3 ms·
Is there any way to actually enforce this in reality? Eventually some leaf service is going to need to hit an API on an upstream node or even just 2 leaf nodes
by rco8786 10mo ago
Is there any way to actually enforce this in reality? Eventually some leaf service is going to need to hit an API on an upstream node or even just 2 leaf nodes that need to talk to each other.
- jayd16 10mo agoIAM roles. Said less snarky, it should be trivial to define and restrict the dependencies of services (Although there are many ways to do that). If its not trivial, that's a different problem.
- rco8786 10mo agoI don't mean that. I mean that eventually the business is going to need some feature that requires breaking the acyclic rule.
- jayd16 10mo agoAh, you don't mean enforce a novice making a mistake, you mean ensure from a design purity perspective? I don't think its true that you need requests to flow both ways. For example, if a downstream API needs more context from an upstream one, one solution is to pass that data down as a parameter. You don't need to allow the downstream services to independently loop back to gather more info.
- rco8786 10mo agoAgain, it depends on the business case. Software is simply too fluid to be able to architect any sort of complex system that guarantees an acyclic data flow forever.
- otterley 10mo agoSince you called the problem “trivial,” we can now all depend on you to resolve these problems for us at little cost, correct?
- nineteen999 10mo agoThe solution requires AWS since the gp thinks that's the only access control mechanism that matters. So I doubt there is going to be little cost about it.
- jayd16 10mo agoRestricting arbitrary east-west traffic should be table stakes... It should be the default and you opt into services being able to reach each other. So in that sense its already done.