are at their core HTTP requests. It seems like the routing functionality (which I am assuming you are basing on hostname, URL path or parameters) could be performed by proxying the HTTP request without needing to understand the contents. ASP.Net will do a fairly good job of sanitizing incoming requests on its own, but you could always add additional custom filtering as necessary.