File Name: software build systems principles and experience .zip
The term "Microservice Architecture" has sprung up over the last few years to describe a particular way of designing software applications as suites of independently deployable services. While there is no precise definition of this architectural style, there are certain common characteristics around organization around business capability, automated deployment, intelligence in the endpoints, and decentralized control of languages and data.
James' interest in building applications out of small collaborating services stems from a background in integrating enterprise systems at scale. He's built a number of systems using microservices and has been an active participant in the growing community for a couple of years.
Martin Fowler is an author, speaker, and general loud-mouth on software development. He's long been puzzled by the problem of how to componentize software systems, having heard more vague claims than he's happy with. He hopes that microservices will live up to the early promise its advocates have found. Although our natural inclination is to pass such things by with a contemptuous glance, this bit of terminology describes a style of software systems that we are finding more and more appealing.
We've seen many projects use this style in the last few years, and results so far have been positive, so much so that for many of our colleagues this is becoming the default style for building enterprise applications. Sadly, however, there's not much information that outlines what the microservice style is and how to do it.
In short, the microservice architectural style  is an approach to developing a single application as a suite of small services, each running in its own process and communicating with lightweight mechanisms, often an HTTP resource API.
These services are built around business capabilities and independently deployable by fully automated deployment machinery.
There is a bare minimum of centralized management of these services, which may be written in different programming languages and use different data storage technologies.
The server-side application will handle HTTP requests, execute domain logic, retrieve and update data from the database, and select and populate HTML views to be sent to the browser.
This server-side application is a monolith - a single logical executable . Any changes to the system involve building and deploying a new version of the server-side application. Such a monolithic server is a natural way to approach building such a system. All your logic for handling a request runs in a single process, allowing you to use the basic features of your language to divide up the application into classes, functions, and namespaces. With some care, you can run and test the application on a developer's laptop, and use a deployment pipeline to ensure that changes are properly tested and deployed into production.
You can horizontally scale the monolith by running many instances behind a load-balancer. Monolithic applications can be successful, but increasingly people are feeling frustrations with them - especially as more applications are being deployed to the cloud.
Change cycles are tied together - a change made to a small part of the application, requires the entire monolith to be rebuilt and deployed. Over time it's often hard to keep a good modular structure, making it harder to keep changes that ought to only affect one module within that module. Scaling requires scaling of the entire application rather than parts of it that require greater resource. These frustrations have led to the microservice architectural style: building applications as suites of services.
As well as the fact that services are independently deployable and scalable, each service also provides a firm module boundary, even allowing for different services to be written in different programming languages.
They can also be managed by different teams. We do not claim that the microservice style is novel or innovative, its roots go back at least to the design principles of Unix. But we do think that not enough people consider a microservice architecture and that many software developments would be better off if they used it. We cannot say there is a formal definition of the microservices architectural style, but we can attempt to describe what we see as common characteristics for architectures that fit the label.
As with any definition that outlines common characteristics, not all microservice architectures have all the characteristics, but we do expect that most microservice architectures exhibit most characteristics. While we authors have been active members of this rather loose community, our intention is to attempt a description of what we see in our own work and in similar efforts by teams we know of. In particular we are not laying down some definition to conform to.
For as long as we've been involved in the software industry, there's been a desire to build systems by plugging together components, much in the way we see things are made in the physical world. During the last couple of decades we've seen considerable progress with large compendiums of common libraries that are part of most language platforms.
When talking about components we run into the difficult definition of what makes a component. Our definition is that a component is a unit of software that is independently replaceable and upgradeable. Microservice architectures will use libraries, but their primary way of componentizing their own software is by breaking down into services.
We define libraries as components that are linked into a program and called using in-memory function calls, while services are out-of-process components who communicate with a mechanism such as a web service request, or remote procedure call. This is a different concept to that of a service object in many OO programs . One main reason for using services as components rather than libraries is that services are independently deployable.
If you have an application  that consists of a multiple libraries in a single process, a change to any single component results in having to redeploy the entire application. But if that application is decomposed into multiple services, you can expect many single service changes to only require that service to be redeployed.
That's not an absolute, some changes will change service interfaces resulting in some coordination, but the aim of a good microservice architecture is to minimize these through cohesive service boundaries and evolution mechanisms in the service contracts.
Another consequence of using services as components is a more explicit component interface. Most languages do not have a good mechanism for defining an explicit Published Interface. Often it's only documentation and discipline that prevents clients breaking a component's encapsulation, leading to overly-tight coupling between components. Services make it easier to avoid this by using explicit remote call mechanisms. Using services like this does have downsides.
Remote calls are more expensive than in-process calls, and thus remote APIs need to be coarser-grained, which is often more awkward to use. If you need to change the allocation of responsibilities between components, such movements of behavior are harder to do when you're crossing process boundaries.
At a first approximation, we can observe that services map to runtime processes, but that is only a first approximation. A service may consist of multiple processes that will always be developed and deployed together, such as an application process and a database that's only used by that service. When looking to split a large application into parts, often management focuses on the technology layer, leading to UI teams, server-side logic teams, and database teams.
When teams are separated along these lines, even simple changes can lead to a cross-team project taking time and budgetary approval. A smart team will optimise around this and plump for the lesser of two evils - just force the logic into whichever application they have access to. Logic everywhere in other words. This is an example of Conway's Law  in action.
Any organization that designs a system defined broadly will produce a design whose structure is a copy of the organization's communication structure. The microservice approach to division is different, splitting up into services organized around business capability.
Such services take a broad-stack implementation of software for that business area, including user-interface, persistant storage, and any external collaborations. Consequently the teams are cross-functional, including the full range of skills required for the development: user-experience, database, and project management. One company organised in this way is www. Cross functional teams are responsible for building and operating each product and each product is split out into a number of individual services communicating via a message bus.
Large monolithic applications can always be modularized around business capabilities too, although that's not the common case. Certainly we would urge a large team building a monolithic application to divide itself along business lines.
The main issue we have seen here, is that they tend to be organised around too many contexts. If the monolith spans many of these modular boundaries it can be difficult for individual members of a team to fit them into their short-term memory.
Additionally we see that the modular lines require a great deal of discipline to enforce. The necessarily more explicit separation required by service components makes it easier to keep the team boundaries clear. Most application development efforts that we see use a project model: where the aim is to deliver some piece of software which is then considered to be completed. On completion the software is handed over to a maintenance organization and the project team that built it is disbanded.
Microservice proponents tend to avoid this model, preferring instead the notion that a team should own a product over its full lifetime. A common inspiration for this is Amazon's notion of "you build, you run it" where a development team takes full responsibility for the software in production.
This brings developers into day-to-day contact with how their software behaves in production and increases contact with their users, as they have to take on at least some of the support burden.
The product mentality, ties in with the linkage to business capabilities. Rather than looking at the software as a set of functionality to be completed, there is an on-going relationship where the question is how can software assist its users to enhance the business capability.
There's no reason why this same approach can't be taken with monolithic applications, but the smaller granularity of services can make it easier to create the personal relationships between service developers and their users. When building communication structures between different processes, we've seen many products and approaches that stress putting significant smarts into the communication mechanism itself.
A good example of this is the Enterprise Service Bus ESB , where ESB products often include sophisticated facilities for message routing, choreography, transformation, and applying business rules.
The microservice community favours an alternative approach: smart endpoints and dumb pipes. Applications built from microservices aim to be as decoupled and as cohesive as possible - they own their own domain logic and act more as filters in the classical Unix sense - receiving a request, applying logic as appropriate and producing a response.
The best expression of the first is. Microservice teams use the principles and protocols that the world wide web and to a large extent, Unix is built on. Often used resources can be cached with very little effort on the part of developers or operations folk. The second approach in common use is messaging over a lightweight message bus. The infrastructure chosen is typically dumb dumb as in acts as a message router only - simple implementations such as RabbitMQ or ZeroMQ don't do much more than provide a reliable asynchronous fabric - the smarts still live in the end points that are producing and consuming messages; in the services.
In a monolith, the components are executing in-process and communication between them is via either method invocation or function call. The biggest issue in changing a monolith into microservices lies in changing the communication pattern. A naive conversion from in-memory method calls to RPC leads to chatty communications which don't perform well. Instead you need to replace the fine-grained communication with a coarser -grained approach.
One of the consequences of centralised governance is the tendency to standardise on single technology platforms. Experience shows that this approach is constricting - not every problem is a nail and not every solution a hammer. We prefer using the right tool for the job and while monolithic applications can take advantage of different languages to a certain extent, it isn't that common.
Splitting the monolith's components out into services we have a choice when building each of them. You want to use Node. Go for it.
In software engineering , continuous integration CI is the practice of merging all developers' working copies to a shared mainline several times a day. Extreme programming XP adopted the concept of CI and did advocate integrating more than once per day — perhaps as many as tens of times per day. When embarking on a change, a developer takes a copy of the current code base on which to work. As other developers submit changed code to the source code repository , this copy gradually ceases to reflect the repository code. Not only can the existing code base change, but new code can be added as well as new libraries, and other resources that create dependencies, and potential conflicts. The longer development continues on a branch without merging back to the mainline, the greater the risk of multiple integration conflicts  and failures when the developer branch is eventually merged back.
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the author. Request full-text PDF.
The term "Microservice Architecture" has sprung up over the last few years to describe a particular way of designing software applications as suites of independently deployable services. While there is no precise definition of this architectural style, there are certain common characteristics around organization around business capability, automated deployment, intelligence in the endpoints, and decentralized control of languages and data. James' interest in building applications out of small collaborating services stems from a background in integrating enterprise systems at scale. He's built a number of systems using microservices and has been an active participant in the growing community for a couple of years.
Digital Principles And Applications 8th Edition.
Inadequate build systems can dramatically impact developer productivity. Bad dependencies, false compile errors, failed software images, slow compilation, and time-wasting manual processes are just some of the byproducts of a subpar build system. In Software Build Systems, software productivity expert Peter Smith shows you how to implement build systems that overcome all these problems, so you can deliver reliable software more rapidly, at lower cost. Smith explains the core principles underlying highly efficient build systems, surveying both system features and usage scenarios. Next, he encapsulates years of experience in creating and maintaining diverse build systems—helping you make well-informed choices about tools and practices, and avoid common traps and pitfalls. Coverage includes. Programmer Books.
Not a MyNAP member yet? Register for a free account to start saving and receiving special member only perks. T he software industry is, by most measures, a remarkable success.
Lean development is the application of Lean principles to software development. Lean principles got their start in manufacturing, as a way to optimize the production line to minimize waste and maximize value to the customer. These two goals are also relevant to software development, which also:. Of course, there are some major differences between manufacturing and software development, as well; namely, that manufacturing deals with the production of physical goods, while the value being created in software development is created within the mind of the developer. Applying Lean principles to knowledge work requires a shift in mindset in terms of how value, waste, and other key Lean concepts are defined.
We created these design principles after seeing the same user experience problems trip people up again and again. In software build systems, software productivity expert peter smith shows you how to implement build systems that overcome all these problems, so you. Software design principles carl erickson atomic object.
И в то же время после провала с Попрыгунчиком Стратмор испытывал колоссальный стресс. Это беспокоило Фонтейна: к коммандеру сходится множество нитей в агентстве, а директору нужно оберегать свое ведомство. Фонтейну нужен был кто-то способный наблюдать за Стратмором, следить, чтобы он не потерял почву под ногами и оставался абсолютно надежным, но это было не так-то .
Остановка поисков ключа Цифровой крепости высвободила бы достаточно энергии для срабатывания дверных замков. - Успокойся, Сьюзан, - сказал Стратмор, положив руку ей на плечо. Это умиротворяющее прикосновение вывело Сьюзан из оцепенения. Внезапно она вспомнила, зачем искала Стратмора, и повернулась к. - Коммандер.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *