Which one of these is an ID for an account?
There’s not a right answer to this question.
Either of these IDs could be linked to an account
in a given system.
Between the two,
which do you think would be more likely
to be an account ID?
The first one,
feels a lot more likely
to be an account ID.
I’ve been thinking about distributed system identifiers recently and trying to shore up my preferences. There are many ways to do identifiers that have different tradeoffs. Here are a few different types of IDs that you might encounter.
- Random strings
- Random strings with prefixes
As you assess these identifier types, you can find many strings and weaknesses in different approaches. Integers might be crazy simple because of auto-incrementing tables, but you open a system up to the possibility of an enumeration attack. UUIDs should satisfy uniqueness concerns, but it’s impossible to infer what an ID refers to. I could go through the list and highlight the strengths and weaknesses of each approach.
What’s a good approach for a service oriented architecture? That is the current area that I’m wrestling with. In a service oriented architecture, different services will likely need to store IDs to model concepts in other services to be able to reference that data in the future. Knowing that a service will likely store an ID from any other service as a reference, what style should you bias toward?
I think it might help to go through some philosophical considerations with IDs. Here’s an important question to consider: should IDs be transparent or opaque?
To me, a URN is an example of a transparent identifier. The spec for a URN defines a very clear structure for an identifier. In other words, a URN adds semantic qualities to the ID. Since these structural semantics exist, it’s possible for code to use an ID itself to make logical decisions.
This is an example URN:
Because the structural semantics are present,
a service could perform validation
on this identifier.
Maybe a service only works
with IETF standards,
so the service rejects
because it wants
A transparent identifier means
that the service can inspect the ID
and see into it.
This power is potentially interesting,
but I wonder if there is a strong temptation
to abuse this transparency
and overload the semantic structure of the ID.
Another option is an opaque identifier. With this design philosophy, a service should assume that the ID is a black box. The service should make no assumptions about the structure. With this style, the validation that I mentioned with transparent IDs is not possible. Why might we want this style?
An opaque identifier can allow the service that owns the ID to make changes without affecting other services that hold the ID. When the non-owning service knows nothing about the ID, it can blindly store whatever is given to it. I’m not sure if there’s a strong benefit with this, but I know that information hiding is a powerful feature, so I have a gut feeling that there’s something here that I can’t articulate well.
While I think that there’s something interesting
with having an identifier be opaque
to the software service
that stores another service’s ID,
there is certainly power in having an ID be transparent
to a person.
Stripe is always the first service that comes to mind
in this regard.
All of Stripe’s IDs include prefixes like
I have no idea if Stripe treats these as opaque among their internal services,
but these prefixes are massively useful
to disambiguate what kind of ID something is.
If you ever pass the wrong kind of ID
to a field,
a quick inspection should make it obvious what the problem is.
Returning to my original hypothetical question,
that’s why I felt that the ID
acct_ prefix was the more natural fit.
Adding that small amount of semantic information makes Stripe IDs
so much more valuable
than a raw integer, hash, or UUID.
Whether I ultimately land in favor of transparent or opaque ID as my preference, having a transparent ID for humans is an obvious win to me. When a distributed system is passing around many different types of IDs, this level of semantic data can likely reduce data mismatch errors very rapidly.
To my personal taste,
this simple prefix style is preferable
to the URN style.
When used in an internal system,
a URN’s top level namespace of
urn:mycompany would be a big waste
Storage is relatively cheap now,
but why store that extra data
that would be meaningless?
urn:mycompany is 13 bytes multiplied by every ID in a large distributed system,
replicated to many services,
then I think that could start to add up.
I’m also curious if there would be performance impacts
on a database index,
but I don’t know enough about how the different SQL databases build their indices
to know if there would be a material impact.
The other layer that I am thinking of when considering this is how to migrate to a different ID style. Changing IDs is not a trivial undertaking since identity is the core to referencing many models. A change in this design could have far reaching consequences like causing breaking changes to REST APIs or anything that previously referenced one of these IDs. My guess is that there aren’t many companies that consider their ID design at the very outset of their company journey.
Migration is almost certainly a normal undertaking when teams are looking for a “more robust” ID format. Switching IDs will undoubtedly have effects on any service that needs to reference a different service. These effect might cause non-trivial updates. For instance, if you formerly used an integer ID type and switched a string, then a different service will need to do a data migration to translate from one ID format to another.
I might caution teams to give some consideration to their IDs when they start modeling. Do you want your services to introspect on an ID that is transparent? Do you want to have a service treat an ID as a foreign blob that it stores in a generic way?
Isn’t it funny how even the most seemingly basic design choices can be full of hidden complexity?