📤 Just a general outbox thing
An outbox is a simple mechanism that allows you to store outbound messages in an atomic ☢️ way as part of your normal transaction.
It addresses the ubiquitous dilemma of which to do first: (1) commit your database transaction OR (2) whatever else you want to do.
The problem is that (1) is generally inherently risky (database deadlocks, key violations, etc etc), and (2) is also generally risky (writing to a file share, communicating with a message broker, calling an external web service, etc.).
Two risky things combined are very likely to fail! - which will leave your system in a state where either (1) or (2) was not carried out (depending on the order you chose to execute them in), because it failed.
🆘 This problem can be addressed in many ways, e.g. by retrying, using a middleman with higher availability (e.g. a message broker), etc. etc.
OR you could simply store information about which actions to perform in (2) as part of (1)!! 🤯 That's what the outbox does! 🤓
Why? Because "outbox" is closer to your chosen type of persistence (SQL Server, Postgres, etc.) than to anything else.
- Microsoft SQL Server (for when you're working with the "Microsoft.Data.SqlClient" NuGet package and
SqlConnection
/SqlTransaction
) - PostgreSQL (for when you're working with "Npgsql" NuGet package and
NpgsqlConnection
/NpgsqlTransaction
)
and that's it for now. 😅
First, pull in the relevant NuGet package for your chosen type of persistence - e.g. the "Freakout.MsSql" NuGet package.
Next, enable Freakout in your app:
services.AddFreakout(new MsSqlFreakoutConfiguration(connectionString));
It will register a couple of things, e.g. a background worker that will poll the outbox for pending commands. AddFreakout
can only be called once.
Then, add your handlers:
services.AddCommandHandler<RecalculateClaimSummaryCommandHandler>();
services.AddCommandHandler<SendEmailCommandHandler>();
services.AddCommandHandler<PublishJournalEntryAddedCommandHandler>();
which will of course be resolved from the container, each in their own service scope.
Now it's fully configured - what's missing is putting something in the outbox.
This is the neat way to do it: You can manage your unit of work with your SqlConnection
and SqlTransaction
somewhere
and then make them available to Freakout by using a FreakoutContextScope
like this:
var context = new MsSqlFreakoutContext(connection, transaction);
using (new FreakoutContextScope(context))
{
// there's an ambient context now! 🙂
}
Inside the scope, IOutbox
can be resolved, which then provides a technology-agnostic way of putting commands in the outbox!
A cool place to create/dispose FreakoutContextScope
would be in your ASP.NET Core request handler pipeline, e.g. like this:
app.Use(async (context, next) => {
var provider = context.Request.RequestServices;
// let's just assume we can get these from the request-scoped services:
var connection = provider.GetRequiredService<SqlConnection>();
var transaction = provider.GetRequiredService<SqlTransaction>();
var freakoutContext = new MsSqlFreakoutContext(connection, transaction);
using (new FreakoutContextScope(freakoutContext))
{
// there's an ambient context now! 🙂
//
// ASP.NET Core controllers can have IOutbox injected if they want!
await next();
}
});
Having IOutbox
injected is pretty neat, because it allows you to put commands in the outbox simply by going:
await outbox.AddOutboxCommandAsync(command);
without having to bother with thinking about which type of persistence is being used.
This way is more involved, because it's closer to the metal.
Since this example is for SQL Server, and we're pretending to be working with Microsoft.Data.SqlClient
and SqlConnection
, it's natural to
provide the outbox functionality as an extension method to DbTransaction
. This way, your code can do stuff like this:
await using var connection = new SqlConnection(_connectionString);
await connection.OpenAsync();
await using var transaction = await connection.BeginTransactionAsync();
// do your own work with connection+transaction here
// (...)
// possibly call this bad boy a couple of times
await transaction.AddOutboxCommandAsync(serializer, "dbo", "OutboxCommands", new PublishJournalEntryAddedCommand(Id: journalEntryId));
// do more of your own work
// (...)
// commit it all atomically
await transaction.CommitAsync();
which in this case would result in publishing a couple of JournalEntryAdded
events using Rebus.
Outbox commands are dispatched to handlers. Handlers are classes that implement ICommandHandler<TCommand>
and are registered in the
container using the AddCommandHandler
extension method shown above.
A command handler to publish the aforementioned Rebus event could look like this (assuming Rebus has also been configured in the given container):
public class PublishJournalEntryAddedCommandHandler(IBus bus) : ICommandHandler<PublishJournalEntryAddedCommand>
{
public async Task HandleAsync(PublishJournalEntryAddedCommand command, CancellationToken token)
{
await bus.Publish(new JournalEntryAdded(command.Id));
}
}