Comparing Service-Based Architectures by Neal Ford

Comparing Service-
based Architectures
@neal4d
nealford.com
1
agenda
Micro Service-oriented
Service-based
2
Service-oriented Architecture
3
origins: hubs
System B
System A
System C
4
origins: hubs
System B
System A
System C
System D
(ftp only)
5
origins: hubs
System E
(http only)
System B
System A
System C
System D
(ftp only)
6
origins: hubs
System E
(http only)
System B
System A
System C
System D
(ftp only)
7
origins: hubs
System E
(http only)
System B
Integration
System A
Hub
System C
System D
(ftp only)
8
origins: hubs
System E
(http only)
System B
Integration
System A
Hub
System C
System D
(ftp only)
9
origins: hubs
System E
(http only)
System B
Integration
System A
Hub
System C
System D
(ftp only)
10
origins: hubs
looks great, but what about single point of failure and
performance bottleneck considerations?
11
orchestration
hub
intelligent hub
service oriented architecture /

enterprise service bus pattern
12
service-oriented architecture
abstraction
service taxonomy
shared resources
middleware
interoperability
13
business services BS BS BS BS BS BS
message bus
process choreographer
service orchestrator
enterprise services ES ES ES ES ES ES
application services AS infrastructure services IS
14
abstractbus
message enterprise-level coarse-grained
owned and defined by business users data represented as WSDL, BPEL, XML, etc.
no implementation - only name, input, and output
Are weservices
enterprise in the business
ES ES ES of…?
ES ES ES
ExecuteTrade
application services PlaceOrder
AS ProcessClaim
infrastructure services IS
15
owned by shared services teams

concrete
message bus enterprise-level coarse-grained
custom or vendor implementations
that are one-to-one
or one-to-many relationship with business services

CreateCustomer CalcQuote ValidateTrade
16
owned byBSapplication
business services BS BS
teams
BS BS BS
concrete
message bus application-level fine-grained
bound to a specific application

service orchestrator context
AddDriver UpdateAddress CalcSalesTax

17
owned by infrastructure or shared services teams

concrete
message bus enterprise-level fine-grained
implements non-business functionality to support both
service
enterprise and business orchestrator
services
WriteAudit CheckUserAccess LogError

18
message bus
mediation and routing

enterprise services ES ES
message
ES
enhancement
ES ES ES
process choreography message transformation

service orchestration protocol transformation
19
mediation and routing
message bus
20
process choreography
request request
message bus
21
service orchestration
request request
message bus
22
service registry
calcQuote() enterprise
service
business service
servic
service CreateQuote registry
enterprise
saveQuote() service
location, name, and CreateQuote

implementation calcQuote
https://grid1/CalcQuote
transparency service saveQuote
registry rmi://atlas:1299/saveQuote
23
message enhancement
cusip, mm/dd/yy sedol, yyyy.mm.dd, symbol
client enhance enterprise

servic
application message service
037833100 037833100 2046251 2046251

04/23/15 04/23/15 2015.04.23 2015.04.23
AAPL AAPL
contract decoupling
24
message transformation
xml java object
client transform enterprise

servic
application message service
xml xml java object java object
contract decoupling
25
protocol transformation
SOAP/WS RMI/IIOP
client transform enterprise
servic
application protocol service
ATMI enterprise
service
access decoupling
implementation transparency
26
message bus
27
CreateQuote
message bus
CreateCustomer CalcQuote
message bus message bus
AddDriver AddVehicle CheckDMV
message bus
WriteAudit
28
message bus
maximize reuse
maximize canonicality
29
message bus
incremental change
operationally coupled
30
Microservice Architecture
31
domain driven design
32
bounded context
33
microservices architecture
client requests client requests client requests
api layer
34
distributed architecture
api layer
35
separately deployed components
api layer
36
service component
api layer
37
bounded context
api layer
38
bounded context ≠ entity
checkout shipping
39
prefer duplication over coupling
checkout SOA shipping
Customer
40
prefer duplication over coupling
checkout microservices shipping
41
smart endpoints, dumb pipes
<— HTTP —>

<— messaging —>
42
standardize on integration, not platform
embrace polyglot solutions

where sensible
too few too many

languages/platforms Building languages/platforms
Microservices
DESIGNING FINE-GRAINED SYSTEMS
Have one, two or maybe three

ways of integrating, not 20.
Sam Newman
Building
Microservices Building
Microservices
Standardize in the gaps between DESIGNING FINE-GRAINED SYSTEMS
services - be flexible about what

Pick some sensible conventions,
happens inside the boxes
Sam Newman
and stick with them.
Sam Newman
43
technical consistency
integration
metrics service behavior
Building downstream
Microservices
Consider Service Templates to

make it easy to do the right thing!
Sam Newman
44
decentralized governance
45
decentralized data management
ACID versus BASE
46
decentralized data management
Building
Microservices
Avoid distributed transactions if at

all possible
Sam Newman
47
infrastructure automation
48
process process process

claims quotes adjustments
update
customer notification
front orchestrator
49

update
50

update
51

update
52

update
53
consumer driven contracts
http://martinfowler.com/articles/consumerDrivenContracts.html
54
api layer
maximize easy evolution
55
support ∆
Microservice is the first
architectural style developed
post-Continuous Delivery.
56
microservice implementation
PCI Level 1 !!
http://2012.33degree.org/pdf/JamesLewisMicroServices.pdf
http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Micro-Services
57
Service-based Architecture
58
service-based architecture
is there a middle ground?
service-oriented microservices
architecture architecture
service-based
architecture
59
service database integration

granularity scope hub
60
service granularity
api layer
61
service granularity
user interface layer
62
service granularity
single-purpose micro-service to "portion of the application"

macro-service
macro-services resolves orchestration and transactional issues
allows for complex business processing within a service context
63
service granularity
single-purpose micro-service to "portion of the application"

macro-service
services become harder to develop and test
deployment pipeline requires more planning
change control becomes more difficult
64
database scope
api layer
65
database scope
66
database scope
single-purpose service-based database to globally shared

application database
reduces service orchestration and contract dependencies
improves performance due to fewer remote calls
refactoring entire database may not be feasible or possible
67
database scope
single-purpose service-based database to globally shared

application database
looser bounded context of services
tighter service coupling based on schema
schema changes become expensive and difficult
68
integration hub
api layer
lightweight message broker
69
integration hub
integration hub / middleware
70
integration hub
lightweight message broker to heavier integration hub
allows for transformation of contract differences

allows for non-transactional orchestration of services
allows for protocol-agnostic heterogeneous interoperability
allows for common processing logic across all services
71
integration hub
lightweight message broker to heavier integration hub
decrease in overall performance

added complexity and cost
increased need for governance
deployment pipeline requires much more planning
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
public requests receiving department recycling and accounting
kiosk
receiving accounting
quote
assessment recycling
item status
reporting
75
electronics recycling application
kiosk public ui receiving ui recycling ui
76
adding microservices
77
78
79
comparing:
Micro Service-oriented
Service-based
80
characteristics differences
overall agility
H
ability to respond quickly to
constant change in both
business and technology
overall agility
M
monolithic service-based
81
ease of deployment
H
promotes an effective and fast
deployment pipeline; features
are quick and easy to deploy
ease of deployment
M
82
ease of testing
ease at which features can be H
tested and verified; confidence

level in completeness of testing
ease of testing
M
83
overall performance
H
which patterns relatively
promote better performing
level of performance
applications?
84
overall scalability
H
how well does the architecture
pattern lend itself to highly
scalable applications?
level of scalability
M
85
overall simplicity
H
level of complexity in
applications implemented
using the architecture pattern
level of simplicity
M
86
service differences
service-oriented microservices service-based

architecture architecture architecture
service granularity
service numbers
87
service differences
service granularity
what is the typical granularity of services within this pattern?
microservices
architecture
service-based
architecture
service-oriented
architecture
fine-grained coarse-grained
88
service differences
service numbers
what is the typical upper limit of the number of services found?
microservices
architecture
service-based
architecture
service-oriented
architecture
0 50 300 800 1000
89
Which ?!?
90
Which ?!?
Monolith
default
easy to understand/build
doesn’t scale well in any dimension
91
Which ?!?
Service-oriented
service taxonomy
high degree of (potential) reuse
highly compatible in integration-heavy

environments
operationally complex
92
Which ?!?
Microservices
incremental change
highly evolvable
complex interactions
93
Which ?!?
service-based
best target for migration
good compromise
domain-centric without going µservice
94
Which ?!?
it depends
95
domain/architecture
isomorphism
mechanical sympathy
96
nealford.com
@neal4d
nealford.com/videos
nealford.com/books
www.oreilly.com/software-architecture-video-training-series.html
97

Comparing Service-Based Architectures by Neal Ford

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comparing Service-Based Architectures by Neal Ford

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comparing Service-

service oriented architecture /

application services AS infrastructure services IS

owned by shared services teams

application services AS infrastructure services IS

bound to a specific application

AddDriver UpdateAddress CalcSalesTax

application services AS infrastructure services IS

owned by infrastructure or shared services teams

WriteAudit CheckUserAccess LogError

application services AS infrastructure services IS

mediation and routing

process choreography message transformation

location, name, and CreateQuote

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

client enhance enterprise

037833100 037833100 2046251 2046251

xml java object

client transform enterprise

xml xml java object java object

application services AS infrastructure services IS

message bus message bus

AddDriver AddVehicle CheckDMV

application services AS infrastructure services IS

application services AS infrastructure services IS

client requests client requests client requests

checkout SOA shipping

checkout microservices shipping

<— HTTP —>

embrace polyglot solutions

too few too many

Have one, two or maybe three

Standardize in the gaps between DESIGNING FINE-GRAINED SYSTEMS

services - be ﬂexible about what

metrics service behavior

Consider Service Templates to

ACID versus BASE

Avoid distributed transactions if at

process process process

process process process

process process process

process process process

process process process

maximize easy evolution

service database integration

client requests client requests client requests

client requests client requests client requests

user interface layer

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

allows for complex business processing within a service context

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

user interface layer

single-purpose service-based database to globally shared

single-purpose service-based database to globally shared

client requests client requests client requests

lightweight message broker

client requests client requests client requests

user interface layer

integration hub / middleware

lightweight message broker to heavier integration hub

allows for transformation of contract differences

lightweight message broker to heavier integration hub

decrease in overall performance