Changes for page Communication between models

Summary

• Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
9	9
10	10	== 2. Key concepts ==
11	11
12		-This microlearning focuses on communication between two eMagiz models. When communicating to any external party (from the view of a certain model) you should always consider the following:
	12	+This microlearning focuses on communication between two eMagiz models. When communicating to any external party (from the view of a specific model), you should always consider the following:
13	13
14	14	* Security
15	15	* Loose coupling
...	...	@@ -20,31 +20,31 @@
20	20
21	21	In a low-code platform like eMagiz, you want to prevent using custom scripting as much as possible. However, sometimes in practice, you encounter situations that cannot be realized with the standard toolbox provided within the platform. As a result, we offer the option to use a Groovy script in these situations to achieve the desired solution. In this microlearning, we will look at where you can use a Groovy script and discuss the key considerations when implementing a Groovy script within your model.
22	22
23		-Most users would think that communication via queues to connect two separate eMagiz models is a smart idea. However, this is something that we do not encourage. We discourage this for several practical and technical reasons alike.
	23	+Most users would think that communication via queues to connect two separate eMagiz models is a bright idea. However, this is something that we do not encourage. We discourage this for several practical and technical reasons alike.
24	24
25		-When looking at the practical side of things getting it configured correctly is time-consuming and an error-prone action (as is evident by the question). Furthermore, it can lead to unexpected situations in which you make a typo to listen to a queue on which no messages are provided. This queue will however be registered on the JMS level (when you activate the flow in question with the custom configuration) which can lead to confusing queue statistics and even more troublesome false-positive alerting based on missing queue metrics or missing consumers.
	25	+When looking at the practical side of things getting it configured correctly is time-consuming and an error-prone action (as is evident by the question). Furthermore, it can lead to unexpected situations where you make a typo to listen to a queue on which no messages are provided. This queue will, however, be registered on the JMS level (when you activate the flow in question with the custom configuration), which can lead to confusing queue statistics and even more troublesome false-positive alerting based on missing queue metrics or missing consumers.
26	26
27		-On top of that because you basically allow one model to write and read from queues registered in another model maintaining both models will become very confusing for the ones working on the project at the moment but also for those working on it at a later stage and does that need to provide (incidental) support on the environments.
	27	+On top of that, when you allow one model to write and read from queues registered in another model, maintaining both models will become very complex. This holds for the ones working on the project at the moment but also for those working on it at a later stage and does that need to provide (incidental) support on the environments.
28	28
29		-Another practical reason for not wanting this is that we do not actively support this use case from eMagiz. This means that when we do updates to our technical infrastructure we will not take this scenario into account. This could lead to additional work on your part in the future and reduced stability of your solution.
	29	+Another practical reason for not wanting this is that we do not actively support this use case from eMagiz. This means that when we update our technical infrastructure, we will not consider this scenario. This could lead to additional work in the future and reduced stability of your solution.
30	30
31		-From the technical point of view, the consequence of this construction is that both models need to know each other certificates and credentials which are not considered secure. On top of that because you, theoretically, can exchange data from any queue to any queue you could create a situation in which updates in one model trigger changes in the other model (i.e. when using the same data model) that are unexpected (and frankly unwanted).
	31	+From the technical point of view, the consequence of this construction is that both models need to know each other certificates and credentials, which are not considered secure. On top of that, because you, theoretically, can exchange data from any queue to any queue, you could create a situation in which updates in one model trigger changes in the other model (i.e., when using the same data model) that are unexpected (and frankly unwanted).
32	32
33		-We advise using functionality that makes it explicit that both models function independently of each other. From eMagiz we consider two valid alternatives for this:
34		-- Using a web service as a layer of communication between the two models. This web service can be REST or SOAP and has been implemented before
	33	+We advise using functionality that makes it explicit that both models function independently of each other. From eMagiz, we consider two valid alternatives for this:
	34	+- Using a web service as a communication layer between the two models. This web service can be REST or SOAP and has been implemented before
35	35	- Using the Event Streaming functionality of eMagiz to write and read from topics.
36	36
37		-Both alternatives have the benefit that the security can be tight and explicit (i.e. only model A can write/post data to model B). Furthermore managing the solution becomes a lot easier as it makes use of the standard functionality within the platform. We have no plans to support this approach in the product.
	37	+Both alternatives have the benefit that the security can be tight and explicit (i.e., only model A can write/post data to model B). Furthermore, managing the solution becomes much easier as it uses the standard functionality within the platform. Therefore, we have no plans to support this approach in the product.
38	38
39	39	== 4. Assignment ==
40	40
41		-Consider what your criteria are when communicate between models and compare them to our criteria.
	41	+Consider what your criteria are when communicating between models and compare them to our criteria.
42	42	This assignment can be completed with the help of the (Academy) project you created/used in the previous assignment.
43	43
44	44	== 5. Key takeaways ==
45	45
46	46	* Consider the following when communication between two models
47		-** Security
	47	+** security
48	48	** Loose coupling
49	49	** Maintainability
50	50	** Clarity