You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jan 10, 2023. It is now read-only.
This is a bit out of left field but you know how you link the mini executing programmes, well I reckon it's begging for a event bus with topics.
At design time you have to wire your pins together. That's orchestration pattern and is a dead end.
Better to use a choreography pattern and at design time just have a file to describe the things pins subscribe to, and those things are topics. This way no components know about each other and the design scales out at design time. You can then change the wiring at runtime also.
Happy to discuss these ideas. I use them for all other projects and it's well know enterprise pattern so you don't end up in a architectural design cul-de-sac.
Google orchestration versus choreography..
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
This is a bit out of left field but you know how you link the mini executing programmes, well I reckon it's begging for a event bus with topics.
At design time you have to wire your pins together. That's orchestration pattern and is a dead end.
Better to use a choreography pattern and at design time just have a file to describe the things pins subscribe to, and those things are topics. This way no components know about each other and the design scales out at design time. You can then change the wiring at runtime also.
Happy to discuss these ideas. I use them for all other projects and it's well know enterprise pattern so you don't end up in a architectural design cul-de-sac.
Google orchestration versus choreography..
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: