How do you integrate heterogeneous systems with consistency?

Long Answer

Integrating heterogeneous systems is one of the central challenges for a Web Services Engineer. Enterprises often combine legacy applications, modern cloud-native services, and third-party APIs, each with its own data formats, protocols, and reliability models. The goal is to create a cohesive fabric that preserves data consistency, withstands faults, and evolves over time.

1) Abstraction and standardization

The first step is defining common contracts. REST, gRPC, or GraphQL can provide standardized interfaces over legacy SOAP services or proprietary protocols. An API gateway or ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) normalizes authentication, throttling, and schema enforcement. This abstraction reduces coupling and allows services to evolve independently.

2) Data consistency models

Different systems often disagree on consistency expectations. Financial or compliance-critical paths may require strong consistency using distributed transactions, 2PC (two-phase commit), or database-level atomic operations. For high-scale integrations, eventual consistency via event-driven messaging (Kafka, RabbitMQ, Pub/Sub) is acceptable. Developers must clearly mark which flows tolerate temporary drift and which require immediate reconciliation.

3) Event-driven integration

Instead of synchronous request-response, resilient architectures favor asynchronous event buses. Legacy systems emit domain events (e.g., “OrderCreated”), which cloud-native services consume and enrich. Third-party integrations subscribe or are notified through webhooks. This approach decouples producers and consumers, making systems fault-tolerant and scalable.

4) Fault tolerance mechanisms

Faults are inevitable: third-party APIs can timeout, legacy systems may be down, or cloud regions can fail. Engineers mitigate with:

• Retries with backoff to recover from transient errors.
  
• Circuit breakers to stop cascading failures.
  
• Bulkheads and queues to isolate slow components.
  
• Idempotency tokens to prevent double-processing on retries.
  
• Fallback strategies like cached responses or degraded modes.
  

5) Legacy modernization patterns

Legacy systems often lack APIs. Wrapping them in adapter services or RPA (robotic process automation) can provide access while planning gradual modernization. Data replication pipelines (CDC tools like Debezium) mirror legacy database changes into event streams for cloud services.

6) Data governance and schema management

Consistency depends on data integrity. Define canonical schemas (e.g., JSON/Avro/Protobuf) and enforce validation at ingress. Use schema registries to version contracts safely. For external APIs, map inbound formats to internal canonical ones, ensuring decoupled evolution.

7) Observability and monitoring

With many moving parts, visibility is critical. Distributed tracing (OpenTelemetry, Jaeger) helps correlate requests across systems. Metrics and logs detect anomalies. Audit trails ensure compliance. SLAs and SLOs define expected reliability for third-party services.

8) Case example

An e-commerce platform integrates a legacy ERP, a cloud-native inventory system, and a third-party payment provider. Orders trigger an event on Kafka. The ERP is updated via an adapter, the inventory system consumes directly, and the payment provider receives a secure API call. Failures are isolated with retries and circuit breakers, while reconciliation jobs ensure balances remain accurate.

By carefully combining API abstractions, event-driven integration, and robust fault tolerance, engineers achieve consistent and fault-resilient interoperability across heterogeneous systems.

‍

Table

‍

Common Mistakes

• Treating legacy systems as “black boxes” without wrapping them in controlled adapters.
  
• Enforcing strong consistency everywhere, creating bottlenecks where eventual consistency is acceptable.
  
• Ignoring replays, retries, or idempotency, leading to duplicate processing.
  
• Building point-to-point integrations instead of scalable, event-driven hubs.
  
• Over-relying on synchronous third-party APIs, exposing systems to their downtime.
  
• Failing to document or version schemas, resulting in silent breakage.
  
• Neglecting monitoring across layers; issues remain invisible until user complaints.
  
• Not planning fallback or degraded modes, causing total outages during partial failures.
  
• Mixing business logic inside integration glue, making systems brittle.
  
• Skipping reconciliation jobs for financial or mission-critical data.
  
  

Sample Answers

Junior:
“I’d use APIs or adapters to connect legacy and cloud services. I’d start with REST or gRPC interfaces and use retries for reliability. For data consistency, I’d follow the event-driven approach where possible and add logging to trace failures.”

Mid:
“I’d abstract systems via an API gateway, using canonical schemas. I’d rely on Kafka for event-driven integration, applying eventual consistency except for critical flows where 2PC is needed. Retries with idempotent APIs ensure fault tolerance. I’d add observability and reconciliation to detect mismatches.”

Senior:
“My architecture separates integration concerns: API gateways wrap legacy, event buses decouple producers/consumers, schema registries enforce contracts. I choose consistency model per domain—strong for financial, eventual for analytics. I implement retries, backoff, circuit breakers, and degraded modes. I validate third-party SLAs and monitor end-to-end with distributed tracing. Reconciliation jobs ensure final correctness.”

‍

Evaluation Criteria

• Integration maturity: Candidate recognizes differences between legacy, cloud-native, and third-party systems.
  
• Consistency awareness: Can explain strong vs eventual consistency trade-offs.
  
• Resilience design: Mentions retries, circuit breakers, idempotency, and degraded modes.
  
• Abstraction: Uses API gateways, adapters, and canonical schemas to decouple systems.
  
• Observability: Mentions monitoring, tracing, and audit trails.
  
• Governance: Handles schema versioning and SLAs.
  Red flags: Point-to-point spaghetti integrations, ignoring consistency models, no fault tolerance, or assuming third-party APIs are always reliable.
  
  

Preparation Tips

• Practice wrapping a SOAP legacy service into a REST API via an adapter.
  
• Build a Kafka pipeline where events flow from a legacy DB into a cloud service.
  
• Experiment with retries, exponential backoff, and idempotency keys in a demo API.
  
• Simulate a third-party outage and implement a fallback (cached responses or degraded mode).
  
• Learn schema versioning with Avro or Protobuf; publish to a schema registry.
  
• Add OpenTelemetry tracing to follow a request across multiple systems.
  
• Study CAP theorem and think through which domains need strong vs eventual consistency.
  
• Review vendor SLAs and create runbooks for partial outages.
  
• Prepare a 60-second pitch: “I integrate heterogeneous systems with APIs, event-driven design, consistency-aware trade-offs, and resilience patterns.”
  
  

Real-world Context

Banking integration: A core banking mainframe integrated with a cloud-native mobile app via an API wrapper. Event streams carried balance updates; reconciliation ensured ledger accuracy.
Healthcare system: Legacy EMR integrated with third-party lab APIs through HL7 adapters and Kafka. Event-driven flows enabled clinicians to see results faster while compensating actions handled errors.
Retail platform: ERP (legacy), cloud inventory, and external shipping provider were linked through a central event bus. Failures at the shipping API triggered circuit breakers, while cached inventory avoided downtime.
Insurance provider: Policy updates flowed from mainframe to cloud CRM via CDC + Kafka. Daily reconciliation ensured premium calculations matched across systems.

‍

Key Takeaways

• Use API abstraction and canonical schemas to normalize systems.
  
• Pick consistency models (strong vs eventual) per domain.
  
• Favor event-driven integration for scalability.
  
• Add fault tolerance patterns: retries, circuit breakers, idempotency.
  
• Enforce observability and reconciliation to catch drift early.
  
  

Practice Exercise

Scenario:
You are tasked with integrating a legacy ERP, a cloud-native CRM, and a third-party payment provider. The business requires order, payment, and inventory data to stay consistent, even under partial outages.

Tasks:

1. Wrap ERP in an API adapter, exposing normalized REST/gRPC endpoints.
   
2. Use an event bus (Kafka) to publish “OrderCreated,” consumed by CRM and payment provider services.
   
3. Apply eventual consistency for inventory updates, but strong consistency (2PC or compensating transactions) for payments.
   
4. Add retries with exponential backoff and idempotency keys for external API calls.
   
5. Implement circuit breakers to isolate failing payment provider without blocking orders.
   
6. Build schema contracts and enforce them with a registry.
   
7. Add observability: tracing across ERP → Kafka → CRM → payment.
   
8. Reconciliation job runs nightly, validating payments vs orders.
   
   

Deliverable:
A design document showing resilient integration of legacy, cloud, and third-party systems, ensuring data consistency and fault tolerance while supporting business continuity.