Wie konzipieren und implementieren Sie effektive Serviceschnittstellen und Verträge?

There some really old responses to this question and obviously right, but guess how annoying those responses are to everyone else in corporate trying to come up with their own ideas that supercede or come close to those. This is one of those questions that has answers dating back to antiquity fifty years from now which is my guess.

Choosing the right communication style for microservices is crucial for the architecture's effectiveness. Consider these key points: Synchronous vs. Asynchronous: Synchronous (e.g., REST, gRPC) is straightforward but can lead to tight coupling and reduced resilience. Asynchronous (e.g., message queues, event-driven) enhances decoupling and system resilience but adds complexity. RESTful APIs: Good for simple, request-response interactions. Easy to implement and understand. gRPC: Suitable for high-performance, low-latency communication. Supports streaming and complex communication patterns.

From my perspective: Deciding between synchronous and asynchronous communication depends on what your system needs. If you want quick responses and straightforward error handling, go for synchronous—even though it can introduce some delays. It's great for maintaining data accuracy in transactional setups. But if scalability and fault tolerance are key, asynchronous is the way to go. Best practices include clearly defining interfaces, supporting operations that can be retried without issues, and using circuit breakers to manage failures gracefully. These tips will help you build interfaces that meet your system's performance and reliability needs!

My guess is that this is a question for the newly inducted business IT people because everyone initiated previously in a ritual or something else is aware that this is rigid law. In the case you can't follow it as rigid law well then you are off the hook scrambling for resources and you customer/client/parent org is helping you if the can/are allowed to.

In a microservices architecture, defining clear and consistent service contracts is essential for smooth inter-service communication. A service contract is like an agreement that outlines how to interact with a service. It includes: Endpoints: Specify URLs or endpoints where services are accessed. Input/Output: Clearly describe expected input formats and output responses. Data Formats: Define the data formats (like JSON, XML) used. Methods: List the operations (GET, POST, PUT, DELETE) available. Error Handling: Detail common errors and their meanings. These contracts act as guides, ensuring that anyone using or developing the service understands how to do so correctly, leading to a more reliable and maintainable system

Do I get to say that the issue now might be with not enough formats to organize data? I hope that it is OK for me to say that. If not someone let me know. There is always that niche argument that a new format would serve better in many situations for any business reason. So why not more? There have even been reported cases where using a new offhand format increases productivity, so you can't count that out.

Brilliant books have been published and then taken off market on this issue ALONE. It is so difficult, complex and impossible to implement beyond a few person company, remembering that the obvious smartest place for a login/API gateway server is not necessarily the best, that it transcends education; and that officially. ...and as soon as you can objectify a service mesh into your logical schema of how your integrated business IT department works you have an insect's view of how a business properly operates regarding the complexity of the underlying business, network and security layers present in your building...something like that from someone else.

In my experience, prioritizing security-first API design is essential. Implement encryption, authentication, and authorization early on. A proper testing plan should include unit tests for functionality, integration tests for secure interactions, security testing for vulnerabilities, and performance tests for efficiency. This approach ensures robust and secure service interfaces from the outset.

I don't know about the pronoun "You". I don't even think the government or serious org would allow only one person to evaluate a service contract beyond a very small server room. That said, teams documenting and verifying their own content are the normal standard expected by your clients. You might expect one person, but no, a team of two is a necessity and usually cheap. Auditing and security education are an excellent option if companies can ever arrange contractor or third party analysis of these same things in this country and others.

Automated testing is also done on tools like Postman or Swagger against a set of specifications predefined to test service interfaces and their contracts. As unit and integration tests need to be crafted, the key point is to understand the behaviors services exhibit, especially in negative scenarios, edge cases, and failures that may occur. This is also documented, directly from code, by auto-generating API documentation, providing details related to endpoints, request-response formats, and error codes. Add versioning that captures changes in contracts and test using contract testing, for instance, Pact. Agreed-upon interfaces would be followed by interacting services. Do the tests and documentation running quite frequently.