Eshley Durst

1606913770

Architecture of World Politics

At different times, different theories of international relations were created to change and advance the scholarly vision of world politics. Realists emerged as active supporters of hopelessness and military moods in international relations. Liberalists replaced realistic pessimism with the hope that global cooperation was still possible. English School theorists provide a constructivist view on world politics, in which particular states may or may not pursue their subjective interests, depending on the political conjuncture. All these theories have something in common, but the differences between them can hardly be ignored. When comparing and contrasting agent-based with economic-structural theories of the interstate system, the latter tend to emphasize the causality of the structured international politics and their circular links. However, it is agent-based theories that capture the complexity of interrelationships in the world architecture filled with chaos, interdependencies, and mutually exclusive subjective interests.
To start with, a difference between economic-structural and agent-based theories of international relations should be made. According to Waltz, economic-structured theories have enabled scholars in international relations to better understand the essence of the world. Economic-structural theories present the world architecture as a complex but causal and logical mechanism, although most processes described in these theories are either unseen or unseeable. Unlike economic-structural theories, agent-based views create a picture that is closer to reality, including numerous factors that affect international systems. Agent-based theories do not recognize the view that states, despite being a central element of the international system, cannot pursue a common purpose. Simultaneously, once equilibrium is disrupted, agent-based views on international relations will provide no restoration solutions. Not surprisingly, when comparing and contrasting agent-based with economic-structural theories, they tend to emphasize different aspects of the international relations architecture.
Both realism and liberalism are agent-based theories focusing on the assumption that the state is the central element of the world architecture. Realists are international relations pessimists, who present the international relations field in the gravest competition and anarchy colors, leaving no room for order and causation. Like realists, liberals are agent-based ideologists, whose main premise is that states act as the central players of the international relations arena, pursuing their individual objectives. However, the fact that theories are agent-based does not mean that they are totally subjective; rather, and unlike economic-structural theories, agent-based approaches are developed to unfold the international relations process in its complexity and wholeness. Where economic-structural scholars focus their attention on the separate symptoms of the economic body, agent-based theories seek to represent the totality of political processes in a given international relations period.
In this sense, the English school in international politics seems to bring together the agent-based and economic-structural elements, presenting the world architecture as comprising numerous states which, nevertheless, have the potential to unite around a common goal. It is a constructivist view on international politics, in which states are governed by their subjective goals, but are still capable of creating and sharing fundamental values and even learning from one another. It is a unique combination of subjectivity, centrality of state actors, and cooperation for the sake of cooperation, which still does not deny the relevance of agent-based theories in international politics.
To conclude, it is agent-based theories that capture the complexity of interrelationships in the world architecture filled with chaos, interdependencies, and mutually exclusive subjective interests. Unlike economic-structural theories that lack causality and fail to produce a picture of wholeness in the international relations field, agent-based theories unfold the unseen of the world architecture and design, thus making it easier for international relations professionals to develop their political strategies. Besides, economic-structural theories are too economic and too structural to provide an easy explanation to the complex processes taking place in the system of international relations. Still, the economic and structural reliance on causality and common interests should not be ignored. The English School is one of the brightest examples of how economic-structural and agent-based theories are brought together to shape a new, constructivist vision of the international relations architecture.
The article was conducts, buy the writer - Eshley Durst, more her papers you can find at https://cheap-papers.com/online-test.php

#architecture #politics #international #world

What is GEEK

Buddha Community

Architecture of World Politics

Eshley Durst

1606913770

Architecture of World Politics

At different times, different theories of international relations were created to change and advance the scholarly vision of world politics. Realists emerged as active supporters of hopelessness and military moods in international relations. Liberalists replaced realistic pessimism with the hope that global cooperation was still possible. English School theorists provide a constructivist view on world politics, in which particular states may or may not pursue their subjective interests, depending on the political conjuncture. All these theories have something in common, but the differences between them can hardly be ignored. When comparing and contrasting agent-based with economic-structural theories of the interstate system, the latter tend to emphasize the causality of the structured international politics and their circular links. However, it is agent-based theories that capture the complexity of interrelationships in the world architecture filled with chaos, interdependencies, and mutually exclusive subjective interests.
To start with, a difference between economic-structural and agent-based theories of international relations should be made. According to Waltz, economic-structured theories have enabled scholars in international relations to better understand the essence of the world. Economic-structural theories present the world architecture as a complex but causal and logical mechanism, although most processes described in these theories are either unseen or unseeable. Unlike economic-structural theories, agent-based views create a picture that is closer to reality, including numerous factors that affect international systems. Agent-based theories do not recognize the view that states, despite being a central element of the international system, cannot pursue a common purpose. Simultaneously, once equilibrium is disrupted, agent-based views on international relations will provide no restoration solutions. Not surprisingly, when comparing and contrasting agent-based with economic-structural theories, they tend to emphasize different aspects of the international relations architecture.
Both realism and liberalism are agent-based theories focusing on the assumption that the state is the central element of the world architecture. Realists are international relations pessimists, who present the international relations field in the gravest competition and anarchy colors, leaving no room for order and causation. Like realists, liberals are agent-based ideologists, whose main premise is that states act as the central players of the international relations arena, pursuing their individual objectives. However, the fact that theories are agent-based does not mean that they are totally subjective; rather, and unlike economic-structural theories, agent-based approaches are developed to unfold the international relations process in its complexity and wholeness. Where economic-structural scholars focus their attention on the separate symptoms of the economic body, agent-based theories seek to represent the totality of political processes in a given international relations period.
In this sense, the English school in international politics seems to bring together the agent-based and economic-structural elements, presenting the world architecture as comprising numerous states which, nevertheless, have the potential to unite around a common goal. It is a constructivist view on international politics, in which states are governed by their subjective goals, but are still capable of creating and sharing fundamental values and even learning from one another. It is a unique combination of subjectivity, centrality of state actors, and cooperation for the sake of cooperation, which still does not deny the relevance of agent-based theories in international politics.
To conclude, it is agent-based theories that capture the complexity of interrelationships in the world architecture filled with chaos, interdependencies, and mutually exclusive subjective interests. Unlike economic-structural theories that lack causality and fail to produce a picture of wholeness in the international relations field, agent-based theories unfold the unseen of the world architecture and design, thus making it easier for international relations professionals to develop their political strategies. Besides, economic-structural theories are too economic and too structural to provide an easy explanation to the complex processes taking place in the system of international relations. Still, the economic and structural reliance on causality and common interests should not be ignored. The English School is one of the brightest examples of how economic-structural and agent-based theories are brought together to shape a new, constructivist vision of the international relations architecture.
The article was conducts, buy the writer - Eshley Durst, more her papers you can find at https://cheap-papers.com/online-test.php

#architecture #politics #international #world

Serverless Vs Microservices Architecture - A Deep Dive

Companies need to be thinking long-term before even starting a software development project. These needs are solved at the level of architecture: business owners want to assure agility, scalability, and performance.

The top contenders for scalable solutions are serverless and microservices. Both architectures prioritize security but approach it in their own ways. Let’s take a look at how businesses can benefit from the adoption of serverless architecture vs microservices, examine their differences, advantages, and use cases.

#serverless #microservices #architecture #software-architecture #serverless-architecture #microservice-architecture #serverless-vs-microservices #hackernoon-top-story

Fannie  Zemlak

Fannie Zemlak

1595927640

Road to Simplicity: Hexagonal Architecture [Part One]

Software writing taught me that: a well written software is a simple software.

So I started to think how to achieve simplicity in a methodological

way. This is the first story of a series about this methodology.

Naturally it’s a snapshot because it’s in constant evolution.

Simplicity

A definition of simplicity is:

The quality or condition of being easy to understand or do.

Oxford dictionary (https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/simplicity)

So, a simple software is a software that is easy to understand.

After all software are written by humans for humans. This implies

that they should be understandable. Simplicity guarantees that its

understandability isn’t an intellectual pain.

A software solves a problem. So to build the former you should understand the latter.

But to build a simple software you should understand - clearly - a problem.

First step: architecture

On the Martin Fowler blog there is a deep definition of architecture and its explanation:

“Architecture is about the important stuff. Whatever that is.”

On first blush, that sounds trite, but I find it carries a lot of richness.

It means that the heart of thinking architecturally about software is to decide what is important, (i.e. what is architectural), and then expend energy on keeping those architectural elements in good condition.

Ultimately the important stuffs are about the solved problem. In other words about the software domain.

So we need an architecture that allows us to express - clearly - the software domain.

I think that the hexagonal architecture (a.k.a. ports and adapter architecture) is an ideal candidate.

It’s based on layered architecture, so the outer layer depends on the inner layer. Each layer is represented as a hexagon.

Here a UML-like diagram to express the below concepts:

In this architecture the innermost hexagon is dedicated to the

software domain. Here we define domain objects and we express clearly:

  • what the domain does as input port or use case (I prefer the latter because expressiveness).
  • what the domain need, to fulfill use cases, as output port.

Conceptually on the sides of the domain layer there are use case and output port interfaces.

The communication between the outer layers and the domain layer happens through these interfaces.

The outer layer provides output port implementations and they use the use case interfaces.

The implementations and use case clients are are called adapter. Because they adapt our interface to a specific technology.

This relation is an instance of the dependency inversion principle. Simply put: high level concept, the domain, doesn’t rely on a specific

technology. Instead low level concept depends upon high level concept.

In other words our code is technology agnostic.

As you can see the concepts expressed in the outer layers are just details.

The real important stuff, the domain, is isolated and expressed clearly.

Code

A little project accompanies this series to show this methodology. It’s written in Java with the reactive paradigm from the beginning. For this reason the ReactiveX library is also used in the domain layer.

The software analyzes the capabilities (e.g. the java version, the

network speed and so on) of the machine and it exposes them through REST API.

It’s inspired by a real world software that I wrote because of work.

The first step is to define the innermost hexagon.

We can already identify:

  • the main use case, expressed as GetCapabilitiesUseCase
  • the object that describe the machine capabilities, expressed as Capabilities

The use case is an interface:

(if you never used ReactiveX: a Single means that the method will return asynchronously an object or an error)

public interface GetCapabilitiesUseCase {
  Single<Capabilities> getCapabilities();
}

The Capabilities objects are immutable (precisely they’re value objects). And there is an associated builder (I’m using lombok annotations to generate the code):

@RequiredArgsConstructor
@Value
@Builder
public class Capabilities {
  private final String javaVersion;
  private final Long networkSpeed;
}

#architecture #software-architecture #programming #java #hexagonal-architecture #reactive-programming #software-development #software-engineering

Event-Driven Architecture as a Strategy

Event-driven architecture, or EDA, is an integration pattern where applications are oriented around publishing events and responding to events. It provides five key benefits to modern application architecture: scalability, resilience, agility, data sharing, and cloud-enabling.

This article explores how EDA fits into enterprise integration, its three styles, how it enables business strategy, its benefits and trade-offs, and the next steps to start an EDA implementation.

Although there are many brokers you can use to publish event messages, the open-source software Apache Kafka has emerged as the market leader in this space. This article is focused on a Kafka-based EDA, but much of the principles here apply to any EDA implementation.

Spectrum of Integration

If asked to describe integration a year ago, I would have said there are two modes: application integration and data integration. Today I’d say that integration is on a spectrum, with data on one end, application on the other end, and event integration in the middle.

A spectrum with event integration on the left, application integration on the right, and event integration in the middle.

The spectrum of integration.

Application integration is REST, SOAP, ESB, etc. These are patterns for making functionality in one application run in response to a request from another app. It’s especially strong for B2B partnership and exposing value in one application to another. It’s less strong for many data use cases, like BI reporting and ML pipelines, since most application integrations wait passively to be invoked by a client, rather than actively pushing data where it needs to go.Data integration is patterns for getting data from point A to point B, including ETL, managed file transfer, etc. They’re strong for BI reporting, ML pipelines, and other data movement tasks, but weaker than application integration for many B2B partnerships and applications sharing functionality.

Event integration has one foot in data and the other in application integration, and it largely gets the benefits of both. When one application subscribes to another app’s events, it can trigger application code in response to those events, which feels a bit like an API from application integration. The events triggering this functionality also carry with them a significant amount of data, which feels a bit like data integration.

EDA strikes a balance between the two classic integration modes. Refactoring traditional application integrations into an event integration pattern opens more doors for analytics, machine learning, BI, and data synchronization between applications. It gets the best of application and data integration patterns. This is especially relevant for companies moving towards an operating model of leveraging data to drive new channels and partnerships. If your integration strategy does not unlock your data, then that strategy will fail. But if your integration strategy unlocks data at the expense of application architecture that’s scalable and agile, then again it will fail. Event integration strikes a balance between both those needs.

Strategy vs. Tactic

EDA often begins with isolated teams as a tactic for delivering projects. Ideally, such a project would have a deliberative approach to EDA and a common event message broker, usually cloud-native brokers on AWS, Azure, etc. Different teams select different brokers to meet their immediate needs. They do not consider integration beyond their project scope. Eventually, they may face the need for enterprise integration at a later date.

A major transition in EDA maturity happens when the investment in EDA shifts from a project tactic to enterprise strategy via a common event bus, usually Apache Kafka. Events can take a role in the organization’s business and technical innovation across the enterprise. Data becomes more rapidly shareable across the enterprise and also between you and your external strategic partners.

EDA Styles

Before discussing the benefits of EDA, let’s cover the three common styles of EDA: event notification, event-carried state transfer, and event sourcing.

Event Notification

This pattern publishes events with minimal information: the event type, timestamps, and a key-value like an account number or some other key of the entity that raised the event. This informs subscribers that an event occurred, but if subscribers need any information about how that event changed things (like which fields changed, etc.), it must invoke a data retrieval service from the system of record. This is the simplest form of EDA, but it provides the least benefit.

Event-Carried State Transfer

In this pattern, the events carry all information about the state change, typically a before and after image. Subscribing systems can then store their cache of data without the need to retrieve it from the system of record.

This builds resilience since the subscribing systems can function if the source becomes unavailable. It helps performance, as there’s no remote call required to access source information. For example, if an inventory system publishes the full state of all inventory changes, a sales service subscribing to it can know the current inventory without retrieving from the inventory system — it can simply use the cache it built from the inventory events, even during an inventory service outage.

It also helps performance because the subscriber’s data storage can be custom-tuned just for that subscriber’s unique performance needs. Using the previous example, perhaps the inventory service is best suited using a relational database, but the sales service could get better performance from a no-SQL database like MongoDB. Since the sales services no longer need to retrieve from the inventory service, it’s at liberty to use a different DBMS than the inventory service. Additionally, if the inventory service is having an outage, the sales service would be unaffected since it pulls inventory data from its local cache.

The cons are that lots of data is copied around and there is more complexity on the receivers since they have to sort out maintaining all the state they are receiving.

#integration #microservices #data #kafka #enterprise architecture #event driven architecture #application architecture

The Service Mesh in the Microservices World - DZone Microservices

The software industry has come a long journey and throughout this journey, Software Architecture has evolved a lot. Starting with 1-tier (Single-node), 2-tier (Client/ Server), 3-tier, and Distributed are some of the Software Architectural patterns we saw in this journey.

The Problem

The majority of software companies are moving from Monolithic architecture to Microservices architecture, and Microservices architecture is taking over the software industry day-by-day. While monolithic architecture has many benefits, it also has so many shortcomings when catering to modern software development needs. With those shortcomings of monolithic architecture, it is very difficult to meet the demand of the modern-world software requirements and as a result, microservices architecture is taking control of the software development aggressively. The Microservices architecture enables us to deploy our applications more frequently, independently, and reliably meeting modern-day software application development requirements.

#microservice architecture #istio #microservice best practices #linkerd #microservice communication #microservice design #envoy proxy #kubernetes architecture #api gateways #service mesh architecture