Now, the central question that should remain in our minds is—How should we be responsive? As we might now understand from the example given previously, an application should react to changes. This should include changes in demand (load) and changes in the availability of external services. In other words, it should be reactive to any changes that may affect the system's ability to respond to user requests.

One of the first ways to achieve the primary goal is through elasticity. This describes the ability to stay responsive under a varying workload, meaning that the throughput of the system should increase automatically when more users start using it and it should decrease automatically when the demand goes down. From the application perspective, this feature enables system responsiveness because at any point in time the system can be expanded without affecting the average latency.

For example, by providing additional computation resources or additional instances, the throughput of our system might be increased. The responsiveness will then increase as a consequence. On the other hand, if demand is low, the system should shrink in terms of resource consumption, thereby reducing business expenses. We may achieve elasticity by employing scalability, which might either be horizontal or vertical. However, achieving scalability of the distributed system is a challenge that is typically limited by the introduction of bottlenecks or synchronization points within the system. From the theoretical and practical perspectives, such problems are explained by Amdahl's Law and Gunther's Universal Scalability Model. We will discuss these in Chapter 6, WebFlux Async Non-Blocking Communication.

However, building a scalable distributed system without the ability to stay responsive regardless of failures is a challenge. Let's think about a situation in which one part of our system is unavailable. Here, an external payment service goes down, and all user attempts to pay for the goods will fail. This is something that breaks the responsiveness of the system, which may be unacceptable in some cases. For example, if users cannot proceed with their purchases easily, they will probably go to a competitor's web store. To deliver a high-quality user experience, we must care about the system's responsiveness. The acceptance criteria for the system are the ability to stay responsive under failures, or, in other words, to be resilient. This may be achieved by applying isolation between functional components of the system, thereby isolating all internal failures and enabling independence. Let's switch back to the Amazon web store. Amazon has many different functional components such as the order list, payment service, advertising service, comment service, and many others. For example, in the case of a payment service outage, we may accept user orders and then schedule a request auto-retry, thereby protecting the user from undesired failures. Another example might be isolation from the comments service. If the comments service goes down, the purchasing and orders list services should not be affected and should work without any problems.

Another point to emphasize is that elasticity and resilience are tightly coupled, and we achieve a truly responsive system only by enabling both. With scalability, we can have multiple replicas of the component so that, if one fails, we can detect this, minimize its impact on the rest of the system, and switch to another replica.

@RequestMapping("/resource")                                       // (1)
public Object processRequest() {
    RestTemplate template = new RestTemplate();                    // (2)

    ExamplesCollection result = template.getForObject(             // (3) 
       "http://example.com/api/resource2",                         // 
       ExamplesCollection.class                                    //
    );                                                             //

    ...                                                            // (4)

    processResultFurther(result);                                  // (5)
}

The previous code is explained as follows:

1. The code at this point is a request handler mapping declaration that uses the  @RequestMapping annotation.
2. The code declared in this block shows how we may create the RestTemplate instance. RestTemplate is the most popular web client for doing request-response communication between services in Spring Framework 4.
3. This demonstrates the request's construction and execution. Here, using the RestTemplate API, we construct an HTTP request and execute it right after that. Note that the response will be automatically mapped to the Java object and returned as the result of the execution. The type of response body is defined by the second parameter of the getForObject method. Furthermore, the getXxxXxxxxx prefix means that the HTTP method, in that case, is GET.
4. These are the additional actions that are skipped in the previous example.
5. This is the execution of another processing stage.

In the preceding example, we defined the request handler which will be invoked on users' requests. In turn, each invocation of the handler produces an additional HTTP call to an external service and then subsequently executes another processing stage. Despite the fact that the preceding code may look familiar and transparent in terms of logic, it has some flaws. To understand what is wrong in this example, let's take an overview of the following request's timeline:

This diagram depicts the actual behavior of the corresponding code. As we may notice, only a small part of the processing time is allocated for effective CPU usage whereas the rest of the time thread is being blocked by the I/O and cannot be used for handling other requests.

On the other hand, in the Java world, we have thread pools, which may allocate additional threads to increase parallel processing. However, under a high load, such a technique may be extremely inefficient to process the new I/O task simultaneously. We will revisit this problem again during this chapter and also analyze it thoroughly in Chapter 6, WebFlux Async Non-Blocking Communication.

Nonetheless, we can agree that to achieve better resource utilization in I/O cases, we should use an asynchronous and non-blocking interaction model. In real life, this kind of communication is messaging. When we get a message (SMS, or email), all our time is taken up by reading and responding. Moreover, we do not usually wait for the answer and work on other tasks in the meantime. Unmistakably, in that case, work is optimized and the rest of the time may be utilized efficiently. Take a look at the following diagram:

By embracing all of the previous statements, we will get the foundational principles of the reactive system. This is depicted in the following diagram:

As we may notice from the diagram, the primary value for any business implemented with a distributed system is responsiveness. Achieving a responsive system means following fundamental techniques such as elasticity and resilience. Finally, one of the fundamental ways to attain a responsive, elastic, and resilient system is by employing message-driven communication. In addition, systems built following such principles are highly maintainable and extensible, since all components in the system are independent and properly isolated.

All those notions are not new and have already been defined in the Reactive Manifesto, which is the glossary that describes the reactive system's concepts. This manifesto was created to ensure that businesses and developers have the same understanding of conventional notions. To emphasize, a reactive system and the Reactive Manifesto are concerned with architecture, and this may be applied to either large distributed applications or small one-node applications.