Table of contents
- Functional Use Patterns
- Strangler Patterns
- Sidecar Pattern
We have talked about microservices being smaller, but what does that really mean?
Consider for a moment how you decompose a problem when writing a piece of software. You don't cram everything into a single function and finish. Instead, you break the problem into logical steps and convert those steps into reusable functions that can be used as the code base grows.
This is much the same with microservices, but instead of a single problem statement, you are looking at all of the problems across the system as a whole that you're operating within.
Functional Use Patterns
The first area of decomposition we will talk about is the service types that you can create. These are designed to provide very specific uses across the system as a whole. Each service has a distinct function in the system and through building these services, we decompose the problems we need to solve into smaller blocks of work.
Domain-based microservices, as you might imagine, are based on domain-driven design patterns, but what does this mean to someone building out a services architecture in practice?
Data domain decomposition is the lowest level of decomposition that you will usually see in a microservices architecture. The core problem we're trying to solve with this is to make our services more scalable, as such, you'll need them smaller and much more focused and decomposition at the domain level is one of the most efficient ways to do that.
Features of Data Domain:
- Driven by the data domain itself
- Underlying schema is not important
- Focus on the data patterns
Characteristics of Data Domain Design:
- Domain-driven design
- Start with the model, not the database
- Evaluate actions
- Build the service, contracts first
Business process-based Microservices
When constructing decompositions, you may encounter more sophisticated procedures in some circumstances. These processes frequently do not fit into a single domain, yet the domains themselves can exist independently.
When we bring business process-based microservices into the scene, a business process service can aid in the development of a more organized microservices architecture. The issue may be that in order to replicate business operations across different components and for this you must recreate the same programming logic numerous times, particularly when they cross numerous realms. You may use business process domains as a higher level of service inside your architecture to conform to the don't repeat yourself principle and to assist with simplifying your design.
What is a Business Process Domain?
A business process domain is something that:
- Provides higher-level business functionality
- Allows you to encapsulate related domains
- Has no database access
- Comes with distinct functional uses
What is Business Process Design?
Business process design is something that:
- Identify processes
- Identify domains
- Defines API (contracts not models)
- Wire service (Wire APIs)
Atomic Transaction-based Microservices
There are potentially times in a microservice's architecture where you need to have true atomic transactions because eventual consistency isn't good enough and atomic transactions are sometimes needed in a system. When those atomic transactions span multiple data domains, there is a distinct need to build special logic and systems to handle these unique use cases.
What is an Atomic Transaction?
An atomic transaction is something that:
- Guarantees atomicity, consistency, isolation, and durability (ACID) transactions across domains
- Provide failure domains and rollbacks
- Force blocking until commit
- Doesn't use distributed transactions
What is Atomic Transaction Design?
Atomic transaction design is something that:
- Ensures you have the atomic service
- Domains must be in shared database
- Clearly get the transaction defined, including rollback conditions
- Implement the service as normal, with fast fail and rollback
Now that we have discussed some of the most common decomposition patterns, we need to talk for a bit about how to get there from a legacy system. here how we do it:
- Break a monolith up by "strangling" the dependency on it
- Can be top-down (From API to Database)
- Can be bottom-up (From Database to API)
- It essentially serves the purpose of carving out functionalities
The sidecar pattern is used to offload processing of some kind to a separate module. With the sidecar pattern, you deploy the sidecar as a module associated with every applicable microservice in your architecture in order to offload the processing through a single deployment. It's more about removing repetitive code across services than anything else.
The reason that it is helpful in a microservices architecture is things like logging, monitoring and network services can be offloaded to a separate module. So essentially, the problem we are solving is repeating code paths that don't have to be accomplished through repeating code.
Here are some functions of sidecar design:
- Determine the process
- Build the sidecar
- Schedule it to deploy with the appropriate services
- Functionality appears without embedding it
This article shares some key principles and a number of patterns to use to incrementally decompose an existing system ie. migrating our monolith architecture-based application into microservices architecture.
We covered patterns that can work to migrate functionality out of systems hard to change, and looks at the use of strangler pattern, sidecar pattern, change data capture, database decomposition and more.
Thank You :)