Skip to main content

Past Mistakes - Out of Process Commands

Some of the best lessons you can learn are from failure. I figured a series on mistakes I've made in the past would highlight where I went wrong and more importantly what to remember going forward. These real life examples vary from my early days of programming all the way up until present day.

I once wrote a feature that sent email to users on their behalf. On localhost this was fine. Fast, stable and good enough to get the job done.

Despite early successes, under load in a live environment, things were different. Sometimes the process would out right fail, requiring the user to retry. Other times it would be slow to process. This meant the users browser would hang while the email was being sent.

It was hard to replicate these problems. The actual code itself was pretty simple, there was nothing to optimize it seemed.


The core mistake was performing an operation out of process from within the life cycle of a HTTP request.

When sending the email was slow, the HTTP response was slow as the thread was blocked. This was blindingly obvious after the fact.

Frustratingly actually demonstrating or testing this feature was hard. Locally the server was nearby so latency was less. This started to introduce other red herrings such as was the server misconfigured?

What to do Instead

After the user has requested an email, record this fact and simply display a success message. Do this as quickly and simply as possible. While the message states an email has been sent this is not strictly true.

Instead the act of requesting the email is recorded. Ideally via a message queue or other durable storage solution. A separate service then monitors this queue and periodically sends out emails.

Users will not care if an email lands a few seconds or minutes after the fact. Additionally if anything goes wrong during this process no data is lost. The user will get their email eventually. Most e-commerce sites work in this exact manner.

This approach works great when commands from users cannot and should not fail. Examples such as processing payments or key user interactions would be excellent candidates.

Unfortunately not all out of process requests can be avoided. HTTP queries to retrieve data being one example. This cannot be faked. In these cases minimize the number and rely on other techniques, such as HTTP's excellent caching policies to reduce the affect on the system.


  • Never perform commands that cannot fail out of process from within the same HTTP transaction.
  • Fear all out of process calls - they are costly, prone to failure and can cause chaos with your systems performance. Reduce and replace where possible.
  • When commands that should not fail are required, use a message queue to record the command prior to processing them.
  • Rely on HTTP caching policies to reduce the effect of queries that cannot be avoided.


Popular posts from this blog

Three Steps to Code Quality via TDD

Common complaints and problems that I've both encountered and hear other developers raise when it comes to the practice of Test Driven Development are: Impossible to refactor without all the tests breakingMinor changes require hours of changes to test codeTest setup is huge, slow to write and difficult to understandThe use of test doubles (mocks, stubs and fakes is confusing)Over the next three posts I will demonstrate three easy steps that can resolve the problems above. In turn this will allow developers to gain one of the benefits that TDD promises - the ability to refactor your code mercifully in order to improve code quality.StepsStop Making Everything PublicLimit the Amount of Dependencies you Use A Unit is Not Always a Method or ClassCode quality is a tricky subject and highly subjective, however if you follow the three guidelines above you should have the ability to radically change implementation details and therefore improve code quality when needed.

DRY vs DAMP in Tests

In the previous post I mentioned that duplication in tests is not always bad. Sometimes duplication becomes a problem. Tests can become large or virtually identically excluding a few lines. Changes to these tests can take a while and increase the maintenance overhead. At this point, DRY violations need to be resolved.SolutionsTest HelpersA common solution is to extract common functionality into setup methods or other helper utilities. While this will remove and reduce duplication this can make tests a bit harder to read as the test is now split amongst unrelated components. There is a limit to how useful such extractions can help as each test may need to do something slightly differently.DAMP - Descriptive and Meaningful PhrasesDescriptive and Meaningful Phrases is the alter ego of DRY. DAMP tests often use the builder pattern to construct the System Under Test. This allows calls to be chained in a fluent API style, similar to the Page Object Pattern. Internally the implementation wil…

Coding In the Real World

As a student when confronted with a problem, I would end up coding it and thinking - how do the professionals do this?For some reason I had the impression that once I entered the industry I would find enlightenment. Discovering the one true way to write high quality, professional code.It turns out that code in industry is not too far removed from the code I was writing back when I knew very little.Code in the real world can be:messy or cleanhard or easy to understandsimple or complexeasy or hard to changeor any combination of the aboveVery rarely will you be confronted with a problem that is difficult. Most challenges typically are formed around individuals and processes, rather than day to day coding. Years later I finally have the answer. Code in the real world is not that much different to code we were all writing when we first started out.If I could offer myself some advice back in those early days it would be to follow KISS, YAGNI and DRY religiously. The rest will fall into plac…

Feature Toggles

I'm a fan of regular releasing. My background and experience leads me to release as regularly as possible. There are numerous benefits to regular releases; limited risk, slicker release processes and the ability to change as requirements evolve.The problem with this concept is how can you release when features are not functionally complete?SolutionIf there is still work in progress, one solution to allow frequent releases is to use feature toggles. Feature toggles are simple conditional statements that are either enabled or disabled based on some condition.This simple example shows a feature toggle for an "Edit User" feature. If the boolean condition is false, then we only show the "New User" feature and the "Admin" feature. This boolean value will be provided by various means, usually a configuration file. This means at certain points we can change this value in order to demonstrate the "Edit User" functionality. Our demo environment could …

Reused Abstraction Principle

This is the second part of my series on abstractions.Part 1 - AbstractionsPart 3 - Dependency Elimination PrincipleThe Reused Abstraction Principle is a simple in concept in practice, but oddly rarely followed in typical enterprise development. I myself have been incredibly guilty of this in the past.Most code bases have a 1:1 mapping of interfaces to implementations. Usually this is the sign of TDD or automated testing being applied badly. The majority of these interfaces are wrong. 1:1 mappings between interfaces and implementations is a code smell.Such situations are usually the result of extracting an interface from an implementation, rather than having the client drive behaviour.These interfaces are also often bad abstractions, known as "leaky abstractions". As I've discussed previously, these abstractions tend to offer nothing more than simple indirection.ExampleApply the "rule of three". If there is only ever one implementation, then you don't need …