From 019d93720be79c6fd4c3a6bae6c90ea1441245b2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Keith Hazelton Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2021 16:45:21 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] Update README.adoc --- README.adoc | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+) diff --git a/README.adoc b/README.adoc index c3b3636..a32731b 100644 --- a/README.adoc +++ b/README.adoc @@ -7,3 +7,27 @@ Name: Keith Hazelton, TAP or + Async-for-IAM advocates respond to charges of heedless frivolity* +*Many challenges have been raised to the viability of asynchronous and concurrent messaging architectures as a basis for identity and access management processes* + +- At any step in the prescribed flow from causes to effects in IAM processing, errors may occur +- Those errors may lead to unintended or unanticipated failures. +- Failures tend to be detected only when someone notices a mismatch between what was supposed to happen and what actually happened. +- Challengers to this approach say that a difference between intended and actual results cannot be reliably traced back to its root cause because everything is in motion and states are constantly in flux. + +*Responding to the challenges* + +In the current state of the art, settable configurations of messaging infrastructures can guarantee certain properties that may be useful in preventing or compensating for potential error conditions. These include: + +'Exactly once' guarantees on delivery +'Idempotent functions' +'Read-only, time-stamped, persistent, immutable, event logs' +'Event sourcing' +'Back pressure' +... +... + +auto scaling, auto recovery from service failures all the usual robustness measures + +*Can these be combined to mitigate failure modes of event-driven, async, concurrent architectures?* + +