Bus-oriented architecture

Nat Pryce wrote interesting thoughts about bus-oriented architecture:

"I like event-based systems, especially with content based multicast. I've usually used the style in distributed systems not in a single process.

The big benefit is that you can easily change the components in the system without fiddling with the "wiring" between them.

However, there is a trade-off. The event bus hides the dependencies between your components. It looks like every component only has a dependency on the bus, but really they have connections to whichever
other components produce events they must react to or react to events that they produce. If you are not careful, the protocols between components can become an unintelligible, fragile mess.

If you design the system right, you can back out the real dependencies from your components subscription and advertisement definitions and thereby visualise the real architecture of the system with graphviz or
whatever. But usually it's up to you to expose that information at your component interfaces or even design a component system that has interfaces which can be interrogated in this way.

The other difficulty with event buses is that it's hard to compose components into larger components, unless you create a hierarchy of buses. That's doable in-process but is harder in a distributed system.

So, my steer is if components must rapidly come and go, an event bus can pay off. But if they don't, explicit wiring will be more helpful to understand the system and keep tabs on architectural cruft creeping in."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Haskell: performance

It turned out that it's not Haskell who was slow in my previous Fibonacci test. It was my lack of Haskell knowledge. Haskell has two integral types - Int, which has bounds -2147483648..2147483647 and Integer, which is unbounded. Both types implement Integral type class, so out fib function can be defined in terms of this type class: OK, now we can test performance of the function parametrizing it with the two concrete types. Integer first: We get our previous result ~15 seconds which is rather slow. Now test it with Int type: Whoa! The Int type is ~6 times faster than Integer! And with result of 2.8 seconds Haskell's took the third position in our small rating :) Current list (in seconds): C# - 1.26 F# - 1.38 Nemerle - 1.45 Haskell - 2.8 Clojure - 9 Erlang - 17 Ruby - 60 Python - 120
Read more

Regular expressions: Rust vs F# vs Scala

Image
Let's implement the following task: read first 10M lines from a text file of the following format: then find all lines containing Microsoft namespace in them, and format the type names the usual way, like "Microsoft.Win32.IAssemblyEnum". First, F#: Now Rust: After several launches the file was cached by the OS and both implementations became non IO-bound. F# one took 29 seconds and 31MB of RAM at peak; Rust - 11 seconds and 18MB. The Rust code is as twice as long as F# one, but it's handling all possible errors explicitly - no surprises at runtime at all. The F# code may throw some exceptions (who knows what kind of them? Nobody). It's possible to wrap all calls to .NET framework with `Choice.attempt (fun _ -> ...)`, then define custom Error types for regex related code, for IO one and a top-level one, and the code'd be even longer then Rust's, hard to read and it would still give no guarantee that we catch all possible exceptions. Up
Read more

STM: F# vs Haskell

STM is a very nice parallel programming model used intensively in Haskell and Clojure. There's a F# implementation which can be found in FSharpx library. Today I'm going to test performance of both the Haskell and the F# STMs. The test is very simple - read a couple TVars, check their equality, then write them back incremented by 1, repeat a million times. First, the Haskell code: So, it took about 170 ms. OK, now F#: It took about 1,6 seconds which is an order of magnitude slower than the Haskell result. It's rather frustrating.
Read more