fineract-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vishwas Babu <vish...@confluxtechnologies.com>
Subject Re: Microservices
Date Wed, 25 May 2016 02:41:28 GMT
Hi All,

Nice to see the list coming alive (especially nice to hear from a certain
gentlemen in Ireland !) , goes to show how important the decision being
made is.

Adding my two cents to this excellent conversation.

Depending on size and complexity, An organization would have spent anywhere
between a week to a year on implementing Mifosx v2. Such organizations
would ideally expect the lifetime of the implementation to be around 5
years and would only be interested in upgrading to Mifos v3 before this
expected product life span under certain scenarios, including

-> MifosX v3 provides pieces of functionality which are critical for the
Organization, are not available on MifosX v2 and the cost / effort of
migrating to v3 is cheaper than the cost / effort of adding said
functionality to MifosX v2.
For example Mifos v2 provided support for integrated accounting which was
not available in Mifos v1, this feature alone justified an upgrade for many
organizations.

-> Organizations are convinced that MifosX v2 will not scale after a
certain size putting their future operations at risk

-> The community refuses to support MifosX v2, so an organization is forced
to find the budget for an upgrade which they might not necessarily want for
the fear of being struck without support.

This is a double edged sword. Given the effort involved in this upgrade, an
organization might as well decide to move to a completely different system.

Technical arguments might not make a strong case upfront to end users and
most implementors who use MifosX v2 as a turnkey solution.

>From what I understand, MifosX v3 would have backwards compatibility (from
an API perspective) to MifosX v2 which would be critical for easing the
eventual transition. It would also be critical to ensure that years of
domain knowledge and collective bug fixes in v2 are not lost during this
transition, which would set the community back by years.

While it is true that the MifosX v2 has performance issues, this is due to
a combination of a number of unrelated reasons many of which are not
because of the technology stack and would not be automatically fixed by an
upgrade to v3. Off the top of my head, some of the causes for the current
performance issues include

-> Absence of a multi-layered caching strategy

-> Quick fixes made for bulk entry operations.
Ex: A collection sheet API currently loops through individual loan /
savings repayments which each carry out identical validation and flushes at
the end of their respective transaction scope

 -> Change in requirements over time which necssiate minor optimizations.
Ex: The original design for savings tries to loop through all transactions
each time interest needs to be calculated etc . This design was made in the
context of organizations involved in financial inclusion and did not take
into account the needs of agent banking/ wallets which have hundreds of
thousands of transactions on an account

-> Absence of archival strategies. The nature of our integrated accounting
would mean that large organizations would quickly create hundreds of
millions of records in the journal entry tables. Simple fixes like
archiving this historical data during closing the books at the end of a
financial year would drastically improve performance in such cases.

-> Unoptimized batch jobs etc

Given that Mifos v1 scaled to a million active customers accounts, there
probably is no technical reason that Mifosxv2 shouldn't easily outdo this
number. I would think that this is something that we should continue
addressing independent of the development on v3.

The experiences of other communities which have been in identical scenarios
should also be taken into account, the closest example for us would
probably be that of the angular community (whom we have relied on
extensively for the development of our default user interface)

Google informed the angular community that work on v1 would be stopped
shortly in favor of a complete rewrite, the then as yet conceptual Angular
v2. This resulted in heated arguments in the community and second thoughts
in the mind of any organization wanting to start a new project on Angular
v1 who were rightly concerned about the stability and the potential
timelines for the rest of the ecosystem / plugins to catch up. Google had
to eventually backtrack and promise continued development on both versions
till v1 users decided to organically migrate over to v2.

We should probably explore a similar rollout strategy, gently guiding new
users to v3 once it approaches feature parity with v2 and independently
continuing active development and support on v2 till a majority of the
community has transitioned over.

Regards,
Vishwas


On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:02 AM, Markus Geiß <markus.geiss@live.de> wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> hope this finds you well. ; o)
>
> As mentioned by Myrle we are in the PoC phase, playing with multiple
> concepts and tools to find a simple and clean approach.
>
> We've already shared some code during TechDays in March and have
> made good progress based on the feedback we've gotten
>
> Once we feel the code is ready (meaning we feel comfortable sharing it)
> we will add our work to the current Fineract repo utilizing a branch, or
> if feasible setup a few more repos.
>
> Once this is done we will give a short intro on the used frameworks,
> tools, and concepts so everybody is able to dig into it.
>
> Given the current issues we are facing in regard to performance (for
> example every write operation is handled by a command, which is using
> the same transaction for adjustments and is reaching some partial lock
> situation on the DB) simply spinning up a second web service won't help.
>
> The latest statistics I saw, shared by Conflux, uncovered that the DB is
> the bottleneck once we reach a critical mass of transactions. 95+% of
> the time is spent in the DB, not in the web service.
>
> We will try to release some of the core features Myrle has talked about
> pretty soon, so we can tackle some of the issues. For this we will keep
> the implementation free from any new concept we are thinking about.
>
> Best,
>
> Markus
>
> .::YAGNI likes a DRY KISS::.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
> > Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 10:23:56 +0100
> > Subject: Re: Microservices
> > From: keithwoodlock@gmail.com
> > To: dev@fineract.incubator.apache.org
> >
> > Myrle,
> >
> > Sounds like Markus/you have been on this journey for a while already.
> > Everything sounds great. Be very interested in seeing it come together.
> >
> > For that reason I think the sooner you are transparent about where the
> code
> > is the better so the community can take a look also and help out where
> > possible.
> >
> > regards,
> > Keith.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Myrle Krantz <mkrantz@mifos.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Hey Keith,
> >>
> >> I’ll start with the easy questions:
> >>
> >> * Have I done this before? Yes. But no woman is an island. I’m happy to
> >> have qualified advice.
> >>
> >> * Where will Markus and I be saving our work? We’ll send you a pointer
> once
> >> we feel it would be productive for others to look at it. Until we have a
> >> common understanding of the design and technologies sharing code would
> be
> >> fruitless.
> >>
> >> I thought about your suggestion for a general approach. I agree we
> should
> >> start with a limited scope, and I like your component break down. I
> would
> >> refine that as follows: Since it’s always been important that
> >> Mifos/Fineract is multi-tenanted, I think the best place to start is
> with a
> >> service for tenant allocation and service orchestration. From there, a
> >> service for user/permission provisioning would be the obvious next step.
> >> Together these represent your service 1. Splitting them is not a
> >> fundamentally different design. It is cleaner though, since the user
> >> management would be within a tenant, and the only service that should be
> >> “tenant-aware” is the one that does tenant allocation. For your second
> >> service, you suggest attacking loans next. Savings is just as important
> as
> >> loans, and fundamentally equivalent (just black numbers versus red
> ones).
> >> So after tenant allocation and user creation were complete, the next
> >> bare-bones service should be a ledger. Savings and loans products would
> >> then be part of a fourth service for describing product offerings.
> Again,
> >> I’ve taken what you represented as one service and made two out of it.
> >>
> >> All the services except the tenant creation service should treat all
> data
> >> addition/adjustment as a command, just like you originally designed it
> for
> >> Mifos. That approach has worked well and we should stick to it. But
> >> command processing should be asynchronous for *everything*. High volumes
> >> of write operations in *any* service should not throttle capacity for
> any
> >> other service. The tenant creation service is the one service that can’t
> >> use the command pattern, because commands are serialized to a database
> the
> >> tenant creation service provisions.
> >>
> >> These are the components I just described:
> >>
> >> A.) A command module for writing and handling commands which would be
> used
> >> by all services. This is a compile time dependency.
> >>
> >> B.) A tenant service which creates the databases needed for the other
> >> services, plus the tables needed for command persistence.
> >>
> >> C.) A user service which creates the users in the system.
> >>
> >> D.) A ledger service which tracks payments. Depends on the command
> module,
> >> the tenant service, and the user service.
> >>
> >> E.) A products service which can be used to configure savings and loans
> >> products. Depends on all the other components I described.
> >>
> >> B & C = Keith’s 1.)
> >>
> >> D & E = Keith’s 2.)
> >>
> >>
> >> As we move forward we'll probably break it down further than that.
> >>
> >> These services should be deployed in jetty or tomcat much as today’s
> Mifos
> >> is. We can use Eureka and Ribbon for service discovery if we are
> deploying
> >> multiple instances of a given service. I’ve also really liked what I’ve
> >> seen of docker. I would like to ultimately build a docker image for each
> >> service, and make the build scripts for those docker images part of the
> >> service projects.
> >>
> >> This leaves me with a question for a mentor: As far as I can tell the
> >> current mode of operation at Apache is one repository to one product. I
> >> would prefer to work with one repository per service. I believe that
> would
> >> help programmers remain strict about division of labor between the
> >> services, and think more carefully about interface breaking changes. Is
> >> there any reason a product can’t have multiple repositories?
> >>
> >> Lest I create a false impression, this is not my design alone. Markus
> >> created most of it. I’ve been refining it together with him.
> >>
> >>
> >> Greets from the Voreifel, Germany
> >>
> >> Myrle
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> *Myrle Krantz*
> >> Solutions Architect
> >> RɅĐɅЯ, The Mifos Initiative
> >> mkrantz@mifos.org | Skype: mkrantz.mifos.org | http://mifos.org
> >> <http://facebook.com/mifos> <http://www.twitter.com/mifos>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Keith Woodlock <
> keithwoodlock@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Mryle,
> >>>
> >>>>> Now please excuse me while I get back to just doing it. ; o)
> >>>
> >>> Ok sounds like decision made that yourself and Markus will be going
> ahead
> >>> with this :)
> >>>
> >>> Can you let us know where you will be checking in the code so we in the
> >>> community can follow along.
> >>>
> >>> Given your are going to go ahead with developing a proof of concept
> >>> starting from a blank canvas it might be good to layout a scope and
> some
> >>> goals to get to in a time-boxed period of time. I would suggest
> something
> >>> like:
> >>>
> >>> 1) A single microservice implemented from API to Database including
> >>> deployment related capabilities
> >>>
> >>> The emphasis on this would be to show off the tech approach/pattern
> >>> involved in implementing a microservice over the domain of the
> >> microservice
> >>> so feel free to choose a simpler area
> >>>
> >>> This hopefully could be provided in a much shorter time-line (a month
> or
> >>> so)
> >>>
> >>> 2) A microservice that encapsulates the full Loan Product / Loan area
> of
> >>> Fineract
> >>>
> >>> Makes sense to takcle the meat of the platform to show off qualities of
> >>> microservices approach
> >>>
> >>> By the end of this you will have two microservice examples and that
> will
> >>> bring up the questions around deployment and service discovery and how
> >> that
> >>> will be implemented.
> >>>
> >>> One last question would be to ask if Markus or yourself have actually
> >>> developed/being part of a project previously that has used the
> >> microservice
> >>> approach specifically you are talking about?
> >>>
> >>> If yes thats great, if no, is it worth seeking someone with some
> >> expertise
> >>> in the area of microservices specifically in java area?
> >>>
> >>> regards,
> >>> Keith.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 8:26 AM, Myrle Krantz <mkrantz@mifos.org>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> I won't be able to write a complete answer. Nobody would read an
> >> e-mail
> >>>> that long. So I’m going to “nibble” at it bit by bit.
> >>>>
> >>>> Of the three approaches Keith lists, I favor the third approach
> >>> "Re-imagine
> >>>> the fineract platform from ground up again (hope it solves the
> problems
> >>> you
> >>>> see and doesnt introduce new problems)". I've been in the industry
> >> long
> >>>> enough (16 years) to understand that there are significant risks in
> >>>> "starting over from scratch", and I hope that we can learn enough from
> >>> the
> >>>> existing code base to avoid some of those road bumps.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I would imagine multiple phases here:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1.) Markus and I start work on a framework, and basic services for
> this
> >>>> refactoring. Everyone else continues work on MifosX
> >>>>
> >>>> 2.) We do a proof of concept with a bare bones implementation.
> >>>>
> >>>> 3.) Report to the community based on what we learn by end of this
> year.
> >>>>
> >>>> 4.) Based on what we have learned, together with the community
> consider
> >>>> migration of:
> >>>>
> >>>> a.) New microservice-based code into the Fineract community.
> >>>>
> >>>> b.) Community man-power from the existing codebase to the new code
> >>> base.
> >>>>
> >>>> c.) Existing customer data into the new microservice-based code via
> >>>> migration scripts.
> >>>>
> >>>> d.) Existing projects onto the new microservice-based product.
> >>>>
> >>>> e.) The community app onto the new microservice-based backend.
> >>>>
> >>>> We can do a subset of the above migration steps. There are several
> >>>> possible approaches. But I really want to do this together with the
> >>>> Fineract community. There’s much know-how here, and I think we can
> >> copy
> >>>> code over wholesale in many areas, and in other areas plagiarize good
> >>>> architectural decisions and problem-solving approaches which the
> >> existing
> >>>> Fineract codebase illustrates.
> >>>>
> >>>> Because I want to do this with the Fineract community, I want to start
> >>>> getting people in the community up to speed on the concepts early.
> >> Even
> >>> if
> >>>> people decide they don't like this approach, nobody will be poorer for
> >>> the
> >>>> extra information. I also very much want people’s feedback on where
> >> they
> >>>> see problems with our approach. I haven’t given much in the way of
> >>>> specifics yet; I want people to have some background first. Which was
> >> the
> >>>> reason for my original mail.
> >>>>
> >>>> Now please excuse me while I get back to just doing it. ; o)
> >>>>
> >>>> (My next email will come tomorrow, and will focus on Roman’s very
> >>> important
> >>>> deployment question.)
> >>>>
> >>>> Greets from the Voreifel, Germany,
> >>>> Myrle
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> *Myrle Krantz*
> >>>> Solutions Architect
> >>>> RɅĐɅЯ, The Mifos Initiative
> >>>> mkrantz@mifos.org | Skype: mkrantz.mifos.org | http://mifos.org
> >>>> <http://facebook.com/mifos> <http://www.twitter.com/mifos>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:49 PM, Keith Woodlock <
> >>> keithwoodlock@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi Mryle,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks for your detailed reply, I added my comments (please remember
> >> I
> >>> am
> >>>>> not involved in code base for sometime so might be missing alot)
> >> below
> >>>> but
> >>>>> its a pretty long email so I summarise what I think here:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The decision to move from one approach to developing a system to
> >>> another
> >>>> is
> >>>>> a big one and not without its costs. I am not really for or against
> >> it
> >>>> and
> >>>>> I'll be interested in seeing how things turn out whichever way the
> >>>>> community decides to go. If everyone really feels it will be the
> >>> solution
> >>>>> to any problems that exist then they should go for it. The risk of
> >>> course
> >>>>> is that its a very tech solution to things.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think Chris Richardson does a good job on http://microservices.io
> >> of
> >>>>> outlining the differences between the monolith (
> >>>>> http://microservices.io/patterns/monolithic.html) and the
> >>> microservices
> >>>> (
> >>>>> http://microservices.io/patterns/microservices.html) approaches.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You probably have the following 3 directions you can go:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1) Stay with the monolith and attempt to tackle the problems you see
> >>> with
> >>>>> the system (domain, performance etc)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2) Gradually move services from the monolith into microservices (hope
> >>> it
> >>>>> solves the problems you see and doesnt introduce new problems)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 3) Re-imagine the fineract platform from ground up again (hope it
> >>> solves
> >>>>> the problems you see and doesnt introduce new problems)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - Approach 2 sounds like it will be a drawn out affair and take a
> >> long
> >>>> time
> >>>>> to reach the end with the drawback of having to support both
> >> approaches
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - Approach 3 it too would be alot of effort but you could use
> >> something
> >>>>> like http://eventuate.io/ to get to a poof of concept faster
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Before devling into some of the points you raised I wanted to
> >> highlight
> >>>> two
> >>>>> aspects of the fineract platform:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *- Everything is exposed a HTTP API / Service*
> >>>>>
> >>>>> All the functionality that exists in the platform is or should be
> >>> exposed
> >>>>> by a HTTP API. This HTTP API is a techonology agonistic contract that
> >>>>> developers can build their apps/clients on or integrate with easily.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Developers can choose to build their apps/clients in any technology
> >>> they
> >>>>> wish and to use as much or as little of the platform API in their
> >> app.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> API documented here https://demo.openmf.org/api-docs/apiLive.htm
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *- All HTTP API Endpoints deployed together*
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The code is compiled and bundled as a .war file that is deployed to
> >> an
> >>>>> application server like tomcat.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If one application server isnt able to handle the request load you
> >> can
> >>>>> easily scale horizontally by adding more application servers (as the
> >>>>> platform is stateless) and load balance the requests between the
> >>>> serrvers.
> >>>>> This would typically only be needed in a larger scale deployment.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *The Problems You Listed*
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *1.) We are starting to have performance problems. Conflux in
> >>> particular
> >>>>> is running into this. Mussoni is starting to have problems too. All
> >>> of
> >>>> us
> >>>>> would like to move to bigger customers and bigger markets, so this
> >> will
> >>>>> only get worse.*
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You should open up a new email thread within the community on these
> >>>> issues.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It would be useful to provide some more details on what API requests
> >> in
> >>>>> praticular Conflux/Musoni and others are seeing performance problems
> >>>> with.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *2.) As we move to bigger customers, down-time becomes less and less
> >>>>> acceptable.*
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There shouldnt need to be a need for downtime with the existing
> >>>>> deploy-all-services-as-one approach.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On tomcat you can deploy your new application in parallel with your
> >> old
> >>>>> one.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *3.) Loans products are hard-coded. A lot of dev list mails read
> >> like
> >>>> this
> >>>>> “For my case, I want my interest/fees calculated at a different time/
> >>> on
> >>>> a
> >>>>> different basis than the ‘standard’ use case, how do I do this?” If
> >> I
> >>>> were
> >>>>> a customer asking a question like this, some of the hacks being
> >>> suggested
> >>>>> would feel brittle and unsatisfying. Savings products look like they
> >>>> were
> >>>>> implemented as an afterthought and are also hard-coded.*
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sounds likes a domain modelling / requirements issue or an
> >>> implementation
> >>>>> issue.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Different financial institutions in different countries have many
> >>>> different
> >>>>> flavours of the way they want their loan or saving products to work
> >> and
> >>>> its
> >>>>> an area that will continue to change into the future.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Mifos started out with supporting one or two of the common models in
> >>> use
> >>>> in
> >>>>> the field and it looks like more have been added in since based on
> >>>> content
> >>>>> in http://fineract.incubator.apache.org/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You might be suggesting though that its time to revisit the Loan
> >>> Product
> >>>> /
> >>>>> Loan area and re-model it based on what you know today?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *4.) Our adherence to the CQRS pattern is less than perfect. Command
> >>>>> responses were hard coded. Some work has been done to make proper
> >>>> command
> >>>>> handlers out of it, but there are still semi-commands handled in a
> >> big
> >>> if
> >>>>> else block. Handling commands is synchronous even though one of the
> >>>>> advantages of this pattern should be the ability to handle operations
> >>>>> asynchronously. This contributes to the problems mentioned in 1
> >>> above.*
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not sure what the hard-coded command response area is (been along
> >> time
> >>>>> since looked at code base)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Its true that code that is responsible for identifying what command
> >>>> handler
> >>>>> to invoke based on the command is not great and suffered from the
> >> 'god
> >>>>> class' problems - the inital core of the platform was written in a
> >>>>> time-boxed three month period as proof of concept and as more
> >>>> apis/commands
> >>>>> got added it got bigger.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That said, if you have a preferred solution its surely an area that
> >>> could
> >>>>> of been improved in the last few years if it was that important?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On the synchronous nature of them, yes we decided rather than going
> >> for
> >>>> an
> >>>>> eventually-consistent system that the api calls would be like a
> >>>> datatabase
> >>>>> transaction call, i.e when you get a response you know its either
> >>>>> successful or not
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Calling an api 1000's of times to do something in bulk of course
> >> would
> >>>> not
> >>>>> make much sense and you would expect to add a bulk api for the that
> >>> type
> >>>> of
> >>>>> activity.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Also if there are very long running tasks then of course they should
> >>> not
> >>>> be
> >>>>> done through a synchronous api call, you should set up an api that
> >>>> supports
> >>>>> 'long running tasks' and pass back a id/key that the user can use to
> >>>> check
> >>>>> for the result later or something similiar.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *5.) There’s currently no standard way to connect to what I like to
> >>> call
> >>>>> “money buses” (Swift, Stellar, UPI). I did implement a bridge for
> >>>> Stellar
> >>>>> which listened for commands, but it wasn’t clear which commands to
> >>> listen
> >>>>> for. I ended up deciding on journal entries.*
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not fully across what you are doing here but if its a case of
> >>> integrating
> >>>>> some kind of third party payments api and invoking it based on some
> >> api
> >>>>> call like makePayment or disburse then that should be catered for by
> >>> the
> >>>>> platform. If you werent clear on how to do its probably cause the
> >>>> platform
> >>>>> didnt try to support that type of integration out of the box first of
> >>>> all.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Listening to journal entries might not be the best idea cause what
> >> If i
> >>>>> dont want to use the platforms accounting solution and turn it off?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This use case should be designed into the praticular area in
> >> question.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *6.) In first world core banking systems, the back end and the front
> >>> end
> >>>>> are carefully separated with clearly defined and limited
> >> communication.
> >>>>> This is to provide added protection against hacking of the type we’ve
> >>>> seen
> >>>>> in the news recently (Bangladesh’s central bank for example).*
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The front end (apps/clients) are totaly seperated from the back-end
> >> api
> >>>> at
> >>>>> present. In terms of limiting what apps can speak to what APIs, you
> >>>>> probably need to add that capability on top of the current
> >>>>> authentication/authorization capablity.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> At present there is fine-grained support for restricting what apis a
> >>> user
> >>>>> is entitled to call, its not to much more to also limit what apis can
> >>> be
> >>>>> called based on what app/client is being used.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *How these things related to microservices pionts*
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *1.) By chopping up database accesses into logical units, we can
> >>> increase
> >>>>> capacity for only those units which need it. This reduces costs. In
> >>>>> particular, for the saving and reading of commands (for which we
> >> expect
> >>>> the
> >>>>> largest volume of write instructions), we can switch to a faster
> >>>>> persistence mechanism which works better in a distributed
> >> environment.*
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Your probably talking about switching to storing the commands/events
> >>> in a
> >>>>> different persistence mechanism than a relational database. You could
> >>>>> choose to do that now if you wish.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You might also be referring to breaking the current database schema
> >>> into
> >>>> a
> >>>>> database per service approach (
> >>>> http://microservices.io/patterns/index.html
> >>>>> ).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am not sure how this would reduce costs. Like any solution it has
> >> its
> >>>>> pros and cons (
> >>>>> http://microservices.io/patterns/data/database-per-service.html)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *2.) We can run multiple instances of a microservice, and, with
> >> careful
> >>>>> design, perform rolling updates, moving us towards the ability to
> >> have
> >>>>> 99.99% uptime.*
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Much like point 2 earlier, you should be able to do this with the
> >>>> current
> >>>>> setup.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *3.) A more modular approach with well-defined APIs would make it
> >>>> possible
> >>>>> among other things to separate out the loans and savings products and
> >>> let
> >>>>> anyone implement their own loans and savings products who wants to.
> >>>> Things
> >>>>> like interest rates, fees, and repayments rates are very cultural,
> >> and
> >>> as
> >>>>> we move into more countries we’ll need more flexibility here.*
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There should be well defined APIs at present. If you have a solution
> >>> for
> >>>>> allowing people to create their own loans and savings products with
> >>>>> complete flexibiliy you should be able to roll it out now in the
> >>> current
> >>>>> setup.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *4.) CQRS is a truly awesome pattern for this domain, partly because
> >> it
> >>>> in
> >>>>> theory, makes it possible to handle writes asynchronously. If we can
> >>>>> decouple the commands for different domains from each other and
> >>> actually
> >>>>> handle them asynchronously that would be a major step forward. Of
> >>> course
> >>>>> this doesn’t necessitate a microservices deployment model, at least
> >> not
> >>>>> until the question of what we do with the data we create while
> >> handling
> >>>> the
> >>>>> commands. If, for example, a command for creating a user causes
> >>>> different
> >>>>> data to be adjusted then a command for starting a payment, why should
> >>>>> creating a user cause a slowdown in working through payments? Those
> >>> two
> >>>>> kinds of processing don’t even have to execute on the same
> >> hardware...*
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As you say, if you want to implement a more fully blown
> >> implementation
> >>> of
> >>>>> the CQRS+Event Sourcing pattern you could implement that now for the
> >>>> areas
> >>>>> your believe need it and still respect the existing API
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The example you given isnt a good one as you wouldnt expect there to
> >>> be a
> >>>>> high throughput of users created but I understand that your saying
> >> that
> >>>> if
> >>>>> there was 'intensive' operations going on on the platform, it might
> >> be
> >>>>> usefult to be able to split them into a seperate unit that runs on
> >>>> seperate
> >>>>> hardware so it doesnt impact more important functionality that might
> >>> have
> >>>>> an SLA on it like payment processing etc
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The question is, what are these intensive operations that might be
> >>>>> affecting other areas of the platform so badly?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *5.) Writing ‘money bus’ plugins as microservices is a great way to
> >>>>> separate functionality and be sure that even if one bus is down, the
> >>>> others
> >>>>> can still be up and running. My stellar bridge component essentially
> >>>>> applied this pattern. If we can standardize the interface that
> >> bridge
> >>>>> components implement, we could make these easier to write and improve
> >>>> Mifos
> >>>>> connectivity to other systems. These don’t need to be a standard
> >> part
> >>> of
> >>>>> deployment, in different countries, different networks are popular,
> >> and
> >>>>> these things change over time too. Connectivity to other systems is,
> >>> in
> >>>> my
> >>>>> humble opinion, one of the most important factors in the success of a
> >>>>> product.*
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes its very important to be able to integrate with other systems
> >> and I
> >>>>> dont see why the kind of functionality you want to implement and
> >>>> integrate
> >>>>> into mifos/fineract cant be done today in a clean way. I dont see how
> >>>>> having all the current services split out into deployable units helps
> >>>> this
> >>>>> use case.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *6.) Separation of core systems from customer-visible systems will
> >>>> require
> >>>>> a duplication of some functionality. This functionality would need
> >> to
> >>>> run
> >>>>> in separate processes and only have access to data duplicated out of
> >>> the
> >>>>> back end system. Most data would only flow from back to front
> >>> (probably
> >>>>> via some kind of ETL process). If we divvy up our data based on the
> >>>>> functionality groups which need it, it will be much easier to
> >> determine
> >>>>> which data should be copied “forward” and which should “stay behind”.
> >>> A
> >>>>> microservice is such a functionality group.*
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Its probably not a good idea to mix customer-visble functionality
> >> with
> >>>> core
> >>>>> business-functionality. It terms of large financial institutions you
> >>>> would
> >>>>> be talking about 100,000s to millions of potentional users for
> >> customer
> >>>>> visible functionality whilst the core business-functionality would be
> >>>>> significantly less.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So they really are two different systems at some level.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> regards,
> >>>>> Keith.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Myrle Krantz <mkrantz@mifos.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> This is a big topic, and I’m trying to decide if I should chop it
> >> up
> >>>> into
> >>>>>> multiple threads. I’m going to leave it as one for now, since I
> >>>> detect a
> >>>>>> healthy scepticism about the question of whether we need to do this
> >>> at
> >>>>> all,
> >>>>>> and I don’t want to preclude that discussion. Here are some of the
> >>>>>> problems I’m seeing:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1.) We are starting to have performance problems. Conflux in
> >>>> particular
> >>>>> is
> >>>>>> running into this. Mussoni is starting to have problems too. All
> >> of
> >>>> us
> >>>>>> would like to move to bigger customers and bigger markets, so this
> >>> will
> >>>>>> only get worse.
> >>>>>> 2.) As we move to bigger customers, down-time becomes less and less
> >>>>>> acceptable.
> >>>>>> 3.) Loans products are hard-coded. A lot of dev list mails read
> >> like
> >>>>> this
> >>>>>> “For my case, I want my interest/fees calculated at a different
> >> time/
> >>>> on
> >>>>> a
> >>>>>> different basis than the ‘standard’ use case, how do I do this?”
> >> If
> >>> I
> >>>>> were
> >>>>>> a customer asking a question like this, some of the hacks being
> >>>> suggested
> >>>>>> would feel brittle and unsatisfying. Savings products look like
> >> they
> >>>>> were
> >>>>>> implemented as an afterthought and are also hard-coded.
> >>>>>> 4.) Our adherence to the CQRS pattern is less than perfect.
> >> Command
> >>>>>> responses were hard coded. Some work has been done to make proper
> >>>>> command
> >>>>>> handlers out of it, but there are still semi-commands handled in a
> >>> big
> >>>> if
> >>>>>> else block. Handling commands is synchronous even though one of
> >> the
> >>>>>> advantages of this pattern should be the ability to handle
> >> operations
> >>>>>> asynchronously. This contributes to the problems mentioned in 1
> >>> above.
> >>>>>> 5.) There’s currently no standard way to connect to what I like to
> >>> call
> >>>>>> “money buses” (Swift, Stellar, UPI). I did implement a bridge for
> >>>>> Stellar
> >>>>>> which listened for commands, but it wasn’t clear which commands to
> >>>> listen
> >>>>>> for. I ended up deciding on journal entries.
> >>>>>> 6.) In first world core banking systems, the back end and the front
> >>> end
> >>>>> are
> >>>>>> carefully separated with clearly defined and limited communication.
> >>>> This
> >>>>>> is to provide added protection against hacking of the type we’ve
> >> seen
> >>>> in
> >>>>>> the news recently (Bangladesh’s central bank for example).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So how does this relate to Microservices? From here on out, I’m
> >>> going
> >>>> to
> >>>>>> assume you all know what a Microservice is, so I hope you read
> >> those
> >>>>> links
> >>>>>> in my original e-mail : o).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1.) By chopping up database accesses into logical units, we can
> >>>> increase
> >>>>>> capacity for only those units which need it. This reduces costs.
> >> In
> >>>>>> particular, for the saving and reading of commands (for which we
> >>> expect
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>> largest volume of write instructions), we can switch to a faster
> >>>>>> persistence mechanism which works better in a distributed
> >>> environment.
> >>>>>> 2.) We can run multiple instances of a microservice, and, with
> >>> careful
> >>>>>> design, perform rolling updates, moving us towards the ability to
> >>> have
> >>>>>> 99.99% uptime.
> >>>>>> 3.) A more modular approach with well-defined APIs would make it
> >>>> possible
> >>>>>> among other things to separate out the loans and savings products
> >> and
> >>>> let
> >>>>>> anyone implement their own loans and savings products who wants to.
> >>>>> Things
> >>>>>> like interest rates, fees, and repayments rates are very cultural,
> >>> and
> >>>> as
> >>>>>> we move into more countries we’ll need more flexibility here.
> >>>>>> 4.) CQRS is a truly awesome pattern for this domain, partly because
> >>> it
> >>>> in
> >>>>>> theory, makes it possible to handle writes asynchronously. If we
> >> can
> >>>>>> decouple the commands for different domains from each other and
> >>>> actually
> >>>>>> handle them asynchronously that would be a major step forward. Of
> >>>> course
> >>>>>> this doesn’t necessitate a microservices deployment model, at least
> >>> not
> >>>>>> until the question of what we do with the data we create while
> >>> handling
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>> commands. If, for example, a command for creating a user causes
> >>>>> different
> >>>>>> data to be adjusted then a command for starting a payment, why
> >> should
> >>>>>> creating a user cause a slowdown in working through payments?
> >> Those
> >>>> two
> >>>>>> kinds of processing don’t even have to execute on the same
> >>> hardware...
> >>>>>> 5.) Writing ‘money bus’ plugins as microservices is a great way to
> >>>>> separate
> >>>>>> functionality and be sure that even if one bus is down, the others
> >>> can
> >>>>>> still be up and running. My stellar bridge component essentially
> >>>> applied
> >>>>>> this pattern. If we can standardize the interface that bridge
> >>>> components
> >>>>>> implement, we could make these easier to write and improve Mifos
> >>>>>> connectivity to other systems. These don’t need to be a standard
> >>> part
> >>>> of
> >>>>>> deployment, in different countries, different networks are popular,
> >>> and
> >>>>>> these things change over time too. Connectivity to other systems
> >> is,
> >>>> in
> >>>>> my
> >>>>>> humble opinion, one of the most important factors in the success
> >> of a
> >>>>>> product.
> >>>>>> 6.) Separation of core systems from customer-visible systems will
> >>>>> require a
> >>>>>> duplication of some functionality. This functionality would need
> >> to
> >>>> run
> >>>>> in
> >>>>>> separate processes and only have access to data duplicated out of
> >> the
> >>>>> back
> >>>>>> end system. Most data would only flow from back to front (probably
> >>> via
> >>>>>> some kind of ETL process). If we divvy up our data based on the
> >>>>>> functionality groups which need it, it will be much easier to
> >>> determine
> >>>>>> which data should be copied “forward” and which should “stay
> >> behind”.
> >>>> A
> >>>>>> microservice is such a functionality group.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There are other advantages to microservices that are more general
> >> in
> >>>>> nature
> >>>>>> and not specific to our use case; read the links I sent in my first
> >>>>> e-mail
> >>>>>> and you should start to get a feel for it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> (Roman, I’m going to watch and see if your questions are answered
> >> as
> >>> we
> >>>>>> discuss. If not I’ll circle back to them, and see what was
> >> missed.)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Greets,
> >>>>>> Myrle
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> *Myrle Krantz*
> >>>>>> Solutions Architect
> >>>>>> RɅĐɅЯ, The Mifos Initiative
> >>>>>> mkrantz@mifos.org | Skype: mkrantz.mifos.org | http://mifos.org
> >>>>>> <http://facebook.com/mifos> <http://www.twitter.com/mifos>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 1:01 AM, Keith Woodlock <
> >>>> keithwoodlock@gmail.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi Myrle,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> First off, thanks for starting a conversation around this within
> >>> the
> >>>>>>> fineract dev community. I was wondering when this was going to
> >> come
> >>>> up.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Rather than delving into the technicalities of what a
> >> microservice
> >>> is
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>>> isnt I thought it would be good if the people proposing this
> >> could
> >>> go
> >>>>>> into
> >>>>>>> a bit of detail here of why they are proposing it, the pros and
> >>> cons
> >>>>> of a
> >>>>>>> microservice approach over the existing approach and the existing
> >>>>>> problems
> >>>>>>> within fineract/mifos that it will help solve/remove.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think that could promote some good discussion and following on
> >>> from
> >>>>>> that
> >>>>>>> later we could delve into how it could be achieved if going that
> >>>>>> direction.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> regards,
> >>>>>>> Keith.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:14 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <
> >>>>> roman@shaposhnik.org
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi Myrle,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> microservices are indeed a nice architectural pattern with an
> >>>>>>> exponentially
> >>>>>>>> growing adoption in the enterprise. It typically leverages some
> >>>> kind
> >>>>>> of a
> >>>>>>>> PaaS
> >>>>>>>> solution to be available for deployment. My current
> >> understanding
> >>>> is
> >>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>> your
> >>>>>>>> deployment model today is a traditional appserver. Are you
> >> going
> >>> to
> >>>>>>> change
> >>>>>>>> that?
> >>>>>>>> If so, what will be the deployment requirements for the
> >> project?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>> Roman.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 2:35 AM, Myrle Krantz <
> >> mkrantz@mifos.org
> >>>>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> As many of you know Markus and I are thinking through a
> >>>>>> rearchitecting
> >>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>> Fineract into microservices. Markus gave some of you a
> >> preview
> >>>> into
> >>>>>> our
> >>>>>>>>> work at the Mifos tech conference in Amsterdam in March
> >> (those
> >>> of
> >>>>> you
> >>>>>>> who
> >>>>>>>>> are interested and weren’t able to attend can check it out on
> >>>>> Youtube
> >>>>>>>> here:
> >>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIrnZpoNZ9A -- my apologies
> >>> for
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>> poor
> >>>>>>>>> video quality)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If you want to get an introductory understanding of what a
> >>>>>> microservice
> >>>>>>>> is,
> >>>>>>>>> this is a good place to go:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> http://martinfowler.com/articles/microservices.html
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If there is interest, (and I have time), I’ll try to send you
> >>>> more
> >>>>>>>>> information about my ideas as they take shape.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Greets,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Myrle
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> P.S. Here’s Spring’s take on this:
> >>>>>>>>> https://spring.io/blog/2015/07/14/microservices-with-spring
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> *Myrle Krantz*
> >>>>>>>>> Solutions Architect
> >>>>>>>>> RɅĐɅЯ, The Mifos Initiative
> >>>>>>>>> mkrantz@mifos.org | Skype: mkrantz.mifos.org |
> >>> http://mifos.org
> >>>>>>>>> <http://facebook.com/mifos> <http://www.twitter.com/mifos>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message