I'm working on a 4-player network game in WPF and learning WCF in the process. So far, to handle the network communication, I've followed the advice from the YeahTrivia game on Coding4Fun game: I use a dualHttpBinding, and have use a CallbackContract interface to send back messages to clients. It works pretty well.
However, my service is getting very large. It has methods/callbacks to handle the game itself, but also the chat system, the login/registration process, the matchmaking, the roster/player info, etc. Both the server and client are becoming hard to maintain because everything is tied into a single interface. On the client for example, I have to redirect the callbacks to either the game page, the lobby page, etc, and I find that very tedious. I'd prefer being able to handle the game callbacks on the game page, the chat callbacks on the chat window, etc.
So what's the best way to handle that? I've thought of many things, but not sure which is best: splitting the service into multiple ones, having multiple "endpoints" on my service, or is there other tricks to implement a service partially where appropriate?
Thanks
You should have multiple components, each of which should be limited to one responsibility - not necessarily one method, but handling the state for one of the objects you're dealing with. When you have everything all in one service then your service is incredibly coupled to itself. Optimally, each component should be as independent as possible.
I'd say start with splitting it up where it makes sense and things should be MUCH more manageable.
I would support Terry's response - you should definitely split up your big interface into several smaller ones.
Also, you could possibly isolate certain operations like the registration and/or login process into simpler services - not knowing anything about your game, I think this could well be a simple non-duplex service that e.g. provides a valid "player token" as its output which can then be used by the other services to authenticate the players.
Multiple smaller, leaner interfaces also give you the option to potentially create separate, dedicated front-ends (e.g. in Silverlight or something) that would target / handle just certain parts of the whole system.
Marc
Related
I have a two project linked with each other, Project A and Project B in same VS solutions.
Now the requirement is, I have to do seperate projects, it means seperate DB, web site name, servers etc.
Now I want to know how I will communicate both the project each other using web API?
Before starting separate I would suggest reading about DDD (Domain Driven Design) to make the rights choices about what functionality and classes could be in one microservice or the other.
Anyway, once you have separated the two services properly, so the communication between them would be minimum, there are mainly two ways to communicate with each other.
One is using synchronous communication using HTTP calls using some HTTP client for your language, for example, in java-spring applications is very common to use Webclient. The pros of this approach is that you don't have to deal with eventual consistency because all happens in the same thread, the main con is that you are coupling the services and if one of them fails the other will fail too.
The second approach is to use asynchronous messaging using some message broker like kafka. With this approach when something happen in one of the service, it will publish the event in the message broker and it will be consumed by the other. Ther is no direct communication so there can't be cascade failures but the problem is that you don't know when exactly the message will be consumed (eventual consistency)
As you see both options have pros and cons and it depends on your use case to choose one or the other
I am implementing a micro-service architecture for the first time.
Some of my services (.NET Core Web APIs) need to communicate with each other through HTTP requests. For that purpose, I am injecting a wrapper around HttpClient.
But I suspect that I am reinventing the wheel. Among micro-service practitioners, is there a pattern or even a third-party library to solve this problem?
In a micro-service architecture, the most important thing is a clear separation of concerns and application boundaries. Imagine a simple setup, with Product and Price micro services
An important concept is each service is master of data, and owns its own database. In this example,
a client of the 'Product' service will make an HTTP call to the Product API.
the product API will make a call to the Price API to get prices for the products
the product API therefore depends on the Price API to create a response
These are the synchronous parts of the process, generally achieved through HTTP calls across boundaries. You'll also have asynchronous parts of your solution, in this example,
the Price API publishes an event to a bus whenever a price is changed
the product API publishes an event whenever a product is created
There may be one or more subscribers to these events, that will respond and probably call an API to retrieve the changed data.
The critical parts of this are clearly defining your API and message contracts, understanding if things will be async or sync, having the right level of telemetry across the entire architecture to track and understand distributed system behaviour, and keeping everything as independently buildable/testable/deployable components.
First and foremost, if you're not using containers, start, along with orchestration (both natively supported in Visual Studio, assuming you have Docker, etc. actually installed). Among the many benefits, you can reference your services via hostname without having to worry about ports and different locations for different environments.
As far as actual communication goes. There's not really a magic solution here. HttpClient is what you use, of course, and generally, yes, you want to have a wrapper around that to abstract away the low-level HTTP communication stuff, so the rest of your code can simply call simple methods on that wrapper.
If you aren't using IHttpClientFactory, start. If you already have a wrapper class, you're halfway there, and with that, not only do you get efficient management of HttpMessageHandlers so you don't exhaust your server's connection pool, but you can also use the Polly integration to handle transient HTTP errors and even do retry policies, circuit breakers, etc. for your microservice connections.
Finally, there is the Refit library which can make things a tad more straight-forward. I find it to have more use with huge third-party APIs like Facebook, Google, etc., though. Since microservices should by design be simple, you're probably not saving much code over just having your own wrapper class. Regardless, the way it works is that you define an interface that represents the API, and then Refit uses that to actually make appropriate requests. It's kind of like a wrapper class for free, but you still need to create the interface.
Perhaps I'm going about this the wrong way, but here's my current "setup".
I have a silverlight client that uses Caliburn.Micro and a MEF container with a "LoadCatalog" class, to keep everything loosely coupled in an MVVM way.
I have a "common" dll where all the interfaces are kept.
All my views and viewmodels are separate projects, that only have a reference to the common dll.
The viewmodels use WCF (regular) to communicate to the backend. The frontend itself has a duplex connection to the backend.
Now here's where the question comes to mind. Whenever the backend thinks it's time to have a new screen appear at the frontend, it uses the callback channel to tell the frontend to load the next screen.
Does this seem like a good pattern to use? Or should I leave the management of what screen to load when to the frontend? I think it's nice to have this in the backend, but perhaps this is some kind of anti-pattern I'm not aware of, hence the question.
Now for argument sake, lets say I want to keep this in the backend.
What would be the best way to go about managing the collection of callback channels on the backend? If I enable SessionMode.Required on all the regular WCF endpoints, as well as the duplex channel, does this persist state together over multiple endpoints (regular+duplex)? Or will this persist state only within a single endpoint?
My guess (from the tests I have been able to do so far) is that I need to add some logic, like for example provide the frontend with a guid as soon as the callback connection is made. And then use that guid in the regular endpoint connections so the backend knows which "client" it is.
And would I "ever" be able to reliably collect all the channels and detect current state if I made a collection of the callback channels that I receive? I can intercept the callback channel now (just 1 instance atm, no collections made or anything, so single user) and use that to tell the frontend what to do. But sometimes when the client stops abrubtly (in other words when an error occurs) and I start the client again, it seems like the previous (faulted?) connection is still "re-used" or something, without luck so the communication flow stops after connection the duplex endpoint.
Does this make any sense?
Hope there's someone who has some experience in the matter that can shed some light on it for me. I'm no total newbie, but with regards to multiple connection and keeping them separated, I might need some pointers in the right direction.
Thanks!
Huron.
I managed to get this up and running.
When I create the duplex connection from the frontend to the backend I return a unique Guid. From now on I use this guid for all communication I do with the backend.
This makes the backend "recognize" the client.
In the backend I have a list of connections (grabbed the callback channel and stored it together with the Guid).
Just had to make sure to lock the list object whenever I iterate it or when I add/remove items from it, since it will be used from multiple threads by design.
The pattern to take control from the backend seems to work great so far.
To make an OO system as decoupled as possible, I'm thinking of the following approach:
1) we run an RMI/directory like service where objects can register and discover each other. They talk to this service through an interface
2) we run a messaging service to which objects can publish messages, and register subscription callbacks. Again, this happens through interfaces
3) when object A wants to invoke a method on object B, it discovers the target object's unique identity through #1 above, and publishes a message on the message service for object B
4) message services invokes B's callback to give it the message
5) B processes the request and sends the response for A on message service
6) A's callback is called and it gets the response.
I feel this system is as decoupled as practically possible, but it has the following problems:
1) communication is typically asynchronous
2) hence it's non real time
3) the system as a whole is less efficient.
Are there any other practical problems where this design obviously won't be applicable ? What are your thoughts on this design in general ?
Books
Enterprise Integration Patterns
It appears he's talking about using a Message Oriented Middleware
Here are some things to consider
Security
What will prevent another rogue service from registering as a key component in your system. You will need way to validate and verify that services are who they say they are. This can be done through a PKI system. There are scenarios that you might not need to do this, if your system is hosted entirely on your intranet. IF that is the case Social Engineering and Rogue Employees will be your biggest threat.
Contract
What kind of contract will your clients have with the services? Will messages all be serialized as XML and sent as a TextMessage? If you use a pure byte message you'll have to be careful about byte order if your services are to run on multiple platforms.
Synchronization
Most developers are not able to comprehend and utilize asynchronous messages correctly. Where possible it might be in the best interest of your design to create a way to invoke "synchronous" messages. I've done this in the past by creating a sendMessageAndWait() method with a timeout and a return object. Within the method you can create a temporary topic id to receive the response, register a listener for it, then use locks to wait for a message to be returned on your temporary topic.
Unsolicited Messages
What happens if you want to allow your service(s) to send unsolicited messages to your clients? A critical event happened in Service A and it must notify your clients or possibly a Watch Dog service. Allow for your design to register for a common communication channel for services to communicate with clients without clients initiating the conversation.
Failover
What happens if a critical service processing your credit cards goes down? You'll need to implement a Failover and Watch Dog service to ensure that your key infrastructure is always up and running. You could register a list of services within your registry then your register could give out the primary service, falling back to a secondary service if your primary stops communicating. Or if your Message Oriented Middleware can handle Round Robin messaging you might be able to register all the services on the same topic. Think about creating a way to know when a service has died. Since most messages are Asynchronous it will be difficult to determine when a service has gone offline. This can be done with a Heartbeat and Watch Dog.
I've created this type of system a few times in my past for large systems that needed to communicate. If you and other developers understand the pros and cons of such a system it can be very powerful and flexible.
The biggest piece of advice I can give is to build a toolkit for your other developers so they don't have to think about how to register a service, or implement failover, or respond to messages from a client. These are the sorts of things that will kill your system and have others say it is too complicated. Making it painless for them will allow your system to work the way you need it with flexibility and decoupling while not burdening your developers with understanding enterprise design patterns.
This is not a Ivory Tower Architect/Architecture. It would be if he said, "This is how it will do done, now go do it and don't bother me about it because I know I'm right." If you really wanted to reference a Anti-Pattern it could be Kitchen Sink, maybe. Nah now that I think about it, it isn't Kitchen Sink either.
If you can find one please post it as a comment.
Anti-Patterns
Coupling is simply a balance between efficiency and re-usability. If you wish the modules of your system to be as reusable as possible then that will undoubtedly come at a cost.
Personally I think it best to define some key assumptions which may tighten coupling, but bring increased efficiency.
There are design patterns which never see the light of day just because the benefit they provide is not worth the cost in complexity.
What's the simplest thing that could possibly work? Do modularize into reasonable size routines, but avoid interfaces, services, messages and all of this unless you are going to have multiple implementations or multiple hardware resources to divide a job.
Make it simple, then refactor those parts that turned out to matter.
I have found myself responsible for carrying on the development of a system which I did not originally design and can't ask the original designers why certain design decisions were taken, as they are no longer here. I am a junior developer on design issues so didn't really know what to ask when I started on the project which was my first SOA / WCF project.
The system has 7 WCF services, will grow to 9, each self-hosted in a seperate console app/windows service. All of them are single instance and single threaded. All services have the same OperationContract: they expose a Register() and Send() method. When client services want to connect to another service, they first call Register(), then if successful they do all the rest of their communication with Send(). We have a DataContract that has an enum MessageType and a Content propety which can contain other DataContract "payloads." What the service does with the message is determined by the enum MessageType...everything comes through the Send() method and then gets routed to a switch statement...I suspect this is unusual
Register() and Send() are actually OneWay and Async...ALL results from services are returned to client services by a WCF CallbackContract. I believe that the reson for using CallbackContracts is to facilitate the Publish-Subscribe model we are using. The problem is not all of our communication fits publish-subscribe and using CallbackContracts means we have to include source details in returned result messages so clients can work out what the returned results were originally for...again clients have a switch statements to work out what to do with messages arriving from services based on the MessageType (and other embedded details).
In terms of topology: the services form "nodes" in a graph. Each service has hardcoded a list of other services it must connect to when it starts, and wont allow client services to "Register" with it until is has made all of the connections it needs. As an example, we have a LoggingService and a DataAccessService. The DataAccessSevice is a client of the LoggingService and so the DataAccess service will attempt to Register with the LoggingService when it starts. Until it can successfully Register the DataAccess service will not allow any clients to Register with it. The result is that when the system is fired up as a whole the services start up in a cascadeing manner. I don't see this as an issue, but is this unusual?
To make matters more complex, one of the systems requirements is that services or "nodes" do not need to be directly registered with one another in order to send messages to one another, but can communicate via indirect links. For example, say we have 3 services A, B and C connected in a chain, A can send a message to C via B...using 2 hops.
I was actually tasked with this and wrote the routing system, it was fun, but the lead left before I could ask why it was really needed. As far as I can see, there is no reason why services cannot just connect direct to the other services they need. Whats more I had to write a reliability system on top of everything as the requirement was to have reliable messaging across nodes in the system, wheras with simple point-to-point links WCF reliabily does the job.
Prior to this project I had only worked on winforms desktop apps for 3 years, do didn't know any better. My suspicions are things are overcomplicated with this project: I guess to summarise, my questions are:
1) Is this idea of a graph topology with messages hopping over indirect links unusual? Why not just connect services directly to the services that they need to access (which in reality is what we do anyway...I dont think we have any messages hopping)?
2) Is exposing just 2 methods in the OperationContract and using the a MessageType enum to determine what the message is for/what to do with it unusual? Shouldnt a WCF service expose lots of methods with specific purposes instead and the client chooses what methods it wants to call?
3) Is doing all communication back to a client via CallbackContracts unusual. Surely sync or asyc request-response is simpler.
4) Is the idea of a service not allowing client services to connect to it (Register) until it has connected to all of its services (to which it is a client) a sound design? I think this is the only design aspect I agree with, I mean the DataAccessService should not accept clients until it has a connection with the logging service.
I have so many WCF questions, more will come in later threads. Thanks in advance.
Well, the whole things seems a bit odd, agreed.
All of them are single instance and
single threaded.
That's definitely going to come back and cause massive performance headaches - guaranteed. I don't understand why anyone would want to write a singleton WCF service to begin with (except for a few edge cases, where it does make sense), and if you do have a singleton WCF service, to get any decent performance, it must be multi-threaded (which is tricky programming, and is why I almost always advise against it).
All services have the same
OperationContract: they expose a
Register() and Send() method.
That's rather odd, too. So anyone calling will first .Register(), and then call .Send() with different parameters several times?? Funny design, really.... The SOA assumption is that you design your services to be the model of a set of functionality you want to expose to the outside world, e.g. your CustomerService might have methods like GetCustomerByID, GetAllCustomersByCountry, etc. methods - depending on what you need.
Having just a single Send() method with parameters which define what is being done seems a bit.... unusual and not very intuitive / clear.
Is this idea of a graph topology with
messages hopping over indirect links
unusual?
Not necessarily. It can make sense to expose just a single interface to the outside world, and then use some internal backend services to do the actual work. .NET 4 will actually introduce a RoutingService in WCF which makes these kind of scenarios easier. I don't think this is a big no-no.
Is doing all communication back to a
client via CallbackContracts unusual.
Yes, unusual, fragile, messy - if you can ever do without it - go for it. If you have mostly simple calls, like GetCustomerByID - make those a standard Request/Response call - the client requests something (by supplying a Customer ID) and gets back a Customer object as a return value. Much much simpler!
If you do have long-running service calls, that might take minutes or more to complete - then you might consider One-Way calls which just deposit a request into a queue, and that request gets handled later on. Typically, here, you can either deposit the answer into a response queue which the client then checks, or you can have two additional service methods which give you the status of a request (is it done yet?) and a second method to retrieve the result(s) of that request.
Hope that helps to get you started !
All services have the same OperationContract: they expose a Register() and Send() method.
Your design seems unusual at some parts specially exposing only two operations. I haven't worked with WCF, we use Java. But based on my understanding the whole purpose of Web Services is to expose Operations that your partners can utilise.
Having only two Operations looks like odd design to me. You generally expose your API using WSDL. In this case the WSDL would add nothing of value to the partners, unless you have lot of documentation. Generally the operation name should be self-explanatory. Right now your system cannot be used by partners without having internal knowledge.
Is doing all communication back to a client via CallbackContracts unusual. Surely sync or asyc request-response is simpler.
Agree with you. Async should only be used for long running processes. Async adds the overhead of correlation.