Transactions can be cleanly replaced with reservations in most cases i.e. "I'll reserve this stock for 10 minutes" after which point the reservation is invalid. So a typical flow for a order pipeline payment failure would be:
1. Client places order to order service.
2. Order service calls ERP service and places reservation on stuff for 10 minutes.
3. Order service calls payment service (which is sloooow and takes 2-3 mins for a callback) and issues payment.
4. Payment service fails or payment fails.
5. Order service correlation times out.
6. Order service calls notification service and tells buyer that their transaction timed out and cancels the order.
7. ERP service doesn't hear back from the order service and kills reservation.
etc etc.
At step (4) you have an option to just chuck the message back on the bus to try again after say 2 minutes. If everything times out, meh.
Also if the ERP says "in ten days you can have that amount of potatoes" you can ask for a longer reservation and issue the payment later.
Its all about careful ordering and atomicity at the service level and determining what must be done synchronously and what can be done asynchronously.
1. reservation is placed.
2. Payment succeeds, but either success is not known, the process requesting payment crashes before the response, etc.
3. ???
Since we never got to telling ERP "hey, that reservation will be permanent because the payment succeeded", but the payment succeeded… what do you do? Does the reservation expire (but my potatoes!)? How do you even know that the payment succeeded, if perhaps a network connection goes dark and requires 2h to fix?
What happens when your payment processor succeeds in processing the transaction, but you don't get the success code? You either retry/confirm/correct... One would assume you would, upon not getting confirmation that your reservation was made permanent, retry the commitment, if it was already committed, then the erp service can return the appropriate response.
At step 3 in your list above the payment would time out and a refund would be issued. Usually payments time out as well so you can usually reserve cash (pre-auth in banking terms). So we end up with stacks of reservations.
If something breaks you can retry within a reasonable limit or wait for everything to drop all the reservations.
Overall, you have to learn to love eventual consistency, but small portions of the domain should absolutely be clustered together around transactional consistency needs that are absolutely necessary.
Check out "Implementing Domain Driven Design" by Vaughn Vernon; chapter 10 in particular talks about this.
1) Use a linearizable data store to store transaction metadata
2) Each step must have a complementary rollback step
3) Rollback steps must be idempotent. Depending on the type transaction, sometimes 'rollback' is too strong and you instead implement other types of recovery (e.g. 'roll-forward')
[1] http://gotocon.com/chicago-2015/presentation/Applying%20the%...
Didn't get many useful replies. http://ws-rest.org/2014/sites/default/files/wsrest2014_submi... looked promising.
Though it probably needs some JSON and more use of HTTP-specific features in order to be acceptable today.
A concrete example we've faced. A certain operation requires writing data to N flaky services. You successfully write to N-1 of them, but the Nth fails. Now what do you do? If these N things were just database writes to the same DB, transactions would save you, as you could just rollback. Without that, the answer has to be handled in code -- do you reverse the previous changes (if possible) by sending delete events, or leave the system in some sort of half-baked state and rectify things later via some other process? (I'm interested in hearing of other options...)
The answers I got were:
1) apologetic computing (Amazon)
2) consensus algorithms / paxos
The problem I see is that these may be non-trivial to implement and/or not fully understood or standardized.
This one really works well.
What if, in a given use case, multiple microservices are involved but the operations must be transactional : if one of the services fails, all previous operations must rollback. What are the recommended ways of implementing this kind of transactional behavior in a modern HTTP/REST microservices architecture?
I know the pattern is called "distributed transactions" and is often related to two-phase commit protocol. But there doesn't seem to be a lot of practical information available about this topic!
I found this recent presentation[1] that talks about it, but I'd like to learn more on the subject. Also, I'm looking for practical tutorials, not highly academic ones! I'd really love to see code samples, for instance.
Any links, suggestions?
[1] http://www.infoq.com/presentations/microservices-docker-cqrs