Service A sends a message to Service B (1). After Service B writes the message contents to Database A (2), it issues a response message back to Service A (3). Service A then sends a message to Service C (4). Upon receiving this message, Service C sends a message to Service D (5), which then writes the message contents to Database B (6) and issues a response message back to Service C (7).
Service A and Service D are located in Service Inventory A. Service B and Service C are located in Service Inventory B.
You are told that In this service composition architecture, all four services are exchanging invoice-related data in an XML format. However, the services in Service Inventory A are standardized to use a different XML schema for invoice data than the services in Service Inventory B. Also, Database A can only accept data in the Comma Separated Value (CSV) format and therefore cannot accept XML-formatted data. Database B only accepts XML-formatted data. However, it is a legacy database that uses a proprietary XML schema to represent invoice data that is different from the XML schema used by services in Service Inventory A or Service Inventory B.
What steps can be taken to enable the planned data exchange between these four services?
Service Consumer A sends Service A a message containing a business document (1). The business document is received by Component A, which keeps the business document in memory and forwards a copy to Component B (3). Component B first writes portions of the business document to Database A (4). Component B then writes the entire business document to Database B and uses some of the data values from the business document as query parameters to retrieve new data from Database B (5).
Next, Component B returns the new date* back to Component A (6), which merges it together with the original business document it has been keeping in memory and then writes the combined data to Database C (7). The Service A service capability invoked by Service Consumer A requires a synchronous request-response data exchange. Therefore, based on the outcome of the last database update, Service A returns a message with a success or failure code back to Service Consumer A (8).
Databases A and B are shared, and Database C is dedicated to the Service A service architecture.
There are several problems with this architecture. The business document that Component A is required to keep in memory (while it waits for Component B to complete its processing) can be very large. The amount of runtime resources Service A uses to keep this data in memory can decrease the overall performance of all service instances, especially when it is concurrently invoked by multiple service consumers. Additionally, Service A can take a long time to respond back to Service Consumer A because Database A is a shared database that sometimes takes a long time to respond to Component B. Currently, Service Consumer A will wait for up to 30 seconds for a response, after which it will assume the request to Service A has failed and any subsequent response messages from Service A will be rejected.
What steps can be taken to solve these problems?
Our service inventory contains the following three services that provide Invoice-related data access capabilities: Invoice, InvProc and Proclnv. These services were created at different times by different project teams and were not required to comply with any design standards. Therefore, each of these services has a different data model for representing invoice data.
Currently, each of these three services has a different service consumer: Service Consumer A accesses the Invoice service (1), Service Consumer B (2) accesses the InvProc service, and Service Consumer C (3) accesses the Proclnv service. Each service consumer invokes a data access capability of an invoice-related service, requiring that service to interact with the shared accounting database that is used by all invoice-related services (4, 5, 6).
Additionally, Service Consumer D was designed to access invoice data from the shared accounting database directly (7). (Within the context of this architecture, Service Consumer D is labeled as a service consumer because it is accessing a resource that is related to the illustrated service architectures.)
Assuming that the Invoice service, InvProc service and Proclnv service are part of the same service inventory, what steps would be required to fully apply the Official Endpoint pattern?
Services A, B, and C are non-agnostic task services. Service A and Service B use the same shared state database to defer their state data at runtime.
An assessment of the three services reveals that each contains some agnostic logic that cannot be made available for reuse because it is bundled together with non-agnostic logic.
The assessment also determines that because Service A, Service B and the shared state database are each located in physically separate environments, the remote communication required for Service A and Service B to interact with the shared state database is causing an unreasonable decrease in runtime performance.
How can the application of the Orchestration pattern improve this architecture?
Service A is a utility service that provides generic data access logic to a database containing data that is periodically replicated from a shared database (1). Because the Standardized Service Contract principle was applied to the design of Service A, its service contract has been fully standardized.
The service architecture of Service A Is being accessed by three service consumers. Service Consumer A accesses a component that is part of the Service A Implementation by Invoking it directly (2). Service Consumer B invokes Service A by accessing Its service contract (3). Service Consumer C directly accesses the replicated database that Is part of the Service A Implementation (4).
You've been told that the reason Service Consumers A and C bypass the published Service A service contract is because, for security reasons, they are not allowed to access a subset of the capabilities in the API that comprises the Service A service contract. How can the Service A architecture be changed to enforce these security restrictions while avoiding negative forms of coupling?
