I have few questions regarding HornetQ:
What are differences between HornetQ core API and the JMS API ?
is there any advantage or disadvantage on using one of these ?
Is it true to say if I use the core API and then I decide to
change my Messaging Bus (let's say to ActiveMQ) then I have to
change all my codes ?
HornetQ Core API is a proprietary API from HornetQ, while the JMS API is a standard API defined by the Java Community Process.
There are a few features that are not supported on JMS API, that are available through core-api:
It's not possible to have multiple consumers on a single topic subscription (say if you wanted to have multiple consumers to scale it better)
It's more generic on how you create the subscription. You just create a queue within an address. Very simple.
We have a nice API for asynchronous confirmations. No need to block ever if you use this feature.
The advantage on the JMS is portability. Your code stays the same if you decide to move between providers.
The disadvantage on JMS is that it lacks some features and it's a bit verbose, what's under works on JMS 2 JSR right now.
Yes, because as I have said here, Hornetq-core api is a proprietary API, hence it will only work on HornetQ. The same way as some message systems will have a proprietary API.
If you encapsulate your Messaging access you can minimize that a lot though where you could just replace a single class on your system using standard OO techniques.
Related
I am trying to integrate our third party application with NetSuite. I want to be able to import sales invoice details generated from our third party system (which uses REST API) into the NetSuite invoice form.
The frequency of import is not too crucial- an immediate import will be ideal, but sending data once a day is fine as well.
I want to know what I have to use to do this API integration - SuiteTalk, RESTlet or Suitelet.
I am completely new to this topic and after a few days of research, I learned that there are 3 options for an API integration with netsuite (Suitelets, restlets and suitetalk which comprises REST and SOAP based web services). I also learned that there are scheduled scripts and user events, but I'm not too clear on the idea.
I need some help identifying which integration option I should choose.
Any and all information about netsuite API integration is appreciated!
I would avoid REST/SOAP. SOAP is outdated, and REST is incomplete and difficult to use.
Suitelet's are for when you want to present your own custom UI to frontend users, like a special new kind of custom form not relevant to any particular record. Probably not what you want.
What you probably want is to design a restlet. A restlet is a way for you to setup your own custom url inside NetSuite that your program can talk to from outside NetSuite. Like a webpage. You can pass in data to the restlet either inside the URL, or inside the body of an HTTP request (e.g. like a JSON object), and you can get data back out from the body of the HTTP response.
A restlet is a part of SuiteTalk. The method of authenticating a restlet is the same for the method of authenticating a request to the REST API. So, learning about SuiteTalk is helpful. The code you use to write the restlet, SuiteScript, is the same kind of code used to write suitelets and other kinds of scripts.
So you will want to learn about SuiteTalk, and then, in particular, SuiteTalk restlets.
this is a really subjective issue.
It used to be that SOAP/SuiteTalk was a little easier in terms of infrastructure and since Netsuite's offerings are ever changing the REST/SuiteTalk might fill this space in the future.
Since Netsuite deprecated the Full Access role setting up integrations almost always involves the integrator having to provide a permissions spec. The easiest way to do that is via a Bundle. For token based authentication (TBA) there also needs to be an integration record from which you need Consumer Id and Secret Tokens.
So as of this writing the set up for SOAP/SuiteTalk and RESTLets is roughly the same. The easiest way to communicate these is with a bundle so if you are a Netsuite dev with a dev account you can set these up in a bundle and have your customer import them.
So equal so far but differences:
SOAP/Suitetalk is slow. IMO not suiteable for an interactive interface
SOAP/Suitetalk the code is all in your external app so changes to the code don't require any changes in the target account.
RESTlets can be pretty speedy. I've used these for client interactions.
Updates require re-loading your bundle or overwriting your bundle files in the target account (with the resulting havoc if an admin refreshes the bundle)
RESTlets give you access to the features of the account on which you are running so that code can run appropriate chunks For instance features such as matrix items, multi-location inventory, one-world, pick/pack/ship, volume pricing, multi-currency will all change the data model of the account your code is running against. RESTlets can detect which features are enabled; SOAP/SuiteTalk cannot.
So really the only advantage at this point that I see for SOAP/Suitetalk is that code updates don't require access to the target account.
Who is making the changes? If it is your NetSuite developers, then your options are SUITELET or RESTLET.
If its your third-party application team, they own the code and the process and do all their work sitting outside of NetSuite - your option is SUITETALK/SOAP. Of course, they need to know something about NetSuite, but your business analyst would be sufficient to support them. As of 2020.1+, there is also support for native REST APIs in addition to SOAP in case you still want to use REST, but not write your own RESTLETS.
As the above comments mention, Suitetalk does perform a little slower than calling RESTLETS. So that maybe one of the deciding factors.
You may consider SUITELETs for integration only if you want to bypass all authentication schemes, by setting the suitelet as public. Highly inadvisable though.
If the third-party application supports REST APIs, you could call them directly from within NetSuite - either from user events or from scheduled scripts.
You can also consider iPAAS platforms like Dell Boomi, Celigo, Jitterbit, etc. These are general-purpose integration platforms, and make connecting one platform to another easy, with minimal coding. If your Company is already invested in these iPAAS platforms for other enterprise applications, then the choice is that much simpler.
Could anybody explain advantage of using json-rpc over json-api and vice-versa? First and second format are JSON-based, but where I should use one, and where is another?
Note: I may come across a little biased. I am the author of the Json-RPC.net server library.
Json-RPC is a remote procedure call specification. There are multiple libraries you can use to communicate using that protocol. It is not REST based, and is transport agnostic. You can run it over HTTP as is very common, you can also use it over a socket, or any other transport you find appropriate. So it is quite flexible in that regard. You can also do server to client along with client to server requests with it by hosting the RPC server on either the client or the server.
Json-API is a specification for building REST APIs. There are multiple libraries you can use to get started with it. In contrast to Json-Rpc it requires you to host it on an HTTP server. You cannot invoke functions on the client with it. You cannot run it over a non-http transport protocol. Being REST based, it excels at providing information about Resources. If you want an API that is based around the idea of Create, Read, Update, Delete on some collections of resources, then this may be a good choice.
Json-API is going to be better if your API is resource-based, and you want your API to be browsable by a human without setting up documentation for it. Though that human would likely need to be in the software engineering field to make any sense of it.
Json-RPC is going to be better if your API is function based, or you want the flexibility it provides. Json-RPC can still be used to manipulate Resources by creating Create, Read, Update, and Delete functions for your resources, but you don't get the browsability with it not being REST based. It can still be explored (not browsed) by a human by generating documentation based off of the functions you expose.
A popular example of something that uses Json-Rpc is BitCoin.
There are a lot of popular REST-based API's and Json-API is a spec with a bunch of tools to help you do REST right.
--
Note: Neither of those (Json-RPC, or Json-API) are good when you consider for developer time, performance, or efficiently using network resources.
If you care about performance, efficiency, or developer time then take a look at Google's gRPC which is fantastic in those regards, and can still reduce developer time more than using a REST API as client and server code can be generated from a protocol definition file.
What is the best technique to push notifications from the cloud to a client? REST does not seem to support this. In particular, I have JSON objects representing world state going to the cloud and want to be able to notify a client when that state changes.
All HTML5 implementations I've seen support full duplex communication via WebSockets.
If you're using Google App Engine you can use the Channel API. https://developers.google.com/appengine/docs/java/channel/
If you're using JBoss you can use the Errai Framework. http://errai.github.io/
I'm sure there are a lot of other options out there. And there's always email.
In most of articles I have seen that the major difference between ESB and EAI is "Single Point Failure in EAI".
My Question here is :
In EAI if Hub fails are we saying that this is single point of failure. In ESB also if Bus fails we can say single point failure. Is this right? If not please briefly explain about this.
The major difference between ESB and EAI is not Single-Point-Of-Failure.
Having said that, if the ESB Bus fails then, yes, it is a point of failure. Ultimately these are just applications in your infrastructure and whether they are a single point of failure or not is dependent on their deployment (eg. clustering) and not on the underlying conceptual integration pattern.
Personally I would classify ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) as a type of EAI (Enterprise Application Integration). Many companies trying to sell you a product instead of a concept would argue differently.
ESB is just the new pattern for EAI instead of Hub-Spoke. I wouldn't get too caught up in the differences. When you dig into it they are few and far between.
Refer this comment
The ESB is the next generation of enterprise integration technology, taking over where EAI(hub-spoke) leaves off.
Smarter Endpoints : The ESB enables architectures in which more intelligence is placed at the point
where the application interfaces with the outside world. The ESB allows each endpoint to present
itself as a service using standards such as WSDL and obviates the need for a unique interface written
for each application. Integration intelligence can be deployed natively on the end-points (clients and
servers) themselves. Canonical formats are bypassed in favor of directly formatting the payload to
the targeted format. This approach effectively removes much of the complexity inherent in EAI
products.
Distributed Architecture : Where EAI is a purely hub and spoke approach, ESB is a lightweight
distributed architecture. A centralized hub made sense when each interaction among programs had
to be converted to a canonical format. An ESB, distributes much more of the
processing logic to the end points.
No integration stacks : As customers used EAI products to solve more problems, each vendor added
stacks of proprietary features wedded to the EAI product. Over time these integration stacks got
monolithic and require deep expertise to use. ESBs, in contrast, are a relatively thin layer of software
to which other processing layers can be applied using open standards. For example, if an ESB user
wants to deploy a particular business process management tool, it can be easily integrated with the
ESB using industry standard interfaces such as BPEL for coordinating business processes.
The immediate short-term advantage of the ESB approach is that it achieves the same overall effect
as the EAI(hub-spoke) approach, but at a much lower total-cost-of-ownership. These savings are realized not
only through reduced hardware and software expenses, but also via labor savings that are realized by
using a framework that is distributed and flexible.
We need to avoid it becoming a single point of failure with a clustered set up - it can be a HA cluster or a FO cluster.
Can anyone explain at a beginner-intermediate level the terminology of "bus", "transport" and "endpoint" in the context of an enterprise service bus? I'm a C# developer with a few years experience now, but only just starting working with an ESB.
It seems that the "bus" is effectively a queue to which you can send and receive messages. I'm fine with that. However I'm working on some existing code using NServiceBus and I think if I grokked the "endpoint" and "transport" terminology I'd make a massive leap forward in my understanding.
Let me try to clarify those terms to you:
Bus in context of ESB architecture should not be considered as simple queue for message dispatching. To allow integration of different services, ESB provides much more. Important additional functionalities of ESB:
Routing. Messages can be routed to different services, depending on message content or endpoint specification.
Message Transformations/Mediations between different formats
Transport protocol conversion. ESB should be able to seamlessly integrate applications
that use different transport protocols (JMS, HTTP/S, pure TCP, etc.)
Message enhancement. Messages can be enriched with missing data before further processing.
Security
Management and Monitoring
Those functionalites are provided by services that operate within ESB. Services connect to each other via endpoints - uniform, unique "addresses". Messages dispatched between endpoints are using unified transport (method/protocol that encapsulates message's payload). Application that natively use different transport, need to connect to ESB via suitable adapter - service that will provide necessary transport conversion. This way applications that use ESB are decoupled from each other and don't need to provide conversions themselves.
Of course, those are only very brief descriptions of terms. Remember, Enterprise Service Bus is only catch-term for specific kind of architecture (or concept), but it is not standardized in any way. So specific implementations can be very different from each other.
If you are interested in standardized ESB, you can take a look at JBI (Java Bussiness Integration). There are several open-source implementations of JBI avalable, among them Apache ServiceMix, Mule, OpenESB. Very good introduction to ESB technologies is presented in "Open Source ESBs in Action" book published by Manning.
I would recommend looking at resources related to Enterprise Application Integration (EAI), which revolves around the ESB and various models and patterns used to integrate solutions. Think of it is a GoF for ESB architectures:
http://www.enterpriseintegrationpatterns.com/
and
http://www.enterpriseintegrationpatterns.com/toc.html
All of these patterns would give you an idea of what people use ESB's to achieve and the patterns are useful for providing common pitfalls of do-it-yourself ESB integration. I've learned an immense amount through that book and through people that source from it.