Hubbry Logo
Event-driven architectureEvent-driven architectureMain
Open search
Event-driven architecture
Community hub
Event-driven architecture
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Event-driven architecture
Event-driven architecture
Event-driven architecture
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Event-driven architecture (EDA) is a software architecture paradigm concerning the production and detection of events. Event-driven architectures are evolutionary in nature and provide a high degree of fault tolerance, performance, and scalability. However, they are complex and inherently challenging to test. EDAs are good for complex and dynamic workloads. [1]

Overview

[edit]

An event can be defined as "a significant change in state".[2] For example, when a consumer purchases a car, the car's state changes from "for sale" to "sold". A car dealer's system architecture may treat this state change as an event whose occurrence can be made known to other applications within the architecture. From a formal perspective, what is produced, published, propagated, detected or consumed is a (typically asynchronous) message called the event notification, and not the event itself, which is the state change that triggered the message emission. Events do not travel, they just occur. However, the term event is often used metonymically to denote the notification message itself, which may lead to some confusion. This is due to Event-driven architectures often being designed atop message-driven architectures, where such a communication pattern requires one of the inputs to be text-only, the message, to differentiate how each communication should be handled.

This architectural pattern may be applied by the design and implementation of applications and systems that transmit events among loosely coupled software components and services. An event-driven system typically consists of event emitters (or agents), event consumers (or sinks), and event channels. Emitters have the responsibility to detect, gather, and transfer events. An Event Emitter does not know the consumers of the event, it does not even know if a consumer exists, and in case it exists, it does not know how the event is used or further processed. Sinks have the responsibility of applying a reaction as soon as an event is presented. The reaction might or might not be completely provided by the sink itself. For instance, the sink might just have the responsibility to filter, transform and forward the event to another component or it might provide a self-contained reaction to such an event. Event channels are conduits in which events are transmitted from event emitters to event consumers. The knowledge of the correct distribution of events is exclusively present within the event channel.[citation needed] The physical implementation of event channels can be based on traditional components such as message-oriented middleware or point-to-point communication which might require a more appropriate transactional executive framework[clarify].

Building systems around an event-driven architecture simplifies horizontal scalability in distributed computing models and makes them more resilient to failure. This is because application state can be copied across multiple parallel snapshots for high-availability.[3] New events can be initiated anywhere, but more importantly propagate across the network of data stores updating each as they arrive. Adding extra nodes becomes trivial as well: you can simply take a copy of the application state, feed it a stream of events and run with it.[4]

Event-driven architecture can complement service-oriented architecture (SOA) because services can be activated by triggers fired on incoming events.[5][6] This paradigm is particularly useful whenever the sink does not provide any self-contained executive[clarify].

SOA 2.0 evolves the implications SOA and EDA architectures provide to a richer, more robust level by leveraging previously unknown causal relationships to form a new event pattern.[vague] This new business intelligence pattern triggers further autonomous human or automated processing that adds exponential value to the enterprise by injecting value-added information into the recognized pattern which could not have been achieved previously.[vague]

Topologies

[edit]

Event driven architecture has two primary topologies: “broker topology” wherein components broadcast events to the entire system without any orchestrator. It provides the highest performance and scalability. Whereas in “mediator topology” there is a central orchestrator which controls workflow of events. It provides better control and error handling capabilities. You can also use a hybrid model and combine these two topologies.[1]

Event types

[edit]

There are different types of events in EDA, and opinions on their classification may vary. According to Yan Cui, there are two key categories of events: [7]

Domain events

[edit]

Domain events signify important occurrences within a specific business domain. These events are restricted to a bounded context and are vital for preserving business logic. Typically, domain events have lighter payloads, containing only the necessary information for processing. This is because event listeners are generally within the same service, where their requirements are more clearly understood. [7]

Integration events

[edit]

On the other hand, integration events serve to communicate changes across different bounded contexts. They are crucial for ensuring data consistency throughout the entire system. Integration events tend to have more complex payloads with additional attributes, as the needs of potential listeners can differ significantly. This often leads to a more thorough approach to communication, resulting in overcommunication to ensure that all relevant information is effectively shared. [7]

Event structure

[edit]

An event can be made of two parts, the event header and the event body also known as event payload. The event header might include information such as event name, time stamp for the event, and type of event. The event payload provides the details of the state change detected. An event body should not be confused with the pattern or the logic that may be applied in reaction to the occurrence of the event itself.

There are two primary methods for structuring event payloads in event-driven architectures: [1]

  1. All necessary attributes can be included within the payload: This method enhances speed and scalability but may lead to data consistency challenges due to the presence of multiple systems of record. Additionally, it can introduce stamp coupling and bandwidth issues at scale. [1]
  2. This method involves including only keys or IDs, allowing consumers to fetch the required data from external data sources, such as databases. While this approach is less scalable and slower due to the need for database queries, it minimizes bandwidth usage and reduces coupling issues. [1]

These methods represent two ends of a spectrum rather than binary choices. Architects must carefully size the event payloads to meet the specific needs of event consumers. [1]

Antipatterns

[edit]
  • The "Timeout AntiPattern," coined by Mark Richards, describes the challenges of setting timeout values in distributed systems. Short timeouts may fail legitimate requests prematurely, leading to complex workarounds, while long timeouts can result in slow error responses and poor user experiences. The Circuit Breaker Pattern can address these issues by monitoring service health through mechanisms such as heartbeats, "synthetic transactions", or real-time usage monitoring. This approach can enable faster failure detection and can improve the overall user experience in distributed architectures. [8]

Event evolution strategies

[edit]

In event driven architectures, event evolution poses challenges, such as managing inconsistent event schemas across services and ensuring compatibility during gradual system updates. Event evolution strategies in event-driven architectures (EDA) can ensure that systems can handle changes to events without disruption. These strategies can include versioning events, such as semantic versioning or schema evolution, to maintain backward and forward compatibility. Adapters can translate events between old and new formats, ensuring consistent processing across components. These techniques can enable systems to evolve while remaining compatible and reliable in complex, distributed environments. [9]

Event flow layers

[edit]

An event driven architecture may be built on four logical layers, starting with the sensing of an event (i.e., a significant temporal state or fact), proceeding to the creation of its technical representation in the form of an event structure and ending with a non-empty set of reactions to that event.[10]

Event producer

[edit]

The first logical layer is the event producer, which senses a fact and represents that fact as an event message. As an example, an event producer could be an email client, an E-commerce system, a monitoring agent or some type of physical sensor.

Converting the data collected from such a diverse set of data sources to a single standardized form of data for evaluation is a significant task in the design and implementation of this first logical layer.[10] However, considering that an event is a strongly declarative frame, any informational operations can be easily applied, thus eliminating the need for a high level of standardization.[citation needed]

Event channel

[edit]

This is the second logical layer. An event channel is a mechanism of propagating the information collected from an event generator to the event engine[10] or sink. This could be a TCP/IP connection, or any type of an input file (flat, XML format, e-mail, etc.). Several event channels can be opened at the same time. Usually, because the event processing engine has to process them in near real time, the event channels will be read asynchronously. The events are stored in a queue, waiting to be processed later by the event processing engine.

Event processing engine

[edit]

The event processing engine is the logical layer responsible for identifying an event, and then selecting and executing the appropriate reaction. It can also trigger a number of assertions. For example, if the event that comes into the event processing engine is a product ID low in stock, this may trigger reactions such as “Order product ID” and “Notify personnel”.[10]

Downstream event-driven activity

[edit]

This is the logical layer where the consequences of the event are shown. This can be done in many different ways and forms; e.g., an email is sent to someone and an application may display some kind of warning on the screen.[10] Depending on the level of automation provided by the sink (event processing engine) the downstream activity might not be required.

Event processing styles

[edit]

There are three general styles of event processing: simple, stream, and complex. The three styles are often used together in a mature event-driven architecture.[10]

Simple event processing

[edit]

Simple event processing concerns events that are directly related to specific, measurable changes of condition. In simple event processing, a notable event happens which initiates downstream action(s). Simple event processing is commonly used to drive the real-time flow of work, thereby reducing lag time and cost.[10]

For example, simple events can be created by a sensor detecting changes in tire pressures or ambient temperature. The car's tire incorrect pressure will generate a simple event from the sensor that will trigger a yellow light advising the driver about the state of a tire.

Event stream processing

[edit]
Main article: Event stream processing

In event stream processing (ESP), both ordinary and notable events happen. Ordinary events (orders, RFID transmissions) are screened for notability and streamed to information subscribers. Event stream processing is commonly used to drive the real-time flow of information in and around the enterprise, which enables in-time decision making.[10]

Complex event processing

[edit]
Main article: Complex event processing

Complex event processing (CEP) allows patterns of simple and ordinary events to be considered to infer that a complex event has occurred. Complex event processing evaluates a confluence of events and then takes action. The events (notable or ordinary) may cross event types and occur over a long period of time. The event correlation may be causal, temporal, or spatial. CEP requires the employment of sophisticated event interpreters, event pattern definition and matching, and correlation techniques. CEP is commonly used to detect and respond to business anomalies, threats, and opportunities.[10]

Online event processing

[edit]

Online event processing (OLEP) uses asynchronous distributed event logs to process complex events and manage persistent data.[11] OLEP allows reliably composing related events of a complex scenario across heterogeneous systems. It thereby enables very flexible distribution patterns with high scalability and offers strong consistency. However, it cannot guarantee upper bounds on processing time.

Extreme loose coupling and well distributed

[edit]

An event-driven architecture is extremely loosely coupled and well distributed. The great distribution of this architecture exists because an event can be almost anything and exist almost anywhere. The architecture is extremely loosely coupled because the event itself doesn't know about the consequences of its cause. e.g. If we have an alarm system that records information when the front door opens, the door itself doesn't know that the alarm system will add information when the door opens, just that the door has been opened.[10]

Semantic coupling and further research

[edit]

Event-driven architectures have loose coupling within space, time and synchronization, providing a scalable infrastructure for information exchange and distributed workflows. However, event-architectures are tightly coupled, via event subscriptions and patterns, to the semantics of the underlying event schema and values. The high degree of semantic heterogeneity of events in large and open deployments such as smart cities and the sensor web makes it difficult to develop and maintain event-based systems. In order to address semantic coupling within event-based systems the use of approximate semantic matching of events is an active area of research.[12]

Synchronous transactions

[edit]

Synchronous transactions in EDA can be achieved through using request-response paradigm and it can be implemented in two ways: [1]

  • Creating two separate queues: one for requests and the other for replies. The event producer must wait until it receives the response.
  • Creating one dedicated ephemeral queue for each request.

Challenges

[edit]

Event driven architecture is susceptible to the fallacies of distributed computing, a series of misconceptions that can lead to significant issues in software development and deployment. [1]

Finding the right balance in the number of events can be quite difficult. Generating too many detailed events can overwhelm the system, making it hard to analyze the overall event flow effectively. This challenge becomes even greater when rollbacks are required. Conversely, if events are overly consolidated, it can lead to unnecessary processing and responses from event consumers. To achieve an optimal balance, Mark Richards recommends to consider the impact of each event and whether consumers need to review the event payloads to determine their actions. For instance, in a compliance check scenario, it may be adequate to publish just two types of events: compliant and non-compliant. This method ensures that each event is only processed by the relevant consumers, reducing unnecessary workload. [1]

One of the challenges of using event driven architecture is error handling. One way to address this issue is to use a separate error-handler processor. So, when the event consumer experiences an error, it immediately and asynchronously sends the erroneous event to the error-handler processor and moves on. Error-handler processor tries to fix the error and sends the event back to the original channel. But if the error-handler processor fails, then it can send the erroneous event to an administrator for further inspection. Note that if you use an error-handler processor, erroneous events will be processed out of sequence when they are resubmitted.[1]

Another challenge of using event driven architecture is data loss. If any of the components crashes before successfully processing and handing over the event to its next component, then the event is dropped and never makes it into the final destination. To minimize the chance of data loss, you can persist in-transit events and remove / dequeue the events only when the next component has acknowledged the receipt of the event. These features are usually known as "client acknowledge mode" and "last participant support".[1]

See also

[edit]

Articles

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Event-driven architecture

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Event-driven architecture (EDA) is a in which loosely coupled components communicate asynchronously through the production, detection, , and consumption of , enabling systems to respond dynamically to changes in state or business conditions. in this context are discrete records of significant occurrences, such as user actions, updates, or transaction completions, which trigger downstream processing without requiring direct invocation between services. This approach contrasts with traditional synchronous models like request-response patterns, emphasizing decoupling, , and real-time responsiveness in distributed environments. At its core, EDA comprises three primary elements: event producers, which generate and publish events representing domain-specific facts; event brokers or (such as message queues or stream platforms), which handle routing, persistence, and delivery to ensure reliable distribution; and event consumers or processors, which subscribe to relevant events and execute actions like updating databases, invoking services, or triggering workflows. Supporting infrastructure often includes event metadata for standardization, processing engines for complex pattern detection (e.g., via or CEP), and tools for monitoring and management. This structure allows for horizontal scaling, fault isolation, and modular evolution, as components need not know about each other beyond event schemas. EDA offers key benefits including enhanced for business processes through real-time , improved resilience via asynchronous handling that prevents cascading failures, and efficient utilization in high-volume scenarios. It is widely applied in ecosystems, where it supports a range of event-driven patterns, including the use of immutable append-only logs for scalable event streaming, decoupled inter-service communication, and data enrichment, as well as event sourcing combined with CQRS for deriving and maintaining consistent state from event histories with full auditability; in IoT systems for processing sensor streams; and in for detection and trading alerts. Technologies like Apache Kafka, Google Cloud Pub/Sub, Eventarc, Cloud Run, and Dataflow, AWS EventBridge, and Azure Event Grid exemplify modern implementations, facilitating integration across cloud-native and hybrid environments.

Fundamentals

Definition and Principles

Event-driven architecture (EDA) is a in which loosely coupled components of a communicate asynchronously through the production, detection, and reaction to events, where events represent discrete state changes or significant occurrences within the system or business domain. In this paradigm, events serve as the fundamental units of work and communication, enabling producers to publish notifications without direct knowledge of or dependency on specific consumers, thus promoting and flexibility in distributed environments. The conceptual foundations of EDA trace back to early computing mechanisms such as hardware interrupts, which allowed systems to respond reactively to external inputs without suspending ongoing processes. During the , EDA drew significant influence from publish-subscribe messaging models, which facilitated asynchronous event dissemination in emerging distributed systems and contrasted with rigid synchronous interactions. This evolution accelerated in the early 2000s toward modern reactive systems, as articulated in influential works including David Luckham's The Power of Events (2002), which introduced for enterprise-scale reactivity, and Gregor Hohpe and Bobby Woolf's (2003), which formalized event-driven messaging patterns for integration. Central principles of EDA emphasize decoupling of producers and consumers, allowing independent , scaling, and isolation among elements. Reactivity ensures that systems process and respond to events in near real-time, maintaining responsiveness to dynamic changes without predefined invocation sequences. arises from the distributed nature of event handling, where workloads can be partitioned across multiple nodes to accommodate varying volumes efficiently. Collectively, these principles position the event as the immutable, atomic record of activity, underpinning resilient architectures suitable for high-throughput scenarios. Compared to traditional request-response architectures, which rely on synchronous, direct calls between components and often require polling for updates, EDA offers superior handling of high-volume, by decoupling interactions and leveraging asynchronous event to buffer and route information without blocking. This shift enhances overall system resilience, as failures in one component do not propagate synchronously, and enables efficient processing of bursty workloads in domains like and IoT.

Core Concepts

Event sourcing is a paradigm in event-driven architecture (EDA) that persists the state of an application as a sequence of immutable events rather than storing the current state directly. Each event captures a change to the application's domain objects, forming an append-only log that serves as the for the system's history. This approach ensures that all modifications are recorded durably, enabling the reconstruction of any past state by replaying the events in order. The immutability of events in event sourcing provides robust auditing capabilities, as the full history of changes remains intact and tamper-evident. For recovery, the event log allows systems to rebuild state from scratch after failures, without relying on potentially inconsistent snapshots. Replayability also supports temporal queries, such as deriving the state at a specific point in time, and facilitates by stepping through event sequences. In practice, this mechanism enhances traceability in complex domains like financial transactions or , where auditing is critical. Command Query Responsibility Segregation (CQRS) complements event sourcing by decoupling the handling of write operations (commands) from read operations (queries) in an EDA system. Commands modify the system's state by producing events, while queries retrieve data from a separate, optimized model, often using different data stores. This segregation, first articulated by Greg Young, allows each model to be tailored to its responsibilities, improving and performance. In CQRS-integrated EDA, writes append events to the log for , propagating changes asynchronously to the read model via event publication. This avoids the pitfalls of a unified model burdened by both and retrieval needs, reducing contention in high-throughput scenarios. The promotes resilience by isolating failures in one model from affecting the other, ensuring reads remain available even during write disruptions. While event sourcing uses an immutable append-only log as the source of truth for state management within a system, many event-driven microservices architectures employ plain immutable append-only logs (such as Apache Kafka topics) primarily for inter-service event streaming and communication rather than as the definitive source of state. In event sourcing, domain events (e.g., OrderPlaced, OrderShipped for status updates) are persisted immutably, with the current state derived by replaying the event sequence. This provides complete audit history, support for temporal queries, reliable state reconstruction after failures, and enrichment via projections that build optimized read models or handlers that process and potentially publish enriched events. In contrast, a plain append-only log in event streaming emphasizes scalable, decoupled communication across microservices. Services publish events for status updates, and consumers subscribe to these events, enrich them with additional context (e.g., adding customer details via stream processors), and publish enriched events to new topics. State is managed separately, typically in databases, with eventual consistency maintained across services. This approach prioritizes efficient data propagation and enrichment in distributed systems over historical state derivation from events. Event sourcing suits domains requiring complex state management, full historical auditing, and temporal analysis, whereas plain append-only logs excel in providing flexible, high-throughput event-driven communication and data enrichment across loosely coupled services. The Reactive Manifesto outlines principles that align closely with EDA, emphasizing systems that are responsive, resilient, elastic, and message-driven. in EDA ensures timely event processing to meet user expectations and detect issues early, achieved through non-blocking event handlers. Resilience isolates failures to specific event consumers, using replication and to maintain overall . Elasticity enables dynamic scaling of event processing components to handle load variations, distributing events across resources as needed. Message-driven interactions, central to EDA, foster via asynchronous event passing, supporting back-pressure to prevent overload. Polyglot persistence in EDA leverages events to integrate diverse technologies without enforcing tight coupling between components. By publishing state changes as events, services can project into specialized stores—such as relational databases for transactions, document stores for unstructured , or graph databases for relationships—tailored to query needs. This decouples persistence choices from , allowing independent evolution of data models while maintaining consistency through event streams. In event-sourced systems, the immutable event log acts as a neutral intermediary, enabling polyglot views without direct inter-service dependencies.

Components and Flow

Event Producers and Sources

Event producers in event-driven architecture (EDA) are specialized components or services that detect meaningful state changes, business occurrences, or triggers within a system and generate corresponding events for publication to an event router or bus. These producers focus solely on event creation and emission, remaining decoupled from downstream consumers to promote scalability and flexibility in system design. By encapsulating domain logic or external stimuli, producers ensure that events represent factual, immutable records of what has occurred, such as a transaction completion or sensor reading. Events originate from diverse sources, broadly categorized as internal or external. Internal sources arise from within the application's , including the completion of processes in , changes in application state, or automated triggers like database modifications that signal updates to entities such as user profiles or inventory levels. External sources, by contrast, involve inputs from outside the core system, such as user interactions via interfaces, real-time data from IoT devices monitoring environmental conditions, or notifications from third-party APIs like payment gateways confirming transactions. This distinction allows EDA systems to integrate seamlessly with both controlled internal workflows and unpredictable external stimuli, enhancing responsiveness to real-world dynamics. Effective event generation adheres to key best practices to maintain reliability and consistency. Idempotency is essential, ensuring that republishing an event—due to retries or network issues—does not lead to duplicate effects when processed. Atomicity requires each event to encapsulate a single, indivisible unit of change, preventing partial or ambiguous representations that could complicate downstream interpretation. For failure handling, producers should incorporate retry logic with , leverage durable queues as buffers against transient issues, and employ exactly-once semantics where possible to avoid event loss or duplication during publication. Practical examples illustrate these concepts in action. In a microservices-based platform, a checkout service acts as a by emitting an "OrderCreated" event upon validating a purchase, capturing details like order ID and items without assuming any routing to other services. Database triggers serve as another common mechanism; for instance, an update to a record in a can automatically generate an "CustomerUpdated" event, notifying relevant parts of the system of the change. These approaches enable producers to focus on accurate event origination while deferring delivery concerns to event channels.

Event Channels and Routing

In event-driven architecture (EDA), event channels serve as the foundational infrastructure for transporting events from producers to consumers, ensuring decoupling and asynchronous communication. These channels act as intermediaries that buffer, route, and deliver events reliably across distributed systems. Event channels encompass several types tailored to different communication needs. Message queues enable point-to-point delivery, where events are sent to a single consumer or load-balanced among multiple competing consumers, facilitating work distribution and ensuring each event is processed exactly once in basic setups. Topic-based publish-subscribe (pub-sub) brokers support one-to-many broadcasting, where publishers send events to named topics, and subscribers register interest to receive relevant messages, promoting scalability in decoupled environments. For example, Google Cloud Pub/Sub is a managed pub-sub service that demonstrates high scalability, supporting over 500 million messages per second in production use by Google services such as Ads, Search, and Gmail; it achieves low latency via nearest-region routing and high availability through multi-cluster replication and flow control. Stream platforms, such as those handling continuous data flows, provide durable, append-only logs for events, allowing consumers to replay sequences for state reconstruction or real-time analytics. Routing mechanisms direct events efficiently within these channels to prevent overload and ensure targeted delivery. Topic hierarchies organize events into structured namespaces, such as "user/orders/created," enabling wildcard subscriptions (e.g., "user/*") for flexible matching and hierarchical filtering based on event metadata. Content-based filters allow consumers to specify rules on event payloads or headers, only matching events while discarding others, which optimizes bandwidth in high-volume systems. For undeliverable events—due to processing failures, expiration, or invalid —dead-letter queues capture them for later inspection, retry, or manual intervention, enhancing system resilience without data loss. Services such as Google Cloud Eventarc support event routing across decoupled components, emphasizing benefits including independent scaling, real-time responsiveness, loose coupling, and reduced costs, though detailed numerical benchmarks for the overall architecture (incorporating services like Pub/Sub, Eventarc, Cloud Run, and Dataflow) are not published; instead, performance details are provided component-specifically. Reliability features are integral to event channels to handle failures in distributed settings. Durability persists events on disk or replicated storage, ensuring availability even during broker outages, as seen in stream platforms where committed events survive node failures if replicas remain operational. Ordering guarantees, such as first-in-first-out (FIFO) within partitions or topics, maintain event sequence to preserve causality, critical for applications like financial transactions. Partitioning distributes events across multiple sub-channels for horizontal scalability, allowing parallel processing while balancing load, though it trades global ordering for throughput. The evolution of event channels traces from early standards like Java Message Service (JMS), introduced in 1997, which standardized queues and topics for enterprise messaging with persistent delivery and durable subscriptions to support reliable pub-sub in Java environments. Modern brokers like , developed in 2011, advanced this by introducing distributed stream processing with log-based storage, enabling at-least-once delivery semantics where producers retry unacknowledged sends to avoid loss, though duplicates may occur without idempotency. Kafka's partitioning and replication further scaled EDA for , influencing hybrid models that combine JMS-like simplicity with stream durability.

Event Processing Engines

Event processing engines act as core intermediaries in event-driven architecture (EDA) pipelines, receiving events from routing channels and applying to interpret, transform, enrich, or filter them before to downstream consumers. These engines enable immediate reactions to incoming events by executing predefined operations, such as aggregating related data or validating payloads, thereby decoupling producers from final handlers while ensuring and relevance. In practice, they operate as lightweight components, often integrated with message brokers, to process high-velocity event streams in real-time or near-real-time scenarios. Engines vary in design between stateless and stateful variants, with stateless processors handling each event independently without retaining prior context, ideal for simple filtering or enrichment tasks that prioritize scalability and low overhead. Stateful engines, conversely, maintain internal context across multiple events—such as session data or aggregates—to support advanced operations like correlation or pattern matching, enabling more sophisticated event interpretation at the cost of increased resource demands. For instance, stateless modes suit idempotent transformations in high-throughput environments, while stateful approaches are essential for scenarios requiring historical awareness, such as fraud detection workflows. Processing paradigms in event engines primarily fall into rule-based and stream-oriented categories. Rule-based engines, exemplified by , employ declarative rules to evaluate events against , incorporating (CEP) features like temporal operators (e.g., "after" or "overlaps") to detect relationships and infer outcomes from event sequences. supports both stream mode for chronological processing with real-time clocks and cloud mode for unordered fact evaluation, facilitating transformations such as event expiration via sliding windows (e.g., time-based over 2 minutes). In contrast, stream processors like focus on distributed, continuous computations over unbounded data streams, using APIs for operations like mapping, joining, or windowing to transform and enrich events with exactly-once guarantees and fault-tolerant . Flink's stateful excels in low-latency applications, handling event-time semantics to process out-of-order arrivals effectively. Similarly, Google Cloud Dataflow provides distributed stream processing; benchmarks for Pub/Sub to BigQuery pipelines show per-worker throughputs of 17-21 MBps for map-only transformations (exactly-once or at-least-once) and 6 MBps for windowed aggregations (exactly-once), with end-to-end P50 latencies from 160 ms (at-least-once map-only) to 3.4 s (exactly-once windowed aggregation). A critical function of event processing engines involves managing event metadata to ensure reliable interpretation and traceability. Timestamps embedded in events allow engines to enforce ordering and temporal constraints, such as in ' pseudo or real-time clocks for testing and production synchronization, respectively. Correlation IDs, unique identifiers propagated across event flows, enable linking related messages for and auditing, as seen in Kafka-integrated systems where they trace request-response pairs without relying on content alone. This metadata handling supports end-to-end visibility, allowing operators to reconstruct event paths and diagnose issues like delays or drops during processing. Performance in event processing engines emphasizes balancing throughput—the volume of events handled per unit time—with latency, the delay from event ingestion to output, particularly in reactive stream environments. High-throughput designs, such as Flink's in-memory computing, can sustain millions of events per second by leveraging parallelism and incremental checkpoints, while low-latency optimizations minimize buffering to achieve sub-millisecond responses in critical paths. Backpressure management, a cornerstone of reactive streams, prevents overload by signaling upstream components to slow production when downstream buffers fill, using bounded queues to avoid memory exhaustion and maintain system stability without data loss. For example, in Akka Streams implementations, configurable buffer sizes (e.g., 10 events) decouple stages to boost throughput by up to twofold, though optimal sizing trades off against added latency from queuing. These considerations ensure engines scale resiliently in distributed EDA setups, prioritizing fault tolerance over exhaustive speed in variable workloads.

Event Consumers and Downstream Activities

Event consumers represent the terminal nodes in an event-driven architecture (EDA), where services or applications subscribe to specific event streams or topics to receive and process events, thereby enabling reactive behaviors across distributed systems. These consumers are typically from event producers, allowing them to operate independently while responding to relevant events in real time. In practice, consumers subscribe to message channels or brokers, such as topics, to pull or receive pushed events, ensuring through mechanisms like partitioning and load balancing. The primary roles of event consumers include performing state updates, issuing notifications, and facilitating within the system. For updates, a consumer might synchronize data stores, such as modifying a record in a CRM database upon receipt of a "PaymentProcessed" event to reflect the latest transaction status. Notifications involve alerting external parties, for example, sending an or push notification to a user when an "OrderShipped" event arrives, enhancing user engagement without direct polling. occurs when consumers coordinate multi-step processes, such as triggering a sequence of dependent services in response to an initial event, which supports complex in environments. Downstream activities often involve chaining events to propagate changes and initiate workflows, promoting and . In distributed transactions, consumers implement patterns, where each step in a long-running process emits a compensating event if a failure occurs, allowing subsequent consumers to rollback or adjust states across services—for instance, in an e-commerce order fulfillment that coordinates deduction, payment reversal, and notification if any step fails. This chaining enables workflows like automated approval processes, where an "InvoiceSubmitted" event triggers review by one consumer, followed by approval or rejection events consumed by downstream accounting services. Fan-out scenarios allow a single event to reach multiple simultaneously, enabling parallel processing and broadcast patterns for efficiency. For example, in high-throughput systems like financial trading platforms, a "MarketPriceUpdate" event fans out to numerous consumer instances for real-time analytics, , and display updates, leveraging brokers to duplicate messages across subscriptions without producer awareness. Conversely, aggregation by consumers involves collecting and consolidating multiple related events over time or windows to trigger batch actions, such as summarizing daily user interactions into a weekly report event for updates, which reduces noise and supports analytical downstream flows. Monitoring and alerting in EDA rely on dedicated consumers to ensure system health and observability, often by processing health-check events or metrics streams. These consumers perform checks on event ingestion rates, latency, and error counts, emitting alerts via integrated tools when thresholds are breached—for instance, a consumer monitoring Kafka consumer lag might trigger notifications to operators if processing falls behind, preventing cascading failures in production environments. Event-driven observability further extends this by allowing consumers to react to infrastructure events, such as scaling alerts based on load metrics, integrating with platforms like Prometheus for proactive remediation.

Event Characteristics

Types of Events

In event-driven architecture (EDA), events are classified by their semantic purpose, scope, and origin to facilitate precise system design and communication. This categorization helps distinguish internal notifications from cross-system signals and imperative triggers from declarative facts, enabling and reactive behaviors. Core types include domain events and integration events, which align with (DDD) principles, alongside a fundamental separation from commands. Additional categories encompass time-based, , and platform events, each serving specialized roles in diverse applications. Domain events capture state changes within a single bounded context, serving as in-process notifications to trigger side effects or reactions among domain components without external dependencies. These events are often handled synchronously or asynchronously within the same transaction, promoting consistency in complex domains like or . For instance, an OrderPlaced domain event in an ordering service might invoke handlers to validate buyer details or update aggregates, ensuring all relevant domain logic responds to the change. In contrast, integration events facilitate across bounded contexts or by broadcasting committed updates asynchronously via an event bus, such as a or service broker. They are published only after successful persistence to avoid partial states, emphasizing in distributed systems. A representative example is a PaymentProcessed integration event, which notifies inventory and shipping services of a completed transaction, allowing each to react independently without . Central to EDA, particularly when integrated with (CQRS), is the distinction between commands and events: commands represent imperative instructions to alter system state, such as a PlaceOrder command that directs an aggregate to perform validations and updates, while events are declarative, immutable records of what has already occurred, like the resulting OrderPlaced event for downstream propagation. This separation ensures commands focus on intent and validation without side effects, whereas events enable observation and reaction, reducing tight coupling in write and read models. Beyond domain-centric types, EDA incorporates other event varieties for broader reactivity. Time-based events, triggered by schedules or timers, support periodic processing, such as aggregating sensor data over fixed intervals to detect anomalies in streaming analytics pipelines. Sensor events, common in (IoT) scenarios, emit real-time data from physical devices, like temperature or motion readings from industrial equipment, enabling immediate downstream actions such as . Platform events address infrastructure concerns, generating alerts for system-level changes, including resource scaling notifications or error thresholds in cloud environments, to automate operational responses. These types extend EDA's applicability to temporal, environmental, and operational domains while maintaining the event structure's focus on and metadata for routing.

Event Structure and Schema

In event-driven architecture (EDA), an event's structure typically comprises three primary components: a header, a , and metadata, ensuring reliable transmission, processing, and interpretation across distributed systems. The header includes essential attributes such as a (ID) for deduplication and tracing, a indicating when the event occurred, and the source identifying the or origin of the event. The contains the core data relevant to the event, often representing changes in state, commands, or notifications in a structured format like or , while metadata encompasses additional context such as schema version and schema ID to facilitate validation and evolution without breaking compatibility. Schema evolution in EDA events is critical for maintaining system resilience as business requirements change, with formats like Apache Avro and JSON Schema enabling backward and forward compatibility. In Avro, backward compatibility allows readers using a newer schema to process data written by an older schema by ignoring extra fields and promoting compatible types (e.g., int to long), while forward compatibility permits older readers to handle newer data via default values for missing fields. JSON Schema supports similar evolution through rules like adding optional properties or changing types in a controlled manner, often enforced via schema registries in platforms like Confluent or Azure Event Hubs to validate changes before deployment. These mechanisms ensure events remain interoperable over time, preventing disruptions in long-lived event streams. Serialization of events in EDA balances efficiency, performance, and human , with binary formats like offering advantages in size and speed over text-based alternatives like . encode data into a compact binary wire format, significantly reducing payload size compared to and enabling faster /deserialization, which is particularly beneficial for high-throughput event streams in . However, binary formats sacrifice , requiring definitions for decoding, whereas 's text-based nature enhances and ad-hoc integration at the cost of larger payloads and slower processing. Trade-offs are context-dependent: binary suits latency-sensitive applications, while text-based is preferred for exploratory development or when flexibility outweighs performance needs. To promote standardization and interoperability in EDA, the CloudEvents specification defines a uniform event representation that decouples the payload from transport details, applicable across cloud providers and protocols. Core CloudEvents attributes include id for uniqueness, source for origin, type for categorization, time for occurrence, and data for the payload, with extensions for custom metadata like schema versions. This CNCF-hosted standard supports both structured (e.g., full JSON envelope) and binary (e.g., headers only) modes, enabling seamless event exchange in heterogeneous environments without proprietary formats.

Architectural Patterns

Common Topologies

Event-driven architecture (EDA) employs several common topologies to organize the flow of events between producers and s, each suited to different , , and decoupling needs. These topologies define how events are routed and processed, balancing with in system design. The point-to-point topology involves direct communication between a single event producer and a dedicated , typically via a that ensures exclusive delivery of each event to one receiver. This approach is ideal for simple scenarios requiring reliable, one-to-one event handling without broadcasting, such as task delegation in systems where coordination among multiple consumers is unnecessary. It promotes efficiency in low-volume, targeted interactions but limits for fan-out requirements. In contrast, the publish-subscribe (pub-sub) topology, often implemented through a broker, enables producers to broadcast events to multiple subscribers via topics or channels, decoupling senders from receivers and allowing dynamic subscription management. This broker-mediated structure excels in scalable, high-throughput environments by distributing events asynchronously across the system, supporting use cases like real-time notifications where consumers independently filter relevant events. It enhances and responsiveness but can introduce challenges in maintaining event order without additional mechanisms. The topology introduces a central orchestrator that receives events from producers, manages state, routes them through queues or channels, and coordinates processing across multiple consumers in a controlled sequence. This layout is particularly effective for complex workflows involving multi-step event chains, such as validating and executing a stock trade by invoking compliance checks, broker assignment, and commission calculations in order. While it provides robust error handling and consistency, the central can become a bottleneck in very high-volume systems. Hybrid topologies combine elements of point-to-point, pub-sub, and patterns to address diverse requirements, such as blending streaming for real-time with queues for targeted . In financial trading platforms, this integration allows high-frequency event streams (via pub-sub brokers) to trigger orchestrated workflows () for execution while using point-to-point queues for reliable settlement tasks, enabling sub-millisecond responsiveness and scalability across hybrid environments. For instance, Citigroup's trading system leverages such a hybrid to market events in real time, reducing latency and improving stability.

Processing Styles

In event-driven architecture, processing styles refer to the methods by which events are analyzed and acted upon, varying in complexity from immediate reactions to sophisticated pattern detection across sequences. These styles enable systems to handle events based on their timing, order, and interdependencies, supporting applications ranging from real-time notifications to advanced analytics. Simple event processing involves immediate, one-to-one reactions to individual events without maintaining state or considering historical context. In this style, an event triggers a in the as soon as it is received, such as sending a notification upon user registration or updating a cache entry. This approach is stateless and suitable for low-latency scenarios where events are independent and do not require . Event stream processing focuses on the continuous analysis of ordered flows of events, often involving aggregations and transformations over time-bound windows to derive insights from . For instance, in Streams, windowing techniques group events into fixed intervals—such as tumbling windows for non-overlapping periods or hopping windows for sliding overlaps—allowing computations like average transaction values over the last five minutes. This style processes events incrementally in real-time or near-real-time, handling high-velocity while preserving order and enabling stateful operations like joins or reductions. Complex event processing (CEP) extends beyond individual or simple streams by detecting patterns and relationships across multiple events, often using rules or queries to infer higher-level situations. Introduced in seminal work by David Luckham, CEP analyzes event sequences in real-time to identify composite events, such as a sequence of login attempts from different locations signaling potential . In detection, for example, banking systems apply CEP rules to correlate transaction events with user behavior patterns, triggering alerts when anomalies like rapid high-value transfers occur. This style requires event correlation, temporal reasoning, and abstraction to manage complexity in distributed environments. Online event (OLEP) is a for building distributed applications that achieve guarantees using append-only event logs, rather than relying on traditional distributed transactions. Introduced by Kleppmann et al. in , OLEP enables fault-tolerant, scalable by appending events to shared logs that multiple services can read and process asynchronously, supporting use cases like collaborative editing or inventory management where consistency across replicas is critical. This approach provides and other properties without the limitations of two-phase commit protocols.

Design Strategies

Event Evolution and Versioning

In event-driven architecture (EDA), events often represent long-lived business facts that must evolve as systems mature, requiring strategies to manage changes without disrupting producers or consumers. Event evolution ensures that modifications to event structures, such as adding or renaming fields, maintain in distributed environments where components may upgrade at different times. Versioning approaches for event schemas typically include semantic versioning embedded in the payload or metadata, where versions follow conventions like MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH to indicate breaking changes, additive updates, or fixes. Parallel schemas allow multiple versions to coexist within the same topic or stream, enabling gradual migration by routing events based on version compatibility. Co-versioning with headers, such as including a schema ID in the message envelope, facilitates dynamic resolution of the correct schema during serialization and deserialization, supporting backward and forward compatibility modes. Backward compatibility techniques are essential to prevent failures when new events are processed by legacy consumers. These include introducing optional fields that can be ignored if absent, providing default values for newly added required fields to fill gaps in older , and establishing deprecation policies to phase out obsolete elements over defined periods, such as marking fields as deprecated in documentation while continuing support for at least one major release cycle. For instance, in Avro-based schemas, adding an optional field like {"name": "favorite_color", "type": ["null", "string"], "default": null} ensures that consumers without this field can still parse the event without errors. Tools like schema registries centralize event schema management, enforcing compatibility rules and providing APIs for registration and validation. The Confluent Schema Registry, for example, maintains a repository of versioned schemas associated with subjects (e.g., topics), automatically checking changes against modes like BACKWARD (new consumers read old data) or FULL (mutual compatibility) before allowing publication. This practice promotes standardized evolution by requiring pre-registration of schemas and compatibility tests, reducing runtime errors in production. Challenges in distributed systems arise from schema drift, where unauthorized or undetected changes lead to incompatible events accumulating in , potentially causing deserialization failures or inconsistencies. Ensuring consumer upgrades without downtime requires careful sequencing, such as upgrading consumers first under to handle legacy events, followed by producers, while monitoring for drift through automated validation and replay mechanisms. In uncoordinated environments, these issues can propagate failures across services, necessitating robust governance to maintain system reliability over time.

Achieving Loose Coupling

In event-driven architecture (EDA), loose coupling is achieved by minimizing dependencies across temporal, spatial, and semantic dimensions, enabling components to evolve independently without direct invocations or shared state. Temporal coupling occurs when producers and consumers must synchronize in time, such as through synchronous requests that block operations until a response arrives, potentially leading to availability issues if one component fails. To mitigate this, asynchronous messaging decouples timing by allowing producers to publish events without waiting for immediate processing, permitting consumers to handle events at their own pace via message brokers like . Similarly, spatial coupling arises from dependencies on specific locations, such as direct endpoint addresses or network protocols, which hinder deployment flexibility. Techniques like topic-based routing in publish-subscribe systems abstract these locations, using logical identifiers for event delivery and reducing the need for components to know each other's physical or logical addresses. Semantic coupling, the most subtle form, stems from differing interpretations of event , where a producer's notion of an "order confirmed" event might include fields irrelevant or misinterpreted by a consumer, causing integration failures. Standardization through shared schemas or translation layers addresses this by enforcing consistent meanings, though it requires careful design to avoid over-specification. For extreme , event sourcing enables schema-free interactions by storing state as an immutable sequence of events rather than current snapshots, allowing consumers to replay and interpret events based on their own projections without relying on a fixed from the producer. This approach promotes decoupling as changes to event details do not necessitate immediate schema updates across the system, provided versioning is handled appropriately. Adaptations of hexagonal architecture further enhance this by positioning the domain logic at the core, surrounded by ports for event ingress and egress, with adapters handling infrastructure-specific details like message serialization. In EDA contexts, this isolates event producers and consumers from transport mechanisms, such as switching between and message queues without altering core behavior, thereby supporting independent evolution of boundary components. Addressing semantic coupling specifically involves (DDD) principles, which establish a ubiquitous language to align event semantics across bounded contexts, ensuring producers and consumers share a common understanding of domain concepts like "payment processed" without ambiguous interpretations. This reduces mismatches by modeling events as rich domain objects rather than generic data payloads. Recent advancements in ontology-based events build on this, using formal ontologies to embed machine-readable semantics into event structures, facilitating automated discovery and interpretation in distributed systems. For instance, semantic event-handling frameworks post-2020 incorporate ontologies to enable interoperability in cyber-physical systems, allowing low-coupling event processing through asynchrony and flexible schema mapping. The distributed nature of EDA yields benefits like fault isolation, where failures in one do not propagate to producers or other consumers due to the asynchronous, non-blocking event flow, enhancing overall system resilience. Independent scaling is another key advantage, as event volumes can trigger auto-scaling of specific consumers without affecting the entire , such as provisioning additional instances for high-throughput while leaving transactional components unchanged.

Implementation Aspects

Synchronous and Transactional Processing

While event-driven architecture (EDA) primarily relies on asynchronous event processing to enable and decoupling, certain scenarios demand synchronous interactions or transactional guarantees to ensure immediate feedback or data consistency. Synchronous elements can be incorporated into EDA through hybrid models that combine event-based communication with request-reply patterns, where a service sends an event and awaits a correlated response event to simulate a direct interaction. This approach allows for low-latency queries in systems that otherwise operate asynchronously, such as in ecosystems where immediate acknowledgments are needed for user-facing operations. Transactional guarantees in EDA often focus on achieving exactly-once semantics to prevent duplicate processing, which is implemented using idempotent operations that ensure repeated events produce the same outcome without side effects. Idempotency can be enforced by including unique identifiers in events and checking for prior processing in the consumer's state, a technique commonly used in streaming platforms like . Two-phase commit protocols, traditionally used for atomicity in distributed systems, can be adapted in event contexts but introduce coordination overhead and potential blocking, making them less ideal for highly decoupled EDA environments. The pattern addresses distributed consistency in EDA by breaking long-running transactions into a sequence of local transactions, each followed by a compensating transaction to changes if subsequent steps fail, thus avoiding global locks or two-phase commits. In choreography-based , services react to events by publishing compensating events upon failure; in orchestration-based variants, a central coordinator manages the via event exchanges. This pattern maintains without halting the system, suitable for scenarios spanning multiple bounded contexts. These approaches involve trade-offs between latency and reliability, as synchronous request-reply ensures quick responses but can increase and risks, while asynchronous events prioritize reliability through retries and at the cost of higher latency. In e-commerce order fulfillment, for instance, a synchronous confirmation for payment processing provides immediate user feedback (low latency), whereas subsequent reservation and shipping notifications use asynchronous events to ensure reliable execution across services without blocking the initial transaction.

Challenges and Antipatterns

Implementing event-driven architecture (EDA) introduces several that can undermine system reliability and performance. One common is the cascade of events (or event chains), where a single event triggers a chain of subsequent events, leading to exponential load and potential system overload. Another is lost events, occurring when events fail to reach consumers due to network issues or broker failures, resulting in data inconsistencies unless mitigated by durable storage and acknowledgments. Tight via shared schemas arises when producers and consumers rigidly depend on a common event format, complicating independent evolution and increasing maintenance overhead. Key challenges in EDA include distributed event flows, where tracing asynchronous interactions across services is difficult without comprehensive and tracing tools. Ensuring end-to-end consistency is problematic in distributed systems, as models can lead to temporary discrepancies that require sagas or outbox patterns for resolution. Handling data privacy, particularly GDPR compliance, demands careful event design to minimize propagation and implement retention policies, as events may inadvertently store or transmit sensitive information across boundaries. Scalability issues often manifest as partitioning hotspots, where uneven event distribution in brokers like Kafka overloads specific partitions, reducing throughput and causing bottlenecks. Backpressure in high-throughput systems occurs when consumers cannot keep pace with producers, necessitating flow control mechanisms to prevent queue overflows and resource exhaustion. In 2025, emerging concerns include security vulnerabilities in serverless EDA, such as event injection attacks, where malformed or malicious events exploit unvalidated inputs to execute unauthorized code in functions. Observability is addressed through tools like OpenTelemetry, which enables distributed tracing of event propagation, helping to correlate spans across decoupled services for better diagnostics.

References

  1. https://aws.amazon.com/what-is/eda/
  2. https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/event-driven-architecture
  3. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/architecture/guide/architecture-styles/event-driven
  4. https://complexevents.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/OMG-EDA-bda2-2-06cc.pdf
  5. https://aws.amazon.com/event-driven-architecture/
  6. https://www.ibm.com/think/insights/event-driven-architecture-benefits
  7. https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/architecture/building-event-driven-architectures-with-iot-sensor-data/
  8. https://developer.ibm.com/articles/awb-event-driven-architectures-with-kafka-and-kafka-streams/
  9. https://martinfowler.com/articles/201701-event-driven.html
  10. https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/architecture/best-practices-for-implementing-event-driven-architectures-in-your-organization/
  11. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/event-grid/overview
  12. https://cloud.google.com/eventarc/docs/event-driven-architectures
  13. https://www.confluent.io/learn/event-driven-architecture/
  14. https://espjeta.org/Volume2-Issue3/JETA-V2I3P117.pdf
  15. https://www.altexsoft.com/blog/event-driven-architecture-pub-sub/
  16. https://martinfowler.com/eaaDev/EventSourcing.html
  17. https://martinfowler.com/bliki/CQRS.html
  18. https://developer.confluent.io/courses/event-sourcing/event-sourcing-vs-event-streaming/
  19. https://event-driven.io/en/event_streaming_is_not_event_sourcing/
  20. https://www.reactivemanifesto.org/
  21. https://martinfowler.com/bliki/PolyglotPersistence.html
  22. https://www.redhat.com/en/topics/integration/what-is-event-driven-architecture
  23. https://www.akamai.com/glossary/what-are-message-queues
  24. https://solace.com/event-driven-architecture-patterns/
  25. https://docs.cloud.google.com/pubsub/architecture
  26. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/eventbridge/latest/userguide/eb-rule-dlq.html
  27. https://docs.confluent.io/kafka/design/delivery-semantics.html
  28. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/java-message-service/0596000685/ch04.html
  29. https://www.confluent.io/blog/exactly-once-semantics-are-possible-heres-how-apache-kafka-does-it/
  30. https://quix.io/blog/activemq-vs-kafka-comparison
  31. https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E13213_01/wlevs/docs30/get_started/overview.html
  32. https://flink.apache.org/
  33. https://docs.drools.org/latest/drools-docs/drools/rule-engine/index.html
  34. https://docs.cloud.google.com/dataflow/docs/guides/pubsub-bigquery-performance
  35. https://developer.confluent.io/patterns/event/correlation-identifier/
  36. https://www.reactive-streams.org/
  37. https://zendesk.engineering/event-pipelines-part-1-backpressure-and-buffering-1bba0ed3451e
  38. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/event-driven-architecture-how/9780321591388/ch03.html
  39. https://www.infoq.com/articles/realtime-event-driven-ecosystem/
  40. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/event-driven-architecture-how/9780321591388/
  41. https://microservices.io/patterns/data/saga.html
  42. https://www.infoq.com/articles/events-workflow-automation/
  43. https://martinfowler.com/articles/lmax.html
  44. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/data-management-at/9781492054771/ch05.html
  45. https://www.infoq.com/presentations/doordash-event-system/
  46. https://www.infoq.com/articles/event-driven-architecture-clouds/
  47. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/architecture/microservices/microservice-ddd-cqrs-patterns/domain-events-design-implementation
  48. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/archive/msdn-magazine/2015/august/cutting-edge-cqrs-and-events-a-powerful-duo
  49. https://solace.com/blog/events-schemas-payloads/
  50. https://serverlessland.com/event-driven-architecture/designing-events
  51. https://avro.apache.org/docs/1.11.1/specification/#schema-resolution
  52. https://docs.confluent.io/platform/current/schema-registry/fundamentals/schema-evolution.html
  53. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/event-hubs/schema-registry-concepts
  54. https://www.baeldung.com/java-json-vs-protobuf
  55. https://protobuf.dev/overview/
  56. https://medium.com/streamdal/protobuf-vs-json-for-your-event-driven-architecture-6c7c4464289b
  57. https://github.com/cloudevents/spec/blob/v1.0.2/cloudevents/spec.md
  58. https://cloudevents.io/
  59. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/software-architecture-patterns/9781491971437/ch02.html
  60. https://www.enterpriseintegrationpatterns.com/patterns/messaging/PointToPointChannel.html
  61. https://www.enterpriseintegrationpatterns.com/patterns/messaging/PublishSubscribeChannel.html
  62. https://solace.com/blog/citigroup-faster-fx-trading-eda/
  63. https://www.sap.com/products/technology-platform/what-is-event-driven-architecture.html
  64. https://www.confluent.io/blog/windowing-in-kafka-streams/
  65. https://www.techtarget.com/searchitoperations/definition/event-stream-processing-ESP
  66. https://www.amazon.com/Power-Events-Introduction-Processing-Distributed/dp/0201727897
  67. https://complexevents.com/media/articles/cep-article-seven.pdf
  68. https://www.confluent.io/learn/complex-event-processing/
  69. https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=3321612
  70. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/building-event-driven-microservices/9798341622180/ch05.html
  71. https://event-driven.io/en/simple_events_versioning_patterns/
  72. https://docs.confluent.io/platform/current/schema-registry/serdes-develop/index.html
  73. https://www.confluent.io/blog/best-practices-for-confluent-schema-registry/
  74. https://www.acceldata.io/blog/schema-drift
  75. https://www.martinrichards.me/post/eda_for_the_rest_of_us_operational_challenges/
  76. https://www.enterpriseintegrationpatterns.com/ramblings/coupling_facets.html
  77. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3575879.3576006
  78. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/prescriptive-guidance/latest/cloud-design-patterns/hexagonal-architecture.html
  79. https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.09775
  80. https://www.infoq.com/articles/scalable-resilient-event-systems/
  81. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/building-event-driven-microservices/9781492057888/ch13.html
  82. https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/mt/achieve-domain-consistency-in-event-driven-architectures/
  83. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/architecture/patterns/saga
  84. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/prescriptive-guidance/latest/cloud-design-patterns/saga.html
  85. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/lambda/latest/dg/concepts-event-driven-architectures.html
  86. https://medium.com/@ashok.kr.patnaik/eda-patterns-anti-patterns-4042f84a8f73
  87. https://lenses.io/blog/2021/03/architecting-apache-kafka-for-gdpr-compliance/
  88. https://www.confluent.io/learn/kafka-partition-strategy/
  89. https://www.sysdig.com/learn-cloud-native/serverless-security-risks-and-best-practices
  90. https://www.datadoghq.com/architecture/observability-in-event-driven-architecture/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.