[rabbitmq-discuss] Orchestration vs. Choreography

Isaias Barroso isaias.barroso at gmail.com
Sun Jan 8 14:46:34 GMT 2012

Hi Ciprian,

    I've also pondered about the same topic a while ago... (Though I
> haven't tried it in practice.) As such my options were the following:
>    a) (the easiest one) Go with the choreography approach, but
> instead of naming the queue of the next service (and send to a direct
> exchange), just send it to an exchange named by the next step's
> purpose (like "enrich", "validate", etc.). Maybe make this a topic
> exchange and put enough information in the routing key to allow
> "debugging" by being able to register another queue and "capture" the
> traffic.
Yes, I agree with you, send to a exchange is more apropriate

>    b) (the "declarative" approach) Why not have the orchestration
> approach (in a declarative flavor) combined with choreography:
>    * let's assume that you have a task which goes through a set of
> processes (transformations or just validations, etc.) which can be
> described as decision tree (a binary tree of actions, where each node
> is a process and the two children (one for success and one for
> failure) are the next process to be executed);
>    * now you just put this decision tree inside the "envelope" of
> each message, send it to the root process;
>    * this process executes its logic and based on the outcome
> (success or failure), extracts one of it's subtrees, puts that in the
> new envelope and together with the new message sends it to the root of
> the new tree; (evidently at some point the new tree would be empty,
> which means it should stop sending it further;)
>    * (you could again use "purpose" names for exchanges instead of
> direct queues;)
>    * you could extend this to a graph (maybe containing cycles, thus
> obtaining loops), by saying that each node has two links to other
> nodes;
>    * of course yet another extension would be to allow "labeled" node
> links, i.e. each process outputs two things: a next-step string label,
> and the new message, and now you select from the labeled links the one
> matching the label; (maybe have something as a default link);
>    Thus with option b) you obtain both the advantages of choreography
> (i.e. no middle man to become a single point of failure or
> bottleneck), but also the advantages of orchestration (i.e. each
> message having it's own "route" through the processes). At the same
> time you keep the processors "dumb", none knowing of another.

Very interesting this approach, and better the possibility to eliminate a
possible SPOF.

>    Hope this helps.
>    Ciprian.
>    P.S.: If you like this approach (b), you could go even further and
> instead of using a static decision tree (or graph) you could
> substitute that with an embedded language or machine which allows
> generic operations on both the old and new message to decide the next
> actions. (I could expand on this if someone is interested.)
> I think that (b) approach can be more flexible for large and complex
process and it sounds good.

Maybe this topic can generate good discussions and patterns for complex
process management.

Best regards

>    A practical (not very elegant) Java approach:
>    * define a Java interface with a method like `public AmqpTarget
> decide (MyMessage old, MyMessage new)` (or something similar), where
> `AmqpTarget` has two fields for exchange and routing key;
>    a) if all the processes share the same code and are upgraded at
> the same time, just instantiate a serializable object implementing
> that interface and put that in the envelope instead of the decision
> tree;
>    b) if you don't have shared code or you want to keep your options
> opened:
>    * for each different "workflow" define a new public "top" class
> (i.e. not nested or anonymous) implementing that interface with as few
> dependencies as possible;
>    * in the envelope instead of the decision tree put the byte-code
> of this class (you can use the
> `MyWorkflowClass.class.getResourceStream(MyWorkflowClass.class.getCanonicalName())`
> and the canonical name; (be careful to use caching or you'll get
> `PermGenError` or similar;)
>    * to instantiate the class on the receiver just create a custom
> classloader which when asked for the bytecode of that known class just
> returns the bytes previously stored;

Isaías Barroso
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rabbitmq.com/pipermail/rabbitmq-discuss/attachments/20120108/4e56504b/attachment.htm>

More information about the rabbitmq-discuss mailing list