A design is a set of bets. Writing down which bets you are making — and what would have to be true for them to be wrong — costs an afternoon and saves a rewrite.
This piece walks through how we think about it at Paycux, what we have changed our minds about, and where the sharp edges are.
Where the roles come from
Consider where the roles come from. Measure before you optimise, then measure the thing users feel rather than the thing that is easy to instrument. A p50 that looks fine while the p99 is unusable is a reporting failure, not a performance one.
Measure before you optimise, then measure the thing users feel rather than the thing that is easy to instrument. A p50 that looks fine while the p99 is unusable is a reporting failure, not a performance one.
What Google did instead
What Google did instead is where this gets concrete. Make the boundary explicit. When one part of the system can only talk to another through a named interface, you can change either side without a meeting; when it cannot, every change becomes a negotiation.
Make the boundary explicit. When one part of the system can only talk to another through a named interface, you can change either side without a meeting; when it cannot, every change becomes a negotiation.
- Name the boundary before you cross it
- Measure what users feel, not what is easy to instrument
- Make every retried operation idempotent
- Write down the assumption that would invalidate the design
The cheaper version of the same insight
The cheaper version of the same insight deserves its own treatment. Idempotency is not a nice-to-have in any system with retries. Key on an identifier the caller supplies, store the outcome, and return the same answer to the same key rather than doing the work twice.
Measure before you optimise, then measure the thing users feel rather than the thing that is easy to instrument. A p50 that looks fine while the p99 is unusable is a reporting failure, not a performance one.
The check at request time
The check at request time is where this gets concrete. Make the boundary explicit. When one part of the system can only talk to another through a named interface, you can change either side without a meeting; when it cannot, every change becomes a negotiation.
Idempotency is not a nice-to-have in any system with retries. Key on an identifier the caller supplies, store the outcome, and return the same answer to the same key rather than doing the work twice.
Measure before you optimise, then measure the thing users feel rather than the thing that is easy to instrument.
How to get there without a rewrite
How to get there without a rewrite is where this gets concrete. Make the boundary explicit. When one part of the system can only talk to another through a named interface, you can change either side without a meeting; when it cannot, every change becomes a negotiation.
Idempotency is not a nice-to-have in any system with retries. Key on an identifier the caller supplies, store the outcome, and return the same answer to the same key rather than doing the work twice.
The signal to watch
Consider the signal to watch. Idempotency is not a nice-to-have in any system with retries. Key on an identifier the caller supplies, store the outcome, and return the same answer to the same key rather than doing the work twice.
Idempotency is not a nice-to-have in any system with retries. Key on an identifier the caller supplies, store the outcome, and return the same answer to the same key rather than doing the work twice.
Where this leaves us
None of this is exotic. It is the ordinary discipline of deciding what you own, writing down what you assume, and making the failures loud enough to notice.
If you are working through the same problem and want to compare notes, the docs cover the mechanics and the console shows the behaviour on your own data.
Everything here, already built
Sign-in, enterprise SSO, directory provisioning, roles and an audit trail behind one API. Start with the quickstart and have a working sign-in this afternoon.