Client-side applications often rely on APIs to provide data and functionality, which are either in your control, or provided by a 3rd party. We usually communicate with these APIs using HTTP(S) protocols and REST. Usually, these APIs are designed to respond quickly to requests.
However, there can be a variety of things that affect the latency response from these APIs. These include network infrastructure, how many clients are attempting to call the API, the difference in location between the caller and API itself etc.
If these issues occur within our control, we can solve them relatively easily by scaling out the backend API. However, there are going to be problems that are out of our control, such as network problems. Now most APIs can respond over the same connection, but other requests may execute long-running or background process work that takes longer than it's reasonable for a client to receive a response.
In a previous article, I talked about how we can use Queue-based load leveling patterns to use a message queue to separate the client and backend process so they can scale independently. While that's a viable solution, one potential downside of that pattern is that it does bring in additional complexity when our clients need to be notified of a successful operation.
Another solution to this problem is using the Asynchronous Request-Reply pattern by implementing HTTP polling. This helps client side receive an acknowledgment that work is either in progress, or accepted.
In this article, I'll describe what the Asynchronous Request-Reply pattern does, some issues and considerations we need to keep in mind when implementing this pattern, as well as when we should (and shouldn't) use this pattern.
Implementing the Asynchronous Request-Reply pattern
Polling can be useful to client applications, as it's challenging to use long running connections or provide call-back endpoints. With polling, the client application will make a call to the API, which triggers long running operations in the backend.
The API will return a response as quickly as possible, acknowledging the request has been received. This is usually in the form of a HTTP 202 (Accepted) status code. The response should also contain an endpoint that we can poll to check the status of the long running operation. The API will process the background work, which could be in the form of sending a message to a queue.
When we make a successful call to the status endpoint, it should return HTTP 200 (Ok) as well as an update on the status of the background process work. Once the work is complete, the status endpoint can either return a resource that shows the work is complete, or redirect to another resource url.
Let's visualize this a little better:
In this diagram, the client will send a request and receive a 202 (Accepted) response. The client can then send requests to the status endpoint. If the work is still in process, a 200 response is received. When the work is completed, the status endpoint will return a HTTP 302 (Found) response with a resource url that the client can be redirected to.
We could implement this pattern in Azure like so:
So in this example, we have a client app hosted on Azure Container Apps that makes a call to an API. The API responds with the status endpoint, and it sends a message for a worker app to process, and write the result to Blob storage. While this work is going on in the background, the client app can call the status endpoint to see the status of the background work.
What do we need to consider when implementing this pattern?
It's important to keep in mind that not every service will return 202. Sometimes, you may get a HTTP 404 (Not Found) response since the resource URL doesn't exist yet.
If you receive a 202 response, you should check the header to see the URL that you need to call for checking the status of the request and to see how frequently the client can poll for the response (These should be the Location and Retry-After headers). You may need to manipulate the headers or payload in order to do this.
Bear in mind that you should return the appropriate HTTP response depending on the result of the background work. If you want to redirect on completion, either HTTP 302 or HTTP 303 are appropriate. When the background has successfully completed, HTTP 200, 201 or 204 should be returned.
If an error occurs while processing, you should store the error at the URL location set in the header along with an appropriate response that you can give to the client (HTTP 4xx codes). You may also want to give clients the option of cancelling a long-running operation. In this scenario, you should support some form of cancellation in your backend API.
When should and when shouldn't you use this pattern?
As I mentioned earlier, this pattern is great for when you have client applications making requests to APIs that initiate background work and they need a response immediately instead of using long-running connections. It's also useful in architectures where you need to integrate new services with legacy applications that don't support modern callback technologies, such as WebSockets.
However, if you're required to have a response streamed to your client application in real-time, or you can use a service that uses asynchronous notifications instead, then you should consider alternatives. Server-side persistent network connections such as WebSockets can be used to notify the caller of the result instead of polling the URL yourself.
Conclusion
In this article, we discussed what the Asynchronous Request-Reply pattern does, some issues and considerations we need to keep in mind when implementing this pattern, as well as when we should (and shouldn't) use it.
If you want to read more about this pattern, check out the following resources:
- Asynchronous Request-Response pattern on Enterprise Integration Patterns
- Azure Architecture doc on the Asynchronous Request-Reply pattern
If you have any questions, feel free to reach out to me on X/Twitter @willvelida
Until next time, Happy coding! 🤓🖥️
Top comments (0)