Changes for page Multipart form-data

Summary

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

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -27,52 +27,44 @@
27	27	* Defining the content types of each part of the message
28	28	* Construction of the complete message according to the specification
29	29
30		-=== 3.1 Prepare the message ===
	30	+To actually construct the message there a several steps needed to make it work. Luckily, most of the steps needed have to do with concepts we have already discussed in previous microlearnings. As you can imagine based on what mulipart/form-data entails we need a way to both store the meta information and the file(s) we want to send to the external party. To do so it is advisable to put the metadata in one (or multiple) header(s) and use the file content as payload. This you can achieve with a header enricher and standard transformer.
31	31
32		-To construct the message, several steps are needed to make it work. Luckily, most of the steps necessary have to do with concepts we have already discussed in previous microlearnings. As you can imagine, based on what multipart/form-data entails, we need a way to both store the meta information and the file(s) we want to send to the external party. For example, put the metadata in one (or multiple) header(s) and use the file content as a payload. This you can achieve with a header enricher and standard transformer.
	32	+Once the file content is your payload you need to make sure that the data is "raw" in nature. So when you have a base64 encoded string you should decode the string before sending it to the endpoint.
33	33
34		-Once the file content is your payload, you must ensure that the data is "raw." So when you have a base64 encoded string, you should decode it before sending it to the endpoint.
	34	+On top of that we need to define the contentType header as follows.
35	35
36		-On top of that, we need to define the contentType header.
	36	+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.
37	37
38		-[[image:Main.Images.Microlearning.WebHome@expert-data-handling-multipart-form-data--content-type-header-config.png]]
	38	+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.
39	39
40		-=== 3.2 Construct the message ===
	40	+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.
41	41
42		-After you have set the stage, you can use a standard transformer component to build your message correctly. To create it correctly, you need to take the following into account:
	42	+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.
43	43
44		-* Each part of the message needs to be separated by a boundary
45		-* The message needs to start with a boundary and finish with a boundary
46		-* Line breaks are needed to differentiate between the boundary and the text content
47		-* No line break is needed when the content is not text-based
	44	+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).
48	48
49		-Given all this, you can write the following SpEL expression that will yield a desirable output:
	46	+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:
	47	+- 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
	48	+- Using the Event Streaming functionality of eMagiz to write and read from topics.
50	50
51		-{{code}}'${multi-part-form-data.data-handling.boundary}' + headers.metaInfo + T(com.emagiz.util.Newline).CRLF.characters + '${multi-part-form-data.data-handling.boundary}' + T(com.emagiz.util.Newline).CRLF.characters + 'Content-Disposition: form-data; name="file"; filename="' + headers.filename + '"' + T(com.emagiz.util.Newline).CRLF.characters + 'Content-Type: application/pdf' + T(com.emagiz.util.Newline).CRLF.characters + T(com.emagiz.util.Newline).CRLF.characters + payload + '${multi-part-form-data.data-handling.boundary}'{{/code}}
	50	+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.
52	52
53		-Putting this in a standard transformation gives you the following solution in the flow.
54		-
55		-[[image:Main.Images.Microlearning.WebHome@expert-data-handling-multipart-form-data--standard-transformer-config.png]]
56		-
57		-=== 3.3 Calling the endpoint ===
58		-
59		-Now that we have constructed our message correctly, the last thing to do is call the endpoint in question. Since we have prepared our message and accurately defined our contentType calling the endpoint does not require any additional configurations compared to what you are already used to when dealing with REST endpoints.
60		-
61	61	== 4. Assignment ==
62	62
63		-Try to see whether you can construct the flow so that it outputs a valid multipart/form-data message.
	54	+Consider what your criteria are when communicating between models and compare them to our criteria.
64	64	This assignment can be completed with the help of the (Academy) project you created/used in the previous assignment.
65	65
66	66	== 5. Key takeaways ==
67	67
68		-* Make sure to define the boundary that separates the parts of the message
69		-* Make sure to define the content types of each part of the message
70		-* Make sure to define the content type that matches the specification for multipart/form-data
71		-* Construct the complete message according to the specification
	59	+* Consider the following when communication between two models
	60	+** Security
	61	+** Loose coupling
	62	+** Maintainability
	63	+** Clarity
72	72
73	73	== 6. Suggested Additional Readings ==
74	74
75		-If you are interested in this topic, please read the help texts on the platform and read the following link:
	67	+If you are interested in this topic please read the helptexts in the platform and read the following link:
76	76
77	77	* https://www.sobyte.net/post/2021-12/learn-about-http-multipart-form-data/
78	78