Re:Kafka Is Dead, Long Live Kafka
by regularfry on Wednesday August 09, 2023 @04:28AM
(#37060017)
This is where the "or persistence" bit comes in, but the trade-off isn't as you describe. One way to approach it would be for B to set a flag against the user in the database they must already have, because they have users so that A can process password resets on its own schedule. It's add a column versus add a message queue. Databases already come with locking primitives and well understood patterns, no reinvention needed.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Kafka Is Dead, Long Live Kafka
by valenterry on Wednesday August 09, 2023 @09:29AM
(#37062370)
You are now assuming that they indeed have a database nd store users in there, and not use a 3rd party system that might not even allow to attach meta data (or at least make it difficult).
Re:Kafka Is Dead, Long Live Kafka
by regularfry on Wednesday August 09, 2023 @11:47AM
(#37064443)
In which case why is the password reset my problem at all?
But even if I've handed off identity management entirely, I almost certainly do have some per-user state. Otherwise... what on earth am I doing with users in the first place?
Re:Kafka Is Dead, Long Live Kafka
by valenterry on Wednesday August 09, 2023 @12:43PM
(#37065316)
Well, maybe because the 3rd party service is not reliable or you want to send an additional mail.
But okay, fair point - password-reset is maybe not the greatest example. But it doesn't invalidate the general point (I gave a couple of other examples).
> Otherwise... what on earth am I doing with users in the first place?
Maybe just making sure that the user is known and has paid for plan X (if the 3rd party service offers that).