Buy
Buy

Microservices Gone Wrong

You don’t have access to this content, but if you attended SymfonyCon 2018 - log in with your SymfonyConnect account to get access for free.

With a Subscription, click any sentence in the script to jump to that part of the video!

Login Subscribe

Tip

SymfonyCon 2018 Presentation by Anthony Ferrara

Microservices are the latest architectural trend to take the PHP community by storm. Is it a good pattern? How can you use it effectively? In this talk, we'll explore real world experience building out a large scale application based around microservices: what worked really well, what didn't work at all, and what we learned along the way. Spoiler alert: we got a lot wrong.

Good morning, bom día. So today I want to talk to you about a little bit of a story. I want to do a very different talk than most other conference talks that you have seen or that you would have here today. Rather than telling you what to do or telling you what technologies to use or how to do something well, I'm going to tell you a story of something that I've royally screwed up. We all make mistakes. We've all gone out and built systems. And a team that I had the opportunity to lead a number of years ago, we wound up building a platform. And I'm gonna tell you a little about the background. But we made a bunch of mistakes and rather than let those mistakes die out and let me and the team be the ones that learned from it. I really want to take all of you on a little bit of a journey and tell you about some of the things that we did right some of the things we did wrong.

So today is really going to be a journey about what we built. Why we built it. How we built it. Where we ran into significant trouble, and where everything worked well. And this is my puppy Adda who's going to help me on some of these transitionary slides.

Background

So let's jump into the background. I walked in to a growing team. They had recently received a major round of venture investment, grew the engineering team from five to 18 within a year, it would later be about 30 people. And it was a very good mix between php developers, a couple people with Go experience, a couple of really, really good frontend engineers, data engineers, et cetera. They really cared about software quality. The people that they hired in were very, very good engineers.

But they were dealing with a legacy system, and we've all dealt with legacy systems in the past. This was quite an interesting one. The one I really want to highlight here is this bottom one. There were over a thousand cron jobs that ran as frequently as every two minutes, which corrected data in the database. That should tell you a little bit about, of an idea about the state of the system.

It was so hard to find and fix bugs that rather than fix them, they just patched over them and band-aided it. And that's not a knock on the developers. Like this system was around for five years, was built very, very quickly, was scaled with different varying amounts of talent. You know, a classical legacy problem. But the business needed more. The business needed stability. They needed an application that worked for them, that scaled with them. When I walked in, they had just gotten off of a nine month product freeze, which means that engineering said, for nine months we're going to do nothing but solve technical debt. We're going to do nothing but try to clean up the system. It was another three months before the first meaningful product release happened from there. And it was incredibly, incredibly painful to work with.

To Refactor? Or Rebuild?

So we were left with a decision, do we refactor or do we rebuild? The team had spent about nine months, like I just mentioned, trying to refactor and kind of not really having very much success with it. And so what we decided to do was not to rebuild. We went into a room - head of product, head of UX and about five or six other individual contributors and myself - and we went into a room with four whiteboard walls. And we started to ask ourselves, what does this system do? What are the core things in this application that it assumes. And I'll give you an example right now. Your system - any application that you work on - probably has a unique column on the user table for email address. Emails are unique within the system. That is an assumption. However, in most well-designed systems, that assumption is isolated to that user system. If you wanted to change that, if you wanted it to allow multiple emails to register for multiple user accounts, sorry, a single email to register for multiple user accounts, you just remove that unique, change your login, change your registration and you're done. This application, it was all over the place. Things inside of systems that had no business knowing about an email address relied on the fact that emails were unique. And so in order to change that assumption, we would have needed to touch about 60 percent of the code.

So what we did is we went on the four walls of this whiteboard room and we filled every single wall with a core assumption of what our platform was. And then we asked product: which out of these do you want to change significantly in the next 6 to 12 months? We wound up with, out of four entire walls, exactly three that were not going to be changed significantly.

And so what we realized is that it's not a refactor. It's not a rebuild, it's actually a V2 . It's actually a completely separate product that we want to build. At the highest of high level, it solves the same business problem, but how it does it is drastically different. We could have taken the time and refactored that in, but it would have taken three or four years to actually get to the end goal of where the product wanted to be. And so instead, we set us, set ourselves a four month goal to get an MVP of the V2 up and running. And this is the story of that MVP process.

Architecture

So stepping into the technical architecture here, when we started building this MVP, we had to have some kind of a guiding framework. And what we settled on was this, and I'll walk you through each one of the pieces. But the basic concept here is everything that runs on a server only does API calls. The frontend is the only thing - this frontend server here - is the only thing that actually knows about HTML, that actually knows anything about a browser.

Everything else talks through this gateway to a service over REST. So API-first development. The API gateway is the first thing I want to focus on because it's one of the things I think we got really, really right. This was in the neighborhood of 2015 and Amazon had just released their API gateway project two days before we decided to settle on Tyk. Tyk is an open source project, it's written in GO, uses MongoDB on the backend, it integrates well with console, with a lot of modern Dev ops tools. But basically what Tyk allows you to do is configure REST API endpoints with JSON. So I can hit an API and say, create this new endpoint, here's the backend server that it's going to deal with, I want you to handle OAuth for me, so terminate OAuth and just give me a user ID. I don't want to know any of that stuff. Handle rate limiting, handle quotas, do all of this stuff. And what it actually, one of the really cool parts is it had the support for middleware where we could actually have a very slowly-evolving frontend REST API, that our frontend servers built on, that our clients build integrations against it, etc. While our internal servers were more RPC based, a lot faster moving and didn't have to worry about backwards compatibility nearly as much. There was still some challenges there. But the API gateway pattern definitely is something that I'm actually really proud of from this that we actually built out, worked really, really fascinatingly well.

RabbitMQ & Event Sourcing

So stepping back out, the next really key part is RabbitMQ. Again, this is 2015 timeframe, the stack that we're building on is mostly php. We had some GO services, et cetera, and at the time Kafka did not really support PHP well. Go did not really support PHP well, sorry, Go did not support Kafka well. And so we decided to go with RabbitMQ. If I was doing this decision today, I would 100 percent pick Kafka for a reason that's going to be apparent. We were using this as a pseudo event sourcing database, meaning every time we made a change in the application, we would emit an event describing that change. Theoretically you could replay those events in order and get the system back into the state. I said theoretically because in practice it didn't really work that well. The, one of the big mistakes that we made was none of the services relied on Rabbit to set the state. So whenever they emitted the state changes it was kind of just advisory. So we would run into problems where the JSON wasn't fully populated or messages were just completely blank by accident and they weren't caught for a while.

if I were to do this again, I would absolutely use a similar-style system, but I would make it event sourcing first. Meaning that event list is the single source of truth and the services mainly use that, have a query against it, have a API where they can look at those events. But, so this was something that really was difficult to get running, caused us a lot of frustration, but in the end actually gave us a lot of insights. So it was kind of a mixed bag because having everything talking to a single archive meant that we had one single picture over everything that was happening in the application from the event stream. So while it was a pain in the neck, it also did help us a lot.

Service Layer

The other thing I want to talk about at this layer, is this service layer. So we divided our services into roughly three categories, domain services which are meant to sound like domain objects because that's kind of how we were thinking about them. So our business entities, all of our business logic, all lived in these types of services. They communicated over HTTP and they all had their own persistence. So they all have their own databases and caching systems. We also had asynchronous services that purely listened over RabbitMQ to do things like long running jobs, batch processing, we did a lot of video transcoding, et cetera. So all of that stuff was handled via asynchronous services. And then we finally had these things that we called meta services.

It's kinda hard to explain what a meta service is. So I'll give you an example in just a second,.but one of the challenges, we approached this design as normal object oriented design: your domain entities, you split them apart, you find your boundaries, you create your services just like you would do it in PHP, whether it's Symfony or Laravel or Zend or whatever framework you want to do. And those services talk to each other. We modeled our microservice architecture off of very, very similar principles. There is something that we didn't consider though.

HTTP Calls will Fail

How unreliable a service call is in relation to a method call. So ask a question, ask yourself a question. How often do you expect a method to fail randomly? And I don't mean the method to not return because that would be somewhere around one in a billion. If you look at Symfony in a normal default configuration running in production, your front page may take 10,000 method calls to render. And how often does one of them fail randomly? Maybe one every 100,000 requests? But we're actually not talking about what happens inside that method because that stays the same when you go to services. We're actually talking about the method call itself. It's so infrequent that you've probably never even thought about it. You've never thought that: hey, I have this object, I know it's a valid object, I'm going to call this method on it, maybe that's not going to work. Whereas in a service architecture, you absolutely, positively have to. HTTP calls, if you're very, very good at operating an HTTP service, you're maybe going to get five nines, five nines of uptime, 99 point nine, nine, nine percent uptime, translates to one every 100,000 requests will fail randomly. And there's nothing that you can do about it. So compare those two numbers, one in infinity versus one in 100,000. This is what got us into a lot of trouble.

So the question is, how small should you build your services? We started with the idea of one week. One week should be about the amount of time that if you have a solid specification for a service, you should be able to go from zero to a working service. That way, if we made a mistake, if we had a significant issue, we could literally throw a service away. I've heard some people talk about that number as a rough benchmark. And at this point in my career and after this experience, I will tell you that is an absolute mistake.

Here's why, this was a rough model of our domain. We did an e-learning platform that would deliver lessons via a web platform. And so we had users, we had assignments which assigned lessons to users, we had a history which showed what lessons a user interacted with. We had content associated with lessons and we had assets associated with content. And the way we modeled this as a system architecture was roughly every one of those entities became its own service.

Now it's actually a bit more complicated than this. This is a little bit simplified to make the point: each one of these services did have more than one database table. It did have more logic built into it, but this is the rough concept. And so this raises a question. If you are building for the frontend, how would you get everything that you need to service a request or to render a page that shows an assignment? Today and in fact, back then, one answer could be GraphQL, right? GraphQL is phenomenal at stitching it things like this together. The problem was this need isn't just had on the frontend. Backend services needed to look at things and aggregate as well.

So that's where these meta services came in. They had domain knowledge. So it knew what an assignment was. It wasn't just stitching things randomly together. It knew what it was creating so we could actually add some business logic in there around that. But most importantly, it acted as a pain function for developers. If we got our backend model wrong, we would feel it when we built that meta service. And so by forcing us to maintain a service to fill in the gap, it forced developers to realize that: hey, this other model was bad. Or this other model had problems.

So let's ask another question. How would you get a list of lessons ordered by the author name of the content within those lessons? Think about where that data lives. You want to order by this user service over here, but you want to join against content and then finally return lessons. That would be an absolute nightmare to do over REST. I mean that's, you basically would have to query every single row from every single service and try to stitch that back together. It took about six months to solve that problem once we sat down and tried to do it, which is where I think the real failing of this architecture and going this small on services. We ignored what the business domain was. We ignored the bounded context and went way smaller than was necessary. And to be fair, we didn't know that this type of requirement was going to exist when we built it. So keep in mind, keep things as wide as you can and only really cut those services when those boundaries are clear and easy. By the way, the way we solved this was with a service that used ElasticSearch and basically kept its own model of everything in here and became a generic search service, which yeah, was challenging.

Infrastructure

Let's talk about infrastructure. I just told you something that we got horribly wrong. Now I'm going to tell you about something that we got ridiculously right. I think at least. We had been running Mesos, Apache Mesos for a while at that point because we were using Spark. And Apache Mesos is basically very similar to Kubernetes but for arbitrary jobs. You can run a farm of servers. You give Mesos jobs and it figures out how to run them and it runs them across the cluster. So we had a lot of experience running Mesos and at the time Kubernetes was really not a thing. I think they had just announced it. It may have even been alpha, but none of the cloud services supported it. And so we decided to go this direction, running Marathon, which was the Docker scheduler on top of Mesos.

Took a little bit to get running. But once it was running, it worked phenomenally well. And so I want to take you through the life of an actual request just to show how powerful this was. The very first thing that happened when you called an API was it would hit an external elastic load balancer, an Amazon ELB, which are very, very, very reliable, but kind of slow to reconfigure. Whereas Marathon would want to reconfigure things every couple of milliseconds at times. And so the ELB would talk to a ha proxy instance, which, was a little bit less reliable but was very, very, very fast to update. Those requests would then go into Tyk into our gateway and then Tyk would call an internal service inside the firewall to an internal ELB, which would then go through the same process and hit our service. This looks heavy, but including Tyk, including OAuth termination, including rate limiting, including the REST deserialization in any middleware that we had in here, this entire process took about 10 to 15 milliseconds. So really, really, really fast and gave us near infinite, well not near infinite vertical scalability let's not go that far, but gave us a good bit of vertical scalability with this, or horizontal scalability actually.

And then if that internal service wanted to talk to another API, it basically just bypassed that external step and just talk straight to that other service through that ELB. So what we wound up having was a system where if we wanted to add nodes, we could drag a slider and within 30 to 50 milliseconds have every single machine running a new service and the system would reconfigure itself. We were deploying on average, I think it was about 500 machines per day where we would spin down old machines and spin up new machines and we had almost 100 percent uptime during the time we actually ran this, that I was there. It turned out to be very, very reliable once we got it up and running.

Touching on logging really quickly. Logging is insanely important when you're building a distributed system. This was one of the core things that we did initially using LogSpout to collect, to stick things out into DataDog. So StatsD as well for application metrics. And we also used something called Zipkin. Zipkin was simultaneously one of the biggest pain in the rear ends that we worked with as well as one of the most powerful tools that we had. Getting it running at least at the time was an utter nightmare. Once it was running, the data that we got was incredible.

Basically, when you have a service that calls other services, you pass along a request id on that other call. And Zipkin, looks at that data and is able to correlate requests. So you can see for one service, it may have taken 100 milliseconds to serve that request. You can look at every single sub request, every single part, no matter how far it fans out into your system, all from one graph. You can see the network effects, the configuration that happens when you have one service fail, how that affects other services. Zipkin took us a very long time to get up and running and we paid a significant price. A lot of things would have been a lot easier to debug had we have gotten that up and running sooner.

The final piece on the infrastructure side, we implemented something called, that we called the service.json file. This basically lived inside of every single services repo. It described the name of the service, which would turn into a DNS name. It would describe what other services this one required to run, what database it needed, and so we could actually spin up databases, run migrations against them, configure the credentials 100 percent automatically. Same thing with health checks and the APIs that that service exposed, as well as all the things that Mesos Marathon needed to run it properly. And so with one file to get a new service into production, all we needed to do is go into CircleCI and say, build this project. And it would automatically deploy everything into production when you merge into master. Worked actually really quite well.

One thing I'd point out does anything that I just talked about look familiar? This is basically Kubernetes. That's what we wound up reinventing and looking back on it, it feels a lot like we reinvented a lot of the wheel. But the reality was we were just a little bit too far ahead of where things were coming and I don't mean that in a good way. But we wound up reinventing a lot that was ultimately coming down the pike for major open source projects. And today just use Kubernetes. You don't need to build the rest of it and you can get the same exact benefits.

Local Dev Experience

So moving along, that's how it worked in production, at least in theory. Local dev was a little bit of a different story. So the initial intention and what we built at first glance was a command line tool. So you would check out a repository for service and you would run this command line tool in it. And it would read that service.json and figure out what you needed to run your service, configure a docker compose file to spin up all of the other services to run all the migration files to get your databases all set up and everything like that, and get everything up and running so that you had a local dev that basically exactly mirrored production, in theory.

The problem was nobody actually used it. Every engineer ran their own service natively on their machine. And when they needed to run a dependency run another service that they had to talk to, they would either mock it themselves by creating a little, you know, Node.js script or a little PHP script to simulate that endpoint, or they would talk to another developer to get the other service running on their machine. And this wound up having a big problems because the amount of times that they would update that destination service was not really that frequent. And when they did, they weren't really in the habit of running migrations,.and so when we went to integrate this in production services weren't used to talking to each other. It became an absolute nightmare.

And so we stopped and we asked why. Why weren't the developers using this tool that built and worked? That was built and actually worked? And the answer was actually pretty simple. There's two layers to it. The first is that tool was slow. It took on average, because of the number of dependencies that had to spin up, and it basically started from a docker, from a fresh slate every single time you booted, took about 20 minutes to get up and running. And you figure you do that once a day, once every couple of days. But that also means anytime you want to reset the state of the system, you have to wait 20 minutes. That's kind of a ridiculous amount of time to wait. It was also really unreliable about half the time it wouldn't start,

But there is another key point. The way we had built the team in the way we had built this tool was such that it was somebody else's problem. There was somebody who is designated on the team to build and maintain this tool. Developers had agency over their service.json file, but they had no agency on whether or not their system ran in this tool or not because ultimately the tool didn't matter. What mattered was prod and as long as prod worked, nobody really cared. And so that was a really, really huge fault and failure on my side. And one of the big things I learned as a takeaway is you've got to, especially in a services architecture, you have to get the local environment right and consistent because that will be the difference between a system that works in a system that doesn't work.

Getting it Running

And speaking of that, I want to talk about actually getting this thing off the ground. So we spent about three weeks building the first couple of services, authentication, user service, and a basic content service. And we had all three of them running in local dev and we went to put it into production. And it took a month from that point before the first successful login on the frontend happened. A month, from working code to serving traffic. That's just absolutely ludicrous.

And so we started to ask ourselves, we had retrospectives after retrospectives and there is a whole bunch of reasons for it. One of the key ones being the local development environment was not stable. So therefore getting into prod was actually the first time these services ever talked to each other. And so the services were built in isolation. It really caused a lot of pain. Some of this was just normal growing pains, you know, you're building your infrastructure to kind of an ideal, you expect health checks to behave exactly a certain way and in practice there's a little bit of fudge room for that. And so there's always little kinks to iron out, but it was really, really challenging.

A little more detail on a couple of these. I'm not going to read these each independently. I'll get to the coordination in a second. But getting the local state and staging environments into a known state was insanely challenging. So what I mean by known state is, let's say you have a bug in production. How would you replicate that in a local environment? If you're dealing with a monolith, maybe depending upon your security requirements, you clone the database? Or if you're actually doing things well and GDPR compliant, you actually have a system in place to anonymize that data? Or even better yet, you're able to recreate it directly on your local without having to copy any data.

That was literally impossible here. Every service had its own database. There was data in all sorts of places and Rabbit MQ queues, in S3 that the system used. And so to get the system into a known state was literally impossible. The only way people could actually do it was by going into the interface and clicking things in the interface to create content and to create assignments and all this stuff. So both from a debugging standpoint, but also from a build standpoint, it was insanely, insanely challenging. We had an idea for a tool to solve this problem, which was basically to detail the state in a yaml file and give it to a tool which would then coordinate with all the services to get everything into a known state. It seemed like it would have worked to solve the problem, but again, just a matter of time, we didn't actually get a chance to finish it.

Dealing with Change

The high-level coordination is a really interesting challenge. How do you deal with change? So change is always a natural part of software development cycles and of getting things into production. You know, we're never going to get it right the first time, whether it's feedback from clients tell you that you built the wrong solution, whether it's an executive stakeholder that walks in and goes, I demand that you add this feature because I'm just executive and I demand things. Or maybe it's because we actually literally screwed up the first time that we did it and we misunderstood the problem from an engineering standpoint. We built the wrong thing. So change is a natural part and, you know it's going to happen.

Here's an example of a real change that we faced. This is a rough abstraction of one of the hierarchies in our system where a program has many topics, a topic has many lessons, a lesson has many cards, and a card has many assets. Don't worry too much about what these things are. Just think of them as entities. What happens when the business comes in and says, I need a new layer?

In a normal monolithic application, this would be trivial. You would add a new database table, right? Maybe a little bit of a migration and 90 percent of the time things will just work and maybe you spend a couple more days cleaning stuff up and adding the UI elements and stuff like that. It took a month to do something like this because, remember, everything is a separate service. How would you make a change to this hierarchy?

Well, it turns out, you first have to make the change in anything that depends upon that service. And you have to make the change such that it can accept either the old or the new way. And then you need to add that new service. You need to run all the migrations to get all the data into that new service and then you have to change all of the other services again to get rid of that duplication, to get rid of the acceptance of the old way of doing things or the new way of doing things. And so basically what would have otherwise been a very simple refactor turned into massive coordinated surgery. Typically these type of refactorings required half to three quarters of the team working for weeks at a time. And these are things that any application goes through, like these are not complex things.

And so what we should have done, in retrospect, what I would have rather done is this: take our domain model and group it by bounded context, group it by the things that are similar that need to know about each other and put these other services out in other areas. Asset service is its own thing here, it could be part of lessons, but considering video transcoding and stuff like that, there's a lot of things that are unique just to assets. And this is ultimately what we wound up doing. We did wind up throwing away three quarters of those other services and building what some people would call microliths.

Lessons Learned

So I want to wrap up a little bit here with some lessons that we learned and some key takeaways here. First thing that I would recommend is don't do microservices. Now this is a little bit of a joke because you can very clearly see what we did at least initially was not really microservices. It was a distributed model. But I would strongly, strongly say, do not build a non monolith unless you can invest in operations, unless you can invest in automation and tooling and have every single developer own and be responsible for that tooling, it's not gonna work out well. Or at least, it didn't work out well for us.

Start with big services, especially when you don't understand the problem. You may think that you understand the problem, but unless you have solved that problem in production, start with a big service because it's far, far, far easier to take something that's big and complete and split it into, break it apart because you know where your challenges are. You understand your domain, you understand the problems. But to try to stitch two services together, especially when you have dependencies in other parts of the application, becomes insanely challenging.

Automate absolutely everything. And I don't just mean deploys. I'm talking about your infrastructure changes. If you're not using Terraform, use Terraform, etc. Like make sure the backups are 100 percent automated. Make sure that how you get the application into a known state is automated. Automation and autonomous systems are absolutely critical, especially as complexity increases.

This is, I think, the biggest lesson that I learned. Anytime that we're really dealing with distributed systems, but a lot more so applications in general. Normally the way we write code is we write the happy path first and then we test the sad paths and we write the sad paths. And even TDD with the red green cycle is designed to kind of do this. You don't write the failing test for your failure case first, you write your failing test for what the business problem is. Then that fails and then you write the code to solve that. Think failure first. Start off with: what happens if this thing breaks. And write the code to solve that first, because things will break. Your database will go down, you will have corruption, you will have a network failure. No matter whether you're building a monolith or a distributed system, things will go wrong. And changing your thinking to start thinking about what's going wrong, what's going to happen, what's failing and how will I gracefully handle that, becomes absolutely critical at maintaining a scalable and highly available system.

And then finally, this is I think one of the things that we thought we understood in the beginning, but we didn't. SLO's are a concept that came out of Google's SRE book, which is their service-level objectives. Basically, what does the business care about for this service? We measured everything in our services. We measured requests per second. we measured memory usage. We looked at number of database queries per call. Like any technical metric you can think of we probably were tracking it. But we weren't really tracking with the business actually cared about. Yeah, we thought we were. We thought were, you know, number of pieces of content accessed per second, but that's really not what a business cares about. The business cares: was a lesson consumed? Did the learning happen? It was an e-learning platform. Did a service respond in a timely fashion and not a timely fashion from a technical definition, a timely fashion from what the actual end user cares about. And so by defining these SLO's when you, before you build your service, you actually have a metric that you can test your service against.

The biggest takeaway that I have from this entire experience, and I've talked about this a little bit on twitter and I know there's different opinions on this, but I've learned that complexity is the number one enemy in software development. Everything that we do: when you look at refactoring, when you look at object oriented design, are ways of managing complexity. And quite often what we do is we take complexity from one part of the system and we spread it out into the rest. This file is easy for me to read. This code in this method is easy for me to read. Therefore, it's simple. Therefore my application is simple. When in reality you didn't simplify anything. You just moved the complexity from one place to another. And so managing complexity becomes the absolutely most important thing to building a reliable system.

The way I would phrase it is this, it is insanely simple and insanely easy to create a system that is so complicated that you cannot understand it. And if you can't understand it, how can you run it? This is basically the story of the system that we built and where it failed, where it broke down. And so I want to say thank you and I think I have a minute or two for questions if anyone has any.

Come up to the podium. Nope. I'll throw the cubes. Ok, to anybody? Or to questions? Okay. Here you go.

Thank you for awesome presentation.

Oh, okay. Who wants the cube? Who wants a mic? Up here.

Can you hear me? So, uh, I wanted to ask you a question like: normally when you're trying to split the system into smaller services, you often end up splitting the complex logic into complex.... You can't hear me? Can you hear me now?

Yeah, it's, I can't really hear you over the background noise.

Uh, so I'm going to try my best.

Yeah, that's better.

Okay. So when you're trying to split the large system into smaller components or microservices, you often end up making the service simpler but the communication harder and more complex as you said. So how would tackling such a problem be? Be like, identify, be like making a service more responsible communication adaptation for data and then forwarding data and formatting it? Or how, how would you advise people to tackle that?

So I think that's where I get back earlier where I said failure is the key and thinking about those failure modes when you're splitting that apart. Think of the happy paths when, if that service is offline or if those data communication channels fail, how would that behave? And try to work out the system such that they actually do behave correctly, when those things happen. Or they can gracefully. Unless I misunderstood the question, it's kind of hard. Come up after, we'll chat afterwards about it. Alright, thank you.

Leave a comment!