This pattern is ideal if you think the relationship between the two might change significantly in the future. Messages are sent to and from each microservice without one necessarily having to know all the explicit workings of the other. Is it appropriate to use an InMemory Bus for a single Microservice (for domain events) and a durable Message bus for integration events (between Microsservices)?Ī mediator pattern creates a flexible decoupled interface between two microservices. What is the difference between using Mediatr and an In Memory Bus? The way I am thinking at the moment is that Mediatr is more appropriate when using the Observer pattern and an In Memory Bus is more suitable when using the publisher/subsciber pattern. ![]() I then see code like this:ģ) In Memory Bus. I see how both of these patterns can be used in the same environment. It also guarantees delivery.Ģ) Mediatr (Mediator pattern): Using CQRS the Mediatr pattern can be used to decouple commands and events making the MVC controller/service thinner. RabbitMQ is that it could be durable meaning if one of the Microservices is down then it can handle the event later. ![]() For example, Microservice A could publish an integration event, which is handled by Microservice B and Microservice C. I am struggling to understand when to use each of these:ġ) Message Bus: Used to send integration events between Microservices.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |