I have a requirement to connect Mule ESB with Hybris. I didnt find Hybris connector provided by Mule( Also didnt find sample examples as well). This is the 1st time going to try Mule with Hybris..Please let me know the steps or efficient procedural way to connect Hybris.
Is the hybris URL enough to connect?. Please suggest me with your thoughts to implement. Thanks in advance.
Hybris has many ways to integrate with their platform. If you have a login you can access their docs which details examples of integration with the platform including JMS and the Platform Web Services.
There is no connector supplied by Mule, but you can access their Platform Web Services which are implemented with a HTTP Restful API using the Mule http transport or by building your own connector using the Mule DevKit.
The hybris wiki has pages dedicated to most of the endpoints and the request/response formats. You can view this here if you have a login: https://wiki.hybris.com/display/release5/WebService+API+-+Reference
Also, in your hybris installation there are a bunch of examples in /bin/ext-platform-optional/platformwebservices/src...
and /bin/ext-platform-optional/platformwebservices/testsrc which show the actual web service implementations and their test cases using Jersey client.
Related
Im a beginner in developing CorDapps, so far I have successfully written flows and such, I am currently learning how to code APIs for Corda, and I'm not sure if I could test Corda APIs in postman like regular APIs, any info would be greatly appreciated.
The Corda Webserver that you're referring to is simply a Jetty server that connects to the Corda node using the CordaRPCClient library, then provides an HTTP API that allows the webserver to map HTTP requests from users to RPC operations on the node. You can test this API in the same way as a regular server (e.g. by using Postman).
Please note that the Corda Webserver is deprecated as of Corda 3 and you are expected to create your own Java webserver mapping HTTP requests to RPC operations instead. See the Spring Webserver sample here for an example.
enter image description here
Do they each have a specific purpose? Is one better suited than the other for a particular task?
They are two different distributions and serve different purposes.
API Gateway- It has specific features to communicate to Anypoint Platform to manage APIs, apply runtime policies, send analytics, track APIs.
Task- For deploying your proxy API Application
Mule Server- Mule server is the runtime you use for your integrations.
Task- For deploying your actual implementation API Application
Since Mule runtime version v3.8.0, both are one and the same. This means that since that version, the runtime is shipped with API Gateway capabilities, and there is no more API Gateway specific distributions released. To enable API Gateway capabilities, if you have the correct entitlement, you only need to specify your organization credentials or environment credentials (this last, it is only applicable to Mule 4 or newer).
API Gateway capabilities are the only ones who "know" how to apply/un-apply Anypoint Policies and generate Analytics info, among other things.
For runtimes released before v3.8.0, the only way to leverage those capabilities was to use API Gateway distribution. For example, API Gateway v2.x is based on Mule runtime v3.7.x.
I have a query on a design hope you guys can clarify my doubt.
I have a specific requirement in which Mule is used just to expose the back end services in API gateway, backend services are written in Spring boot and other technology, all these services needs to be exposed in API gateway.
Is this a good practice to do that and if yes how can we do that?
I saw that in API manager we can create proxy layer on top of the services developed in Mule but is it possible to create proxies for the services developed in different technologies?
Absolutely ... For creating proxy service, it doesn't matter what type of technology does the backend service have.
It can create a proxy layer for any kind of backend service available either locally, in cloud or other remote location till the service url is accessible.
This proxy will create an additional layer hiding the actual url to the external world.
it doesn't matter what technology you are using for development as long as those are REST services and accessible to the cloudhub application. You can deploy those on-premise and can integrate your local runtime with cloudhub. Also, mule supports spring projects and you can directly configure your spring project/details inside mule.
I am experimenting with Mule API management these days. What I come to know is we can deploy our API to one of these:
A Mule Runtime
An API Gateway
In the documentation, it is said that we should go with option 1 when we want to separate out the implementation of your API from the orchestration. What does it mean?
Can any one please explain in detail?
Policy management from API Platform and analytics generation can be achieved only by using a correctly configured API Gateway, which is a superset of Mule EE (current version is API Gateway 2.1.0 which contains Mule EE 3.7.2).
Depending on your architecture you may have different solutions.
For example:
Proxy running on API Gateway, implementation API running somewhere
else (eg. Mule EE/CE, Tomcat, cobol server, etc)
Proxy and implementation API running on the same API Gateway
Implementation API
managed directly from API Platform without using the autogenerated
proxies.
HTH :-)
Not exactly sure what they mean there, because on this page: https://developer.mulesoft.com/docs/display/current/API+Gateway they also mention this:
Note that the API Gateway, because it acts as an orchestration layer
for services and APIs implemented elsewhere, is technology-agnostic.
You can proxy non-Mule services or APIs of any kind, as long as they
expose HTTP/HTTPS, VM, Jetty, or APIkit Router endpoints. You can also
proxy APIs that you design and build with API Designer and APIkit to
the API Gateway to separate the orchestration from the implementation
of those APIs.
So both methods technically allow you to separate API from orchestration, as your API gateway application could simply proxy another Mule application elsewhere that performs the orchestration. But my understanding of the two options are:
The API gateway is a limited offering that allows you to use a subset of Mule's connectors, transports and modules such as ApiKit and HTTP, it allows you to expose and API then use http to connect to whatever backend systems you want as a proxy and perform the orchestration in the API layer.
By using the Mule runtime operation, it gives you much more flexibility and allows you to compose as many applications as you want using the full range of connectors etc. and separate out the different aspects of your applications into as many layers as you want as separately deployable entities that you can deploy to on-premise standalone instances or Cloudhub etc.
#Ryan answer is more or less on the mark, however if you do choose the Mule ESB offering you will loose out on the API Management and governance functionality that API gateway provides OOTB.
These include
Lets you enforce runtime policies and collect data for analytics
Applies policies to APIs or endpoints around security, throttling,
rate limiting, and more
Extends PingFederate to serve as identity management and OAuth
provider for your APIs
Lets you require or restrict certain behaviors in a few simple steps
Lets you add or remove policies at runtime with no API downtime
Manages access to your API by issuing contract keys
Monitors the API to confirm it is meeting all contract terms
Ensures compliance with service level agreements (SLAs)
In my opinion go with API Gateway/Manager if your API will be consumed my third party developers with whom you might not have too many interactions (think public API's) else Mule ESB should be good.
You should be able to migrate from Mule ESB to API Manager (and vice versa) also easily if you need to, so I do not think you will get locked into your decision
PS: Content copied from here
I would like to know if deploying APIs designed using RAML and API-kit in the studio on Mule Enterprise Server for ESB ver. 3.6 is a good idea?
Our organization is interested in using Mule ESB 3.6 for integrations and we thought of recommending using RAML and API-kit for REST API design and development. We are not interested in any Gateway features but would like to leverage RAML for API definition.
Has anyone experienced any issues if we go for a Mule ESB 3.6 Enterprise and deploy these REST APIs designed using API-Kit and RAML there? Is this design approach specifically meant for the API Gateway which is part of the Mule Any-point API Product offering?
API Gateway (AGW) is a superset of Mule EE. RAML and APIKit are not tightly coupled to API Gateway or Mule ESB but can work in either of them. In the case of AGW, APIKit comes bundled with it, while with Mule ESB you have to provide the jar yourself or develop your APIKit project on Mule Studio (using the APIKit Mule Studio plugin) and export the project from Mule Studio when ready.
The advantage of using AGW is that you can develop your APIKit project as usual, and then be able to apply-unapply high end policies to it at runtime (OAuth security, XML Threat protection, IP Blacklisting, etc, etc).
I have used this REST API using RAML for my client. They didn't face any issues and it's working perfectly. And it's easy to implement.
I see no problem in doing what you are suggesting. Gateway and such are services build on top of Mule and RAML technologies -- if you choose not to use them you'll just lose the features they offer but again RAML, Mule, and APIkit work just fine on their own!
In latest version of mule brought many features like api auto discovery and there is no separate gateway and runtime they have been combined together as a single component.
Api auto discovery allows us to apply policies on top of original implementation api.
you can create proxy for the original implementation and policies can be applied on the proxy layer which is in gateway.