-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 275
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
feat!: move operations to its own root object #806
Merged
asyncapi-bot
merged 10 commits into
asyncapi:next-major-spec
from
fmvilas:add-operations-object
Sep 26, 2022
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
10 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
b46420f
feat: move operations to its own root object
fmvilas f115ea1
fix link to operation object
fmvilas b54459b
Add operations to asyncapi object and ToC
fmvilas a06ff03
Fix wording of operations
fmvilas 3d65c4b
Modify operation definition
fmvilas 7cceba4
Fix definitionsApplication link
fmvilas ed48ac8
Add notice in the beginning of the spec to alert it is not yet ready
fmvilas 5185ec9
Replace "Note:" with markdown quote
fmvilas 6955484
Update spec/asyncapi.md
fmvilas 9bacca4
Fix channel item links
fmvilas File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm thinking that it might make sense to convert this into an array of channels (of references to channel) instead.
The use case that came to my mind was the fanout pattern, sending the same message to different channels.
For example, a user sign up action on a server might result in the server sending the same message to several queues on an EDA. Let's say those queues are owned by different departments, teams, or whatever.
WDYT?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
AFAIK, the fanout pattern is usually implemented by the broker, not the application. I mean, for instance, RabbitMQ has the fanout exchange that lets you connect various queues to a specific routingKey. Kafka, NATS, and others have consumer groups, with which you can implement the fanout pattern. The application sends a message to a particular channel and then it gets distributed to many other queues or consumers. Am I missing something?
Now, I see the value it can have by allowing us to group multiple operations into one. Batch operations if you want. We just need to be very clear that if a
send
operation is performed against 1 out of 3 channels and it fails, it shouldn't stop the code from sending the other 2. Aren't we getting into the land of workflow definition already? 🤔There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This statement doesn't reflect the reality out there. The fanout could be perfectly implemented by the application; writing the same message to different Kafka topics is a completely valid use case. For logistics, you might want to set up different retention policies, permissions, etc to each topic.
Also, we can still use an AsyncAPI document to describe a message broker (wich turns to be the application), where this pattern is way more common.
At the end, a client should know where to connect to and to which channels a particular message will be sent so it can subscribe to one of those (depending on each scenario).
TBH I don't think we are that far. This is still referring to an application definition.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, that's my point. I wouldn't say it's to support fanout but to batch operations. That's a pretty valid and common use case.
@derberg @dalelane @char0n @magicmatatjahu what do you folks think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't get why it's not to support the fanout pattern but batching/grouping operations. Messages are sent in parallel to different channels.
From Wikipedia:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The only use case that comes to my mind right now is auditing. Some messages will be sent to their corresponding channel + the auditing channel. But I've never seen this done in the application code. It's always configured as a rule in the broker so you don't forget to audit anything.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The use case I had in my mind is illustrated in the following pic grabbed from Salesforce blog. In particular, I'm talking about Point-to-Point architecture (even though the name is not correct IMHO) and not entering into which one is more scalable or less because it's not the main topic being discussed here.
I still believe this is part of the application definition and still not part of defining any message flow between apps.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
but point to point is actually in contrast to EDA, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The name on the picture is not correct as I mentioned in my previous comment. The right name I'm looking for is EventDriven Integration, and this article from Solace explains what it is: https://solace.com/blog/event-driven-architecture-difference-event-driven-integration
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@smoya It looks like this requires its own discussion. Would you mind creating a follow-up issue? It would be great to find actual cases where this is required. Salesforce is great but I don't think it's a common use case.