comparing service-based architectures

Comparing Service-based Architectures

@neal4d nealford.com

1

agenda

Micro Service-oriented

Service-based

2

Service-oriented Architecture

3

System A

System B

System C

origins: hubs

4

System D (ftp only)

System A

System B

System C

origins: hubs

5

System D (ftp only)

System A

System B

System C

System E (http only)

origins: hubs

6

System D (ftp only)

System A

System B

System C


origins: hubs

7

System D (ftp only)

System A

System B

System C


Integration Hub

origins: hubs

8

System D (ftp only)

System A

System B

System C


Integration Hub

origins: hubs

9

System D (ftp only)

System A

System B

System C


Integration Hub

origins: hubs

System B

10

looks great, but what about single point of failure and performance bottleneck considerations?

origins: hubs

11

orchestration

service oriented architecture / enterprise service bus pattern

hub

intelligent hub

12

service-oriented architecture

abstractionservice taxonomyshared resourcesmiddlewareinteroperability

13

message busprocess choreographer

service orchestrator

business services BS BS BS BS BS BS

enterprise services ES ES ES ES ES ES

application services AS infrastructure services IS


14






no implementation - only name, input, and output

ExecuteTrade PlaceOrder ProcessClaim


Are we in the business of…?

abstract enterprise-level coarse-grained

owned and defined by business users data represented as WSDL, BPEL, XML, etc.

15






custom or vendor implementations that are one-to-one or one-to-many relationship with business services

CreateCustomer CalcQuote ValidateTrade


concrete enterprise-level coarse-grained

owned by shared services teams

16






bound to a specific application context

AddDriver UpdateAddress CalcSalesTax


concrete application-level fine-grained

owned by application teams

17






implements non-business functionality to support both enterprise and business services

WriteAudit CheckUserAccess LogError


concrete enterprise-level fine-grained

owned by infrastructure or shared services teams

18






mediation and routingprocess choreographyservice orchestration

message enhancementmessage transformationprotocol transformation


19

message bus



mediation and routingservice-oriented architecture

20



request request

process choreographyservice-oriented architecture

21

message bus



request request

service orchestrationservice-oriented architecture

22

service registry

location, name, and implementation transparency


CreateQuote calcQuote https://grid1/CalcQuote saveQuote rmi://atlas:1299/saveQuote

CreateQuotebusiness service

calcQuote() enterprise service

servicservice registry

service registry

enterprise servicesaveQuote()

23

servic enterprise service

client application

enhance message

03783310004/23/15

03783310004/23/15

contract decoupling

20462512015.04.23

AAPL

20462512015.04.23

AAPL

cusip, mm/dd/yy sedol, yyyy.mm.dd, symbol

message enhancementservice-oriented architecture

24


client application

transform message

xml xml

contract decoupling

java object java object

xml java object

message transformationservice-oriented architecture

25

SOAP/WS

access decoupling


client application

transform protocol

enterprise service

RMI/IIOP

ATMI

implementation transparency

protocol transformationservice-oriented architecture

26







27

CreateQuote

message bus

CreateCustomer CalcQuote


AddDriver AddVehicle

message bus

CheckDMV

message bus

WriteAudit

message bus

28







maximize reusemaximize canonicality

29






incremental changeoperationally coupled


30

Microservice Architecture

31

domain driven design

32

bounded context

+

33

api layer

client requests client requests client requests

microservices architecture

34

api layer


microservices architecturedistributed architecture

35

api layer


microservices architectureseparately deployed components

36

api layer


microservices architectureservice component

37

api layer


microservices architecturebounded context

38

bounded context ≠ entity

checkout shipping

39

Customer

prefer duplication over coupling

checkout shippingSOA

40

prefer duplication over coupling

checkout shippingmicroservices

41

smart endpoints, dumb pipes

<— HTTP —><— messaging —>

42

standardize on integration, not platform

embrace polyglot solutions where sensible

too few languages/platforms

too many languages/platforms

Sam Newman

Building MicroservicesDESIGNING FINE-GRAINED SYSTEMS

Standardize in the gaps between services - be flexible about what

happens inside the boxes

Sam Newman


Have one, two or maybe three ways of integrating, not 20.

Sam Newman


Pick some sensible conventions, and stick with them.

43

technical consistency

service behavior

integration

downstream

metrics

Sam Newman


Consider Service Templates to make it easy to do the right thing!

44

governancedecentralized

45

decentralized data management

versusACID BASE

46

data management

Sam Newman


Avoid distributed transactions if at all possible

decentralized

47

infrastructure automation

48

service orchestrationmicroservices architecture

update customer

front orchestrator

process claims

process quotes

process adjustments

notification

49


update customer

process claims

process quotes

process adjustments

notification

50


update customer

process claims

process quotes

process adjustments

notification

51


update customer

process claims

process quotes

process adjustments

notification

52


update customer

process claims

process quotes

process adjustments

notification

53

consumer driven contractshttp://martinfowler.com/articles/consumerDrivenContracts.html

54

maximize easy evolution

api layer



55

support ∆Microservice is the first

architectural style developed post-Continuous Delivery.

56

microservice implementation

http://2012.33degree.org/pdf/JamesLewisMicroServices.pdfhttp://www.infoq.com/presentations/Micro-Services

PCI Level 1 !!

57

Service-based Architecture

58



service-based architecture

is there a middle ground?service-based architecture

59


service granularity

database scope

integration hub

60

api layer


service granularityservice-based architecture

61

user interface layer


service granularityservice-based architecture

62

single-purpose micro-service to "portion of the application" macro-service

service granularity

macro-services resolves orchestration and transactional issuesallows for complex business processing within a service context

-


63

single-purpose micro-service to "portion of the application" macro-service

service granularity

services become harder to develop and testdeployment pipeline requires more planningchange control becomes more difficult

-


64

database scope

api layer



65

database scope




66

single-purpose service-based database to globally shared application database

reduces service orchestration and contract dependencies

database scope

improves performance due to fewer remote callsrefactoring entire database may not be feasible or possible

-


67

single-purpose service-based database to globally shared application database

looser bounded context of servicestighter service coupling based on schema

database scope

schema changes become expensive and difficult

-


68

integration hub

api layer


lightweight message broker


69



integration hub

integration hub / middleware


70

lightweight message broker to heavier integration hub

integration hub

allows for transformation of contract differences allows for non-transactional orchestration of servicesallows for protocol-agnostic heterogeneous interoperabilityallows for common processing logic across all services

-


71

lightweight message broker to heavier integration hub

decrease in overall performanceadded complexity and costincreased need for governancedeployment pipeline requires much more planning

integration hub

services become harder to develop and test-


72

what people really mean when they say “microservice”:

A domain-centric service based architecture with modern DevOps practices.

73

migrating architectures

74

electronics recycling application

kiosk

quote accounting

reporting

item status assessment

receiving

recycling

public requests receiving department recycling and accounting

75

electronics recycling application

public uikiosk receiving ui recycling ui

76

adding microservices




77





78





79

Micro Service-oriented

Service-based

comparing:

80

characteristics differences

ov

erall

agilit

y L

H

M

overall agility ability to respond quickly to

constant change in both business and technology




monolithic architecture

81


ea

se o

f dep

loym

ent

L

H

M

ease of deployment promotes an effective and fast

deployment pipeline; features are quick and easy to deploy





82


ea

se o

f tes

ting

L

H

M

ease of testing ease at which features can be

tested and verified; confidence level in completeness of testing





83


lev

el of

per

form

ance

L

H

M

overall performance which patterns relatively

promote better performing applications?





84


lev

el of

scala

bilit

y L

H

M

overall scalability how well does the architecture

pattern lend itself to highly scalable applications?





85


lev

el of

sim

plici

ty L

H

M

overall simplicity level of complexity in

applications implemented using the architecture pattern





86




service numbers service granularity

service differences

87

service differences service granularity what is the typical granularity of services within this pattern?




coarse-grained fine-grained

88

service differences service numbers what is the typical upper limit of the number of services found?




0 50 300 800 1000

89

Which ?!?

90

Which ?!?

default

easy to understand/build

doesn’t scale well in any dimension

Monolith

91

Which ?!?

service taxonomy

high degree of (potential) reuse

highly compatible in integration-heavy environments

operationally complex

Service-oriented

92

Which ?!?

incremental change

highly evolvable

complex interactions

Microservices

93

Which ?!?

best target for migration

good compromise

domain-centric without going µservice

service-based

94

Which ?!?

it depends

95

domain/architecture isomorphism

mechanical sympathy

96

nealford.com

@neal4d

nealford.com/books

nealford.com/videos

www.oreilly.com/software-architecture-video-training-series.html

97

comparing service-based architectures

Documents