[KraftyOne]

Outbox's power is that it turns an atomicity problem into an idempotency problem. You atomically write to the outbox, then you have an idempotent "workflow" that processes events from the outbox. This turns "at most once" semantics (where an event could be dropped entirely) to "at least once" semantics (where the event processing could run multiple times). For many systems, that's a big improvement.

[oludeleop]

That's true for duplicates, but even if a message is processed once, that doesn't tell you whether the validation step for that message actually finished before the commit that made it happen.

[curt15]

The outbox is basically a local queue in front of the remote queue.

[620gelato]

That's a good tradeoff I suppose. I've been racking my brain trying to find a solution recently that solves both of these but haven't been able to.

What I had landed on was idempotency on a best effort basis and just made the event processing safely retryable without violating any system invariants.

[mrkeen]

Too much work. Don't try to act as the sender yourself. The outbox pattern leaves that as an exercise for the reader. How many receivers do you have? Do they come and go while you're trying to send messages? Do they need to find out about old messages that were send before they came online?

There is much better alternative than this motte-and-bailey argument of "outbox GUARANTEES blah for a distributed system - but only within a single node".

Just write down what happened in Kafka. N followers read from Kafka to find out what happened.

Kafka is actually distributed tech. You can lose nodes and keep operating.

No need to design for atomicity. You either wrote to Kafka or you didn't.