[Hawkular-dev] Extra back-end for our front-end

[Thomas Heute]

On 09/02/2015 09:40 PM, Jay Shaughnessy wrote:
>
>
> On 8/18/2015 4:24 AM, Juraci Paixão Kröhling wrote:
> > On 08/17/2015 07:53 PM, Stefan Negrea wrote:
> >> 1) The curent microservices are not very granular and the number is small; there are only 3 major microservices to interact with and the functionality for each is broad.
> >> 2) Each microservice can quickly add supporting methods for the UI. This will polish the API of each microservices because it has to be easily consumable.
> >> 3) We are forced to stay into microservice mode (it's a mindset!) and we will continue to develop decoupled services.
> >> 4) Increased potential of each service to be consumed independently of the whole because:
> >>      a) the API will be more polished
> >>      b) each service is always used in the mode that will be integrated outside
> >> 5) There is no additional place to address service quirks; each service has to solve interface quirks right away to be consumable. I see the API Gateway component as the fastest and first place to accumulate technical debt.
> > +1 , specially for points 1 and 5.
>
> Actually, from what I can see, the "fastest and first place to
> accumulate technical debt" is already the UI.  The UI code is trying to
> coordinate inventory data with it's logically related metric
> information.
+1

> And also tying together alerting with both inventory and
> metrics.
+1
>    If we don't add hawkular-level code that can itself be a
> micro-service client it is unclear to me how far we can progress without
> having the UI client code collapse under its own complexity.


> This is a
> problem we need to address as it seems (to me) that too much logic is
> going into the UI code.  Maybe I'm wrong, but from what I can infer from
> the responses above, the alternative to hawkular-level code (some sort
> of coordinating "gateway" services), is to build all of the logic into
> the UI, where re-use of common workflows (like maybe, "get the alerts
> for this resource") would be hidden from other potential clients.
+1
>
> In other words, does anyone have an alternative to "gateway" services
> that isn't putting everything in the presentation layer? Or maybe this
> has already been solved because the thread has not been active.

>
> _______________________________________________
> hawkular-dev mailing list
> hawkular-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
>