I've lately been very interested in reactive microservice design with streaming and event-driven architectures.

When one writes (i.e., manages) services, this paradigm works extremely well by simply responding to published events on topics.

However, we don't always control the implementation of all the services with which we interact. For example, consider a commercial service which exposes a black-box endpoint which does some asynchronous work and returns an ID for that job. It also exposes an endpoint for retrieving the status of that job by ID. For sake of simplicity, we'll assume these two endpoints and a "get results" endpoint are the only exposed endpoints.

In this case, we are left in a situation where we must necessarily poll the service to check the status of the work. Are there established patterns for doing this? I'd guess a supervisor which polls on a timer and publishes the job status might be a "fine" approach, but I'm wondering if there are other battle-tested approaches.

  • 1
    My first instinct here is to redesign so you don't care about the status of the work. Let the work get back to you when it gets back to you. Don't wait for it to have a unique identifier. Give it one from the start and pass it along. Mar 17, 2018 at 15:53
  • I think I understand, but I think the trick comes from a client-perspective... someone will have to poll eventually, right? Polling on a client introduces a potential for a denial-of-service. Polling on the server introduces some potential for blocking.
    – erip
    Mar 17, 2018 at 15:55
  • Callbacks and promises. Or polling periodically. Any service can be DOS'd; polling is a client mechanism. The server already knows when the service has been completed. Mar 17, 2018 at 15:55
  • 1
    Polling is often the very first idea that comes to mind. After a while we realise that the polling is ineficient since most of time it gets the very same result: nothing new. If possible, is preferible to poll only when there's an evidence of changes (other events) or, easier, when someone just want to know the status.
    – Laiv
    Mar 17, 2018 at 15:59
  • 2
    If I couldn't redesign the black box then "a supervisor which polls" is exactly what I'd do. I'd put it as close to the black box as I could to avoid the unneeded chatter over the network. Mar 17, 2018 at 16:10

1 Answer 1


Guess it's a bit late but here is what I would do : I would put a wrapper around your part and the blackbox.

This wrapper will handle the creation of the jobs and the pulling. You have to make it qo only him can pull on that service. The wrapper will publish event on each finish jobs.

To avoid DOS, you should have a limit of how many jobs you can ask to be processed in the same time. If you don't, come up with a reasonable numberand have your wrapper "queing" or refusing job if the number of jobs running in the black box is already at the defined limit. And by "queing", if you choose that, I mean that your wrapper will have it's on queue of job to process when the black box is already full. That queue will get processed every time there is free space on the black box.

The gist of it is basically that if you can't make some subsystem that is compatible with your system (legacy, foreign service,...), you wrap in something that make it so, ans nothing else than the wrapper can use the underling subsystem.

  • I had completely forgotten about this question and this is exactly what I did - I created a proxy that basically acts as a publishing mechanism for the black box with some backpressure. :-) Thanks for the answer!
    – erip
    May 27, 2020 at 11:27

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.