| 
									
										
										
										
											2024-06-18 15:53:06 +02:00
										 |  |  | --- | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2025-06-26 16:13:03 +05:30
										 |  |  | title: High Level Design | OpenMetadata Architecture Overview | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2025-07-16 14:55:13 +05:30
										 |  |  | description: Explore high-level architectural design to understand how components interact across storage, processing, and access layers. | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2024-06-18 15:53:06 +02:00
										 |  |  | slug: /main-concepts/high-level-design | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | --- | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | # High Level Design
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | This Solution Design document will help us explore and understand the internals of OpenMetadata services, how are they built and | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | their interactions. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | We will start by describing the big picture of the software design of the application. Bit by bit we will get inside | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | specific components, describing their behaviour and showing examples on how to use them. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | ## System Context
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | The goal of this first section is to get familiar with the high-level concepts and technologies involved. The learning objectives here are: | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | - Describe the elements that compose OpenMetadata and their relationships. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | - How end-users and external applications can communicate with the system. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | Here we have the main actors of the solution: | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | {% image | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2025-04-18 08:42:17 +02:00
										 |  |  | src="/images/v1.8/main-concepts/high-level-design/system-context.png" | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2024-06-18 15:53:06 +02:00
										 |  |  | alt="system-context" /%} | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | - **API**: This is the main pillar of OpenMetadata. Here we have defined how we can interact with the metadata Entities.  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |   It powers all the other components of the solution. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | - **UI**: Discovery-focused tool that helps users keep track of all the data assets in the organisation. Its goal is  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |   enabling and fueling collaboration. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | - **Ingestion Framework**: Based on the API specifications, this system is the foundation of all the Connectors, i.e., the  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |   components that define the interaction between OpenMetadata and external systems containing the metadata we want to integrate. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | - **Entity Store**: MySQL storage that contains real-time information on the state of all the Entities and their Relationships. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | - **Search Engine**: Powered by ElasticSearch, it is the indexing system for the UI to help users discover the metadata. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | ## JSON Schemas
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | If we abstract away from the Storage Layer for a moment, we then realize that the OpenMetadata implementation is the  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | integration of three blocks: | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | - The core **API**, unifying and centralising the communication with internal and external systems. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | - The **UI** for a team-centric metadata Serving Layer. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | - The **Ingestion Framework** as an Interface between OpenMetadata and external sources. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | The only thing these components have in common is the **vocabulary** -> All of them are shaping, describing, and moving  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | around metadata Entities. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | OpenMetadata is based on a **standard definition** for metadata. Therefore, we need to make sure that in our implementation | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | of this standard we share this definition in the end-to-end workflow. To this end, the main lexicon is defined as JSON Schemas,  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | a readable and language-agnostic solution. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | Then, when packaging the main components, we generate the specific programming classes for all the Entities. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | What we achieve is three views from the same source: | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | - Java Classes for the API, | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | - Python Classes for the Ingestion Framework and | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | - TypeScript Types for the UI, | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | each of them modeled after a single source of truth. Thanks to this approach we can be sure that it does not matter at | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | which point we zoom in throughout the whole process, we are always going to find a univocal well-defined Entity. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | ## API Container Diagram
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | Now we are going to zoom inside the API Container. As the central Software System of the solution, its goal is to manage | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | calls (both from internal and external sources, e.g., Ingestion Framework or any custom integration) and update the  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | state of the metadata Entities. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | While the data is stored in the MySQL container, the API will be the one fetching it and completing the necessary  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | information, validating the Entities data and all the relationships. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | Having a Serving Layer (API) decoupled from the Storage Layer allows users and integrations to ask for what they need  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | in a simple language (REST), without the learning curve of diving into specific data models and design choices. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | {% image | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2025-04-18 08:42:17 +02:00
										 |  |  | src="/images/v1.8/main-concepts/high-level-design/api-container-diagram.png" | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2024-06-18 15:53:06 +02:00
										 |  |  | alt="api-container-diagram" /%} | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | ## Entity Resource
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | When we interact with most of our Entities, we follow the same endpoint structure. For example: | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | - `GET <url>/api/v1/<collectionName>/<id>` to retrieve an Entity instance by ID, or | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | - `GET <url>/api/v1/<collectionName>/name/<FQN>` to query by its fully qualified domain name. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | Similarly, we support other CRUD operations, each of them expecting a specific incoming data structure, and returning  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | the Entity's class. As the foundations of OpenMetadata are the Entities definitions, we have this data contract with  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | any consumer, where the backend will validate the received data, as well as the outputs. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | The endpoint definition and datatype setting are what happens at the Entity Resource. Each metadata Entity is packed  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | with a Resource class, which builds the API definition for the given Entity. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | This logic is what then surfaces in the [API docs](/swagger.html). | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | ## Entity Repository
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | The goal of the Entity Repository is to perform Read & Write operations to the **backend database** to Create, Retrieve,  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | Update and Delete Entities. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | While the Entity Resource handles external communication, the Repository is in charge of managing how the whole  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | process interacts with the Storage Layer, making sure that incoming and outgoing  Entities are valid and hold proper  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | and complete information. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | This means that here is where we define our **DAO** (Data Access Object), with all the validation and data storage logic. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | As there are processes repeated across all Entities (e.g., listing entities in a collection or getting a specific  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | version from an Entity), the Entity Repository extends an **Interface** that implements some basic functionalities and  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | abstracts Entity specific logic. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | Each Entity then needs to implement its **server-side processes** such as building the FQN based on the Entity hierarchy,  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | how the Entity stores and retrieves **Relationship** information with other Entities or how the Entity reacts to **Change Events**. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | ## Entity Storage Layer
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | In the API Container Diagram, we showed how the Entity Repository interacts with three different Storage Containers  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | (tables) depending on what type of information is being processed. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | To fully understand this decision, we should first talk about the information contained by Entities instances. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | An Entity has two types of fields: **attributes** (JSON Schema properties) and **relationships** (JSON Schema href): | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | - **Attributes** are the core properties of the Entity: the name and id, the columns for a table, or the algorithm  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |   for an ML Model. Those are intrinsic pieces of information of an Entity and their existence and values are what | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |   help us differentiate both Entity instances (Table A vs. Table B) and Entity definitions (Dashboard vs. Topic). | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | - **Relationships** are associations between two Entities. For example, a Table belongs to a Database, a User owns a  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |   Dashboard, etc. Relationships are a special type of attribute that is captured using Entity References. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | ## Entity and Relationship Store
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | Entities are stored as JSON documents in the database. Each entity has an associated table (`<entityName>_entity`) which | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | contains the JSON defining the Entity attributes and other metadata fields, such as the id, `updatedAt` or `updatedBy`. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | This JSON does not store any Relationship. E.g., a User owning a Dashboard is a piece of information that is materialised | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | in a separate table entity_relationship as graph nodes, where the edge holds the type of the Relationship (e.g., `contains`, | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | `uses`, `follows`...). | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | This separation helps us decouple concerns. We can process related entities independently and validate at runtime what  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | information needs to be updated and/or retrieved. For example, if we delete a Dashboard being owned by a User, we will then  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | clean up this row in `entity_relationship`, but that won't alter the information from the User. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | Another trickier example would be trying to delete a Database that contains Tables. In this case, the process would check  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | that the Database Entity is not empty, and therefore we cannot continue with the removal. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | ## Change Events Store
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | You might have already noticed that in all Entities definitions we have a `changeDescription` field. It is defined as  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | "Change that leads to this version of the entity". If we inspect further the properties of `changeDescription`, we can  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | see how it stores the differences between the current and last versions of an Entity. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | This results in giving visibility on the last update step of each Entity instance. However, there might be times when  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | this level of tracking is not enough. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | One of the greatest features of OpenMetadata is the ability to track all Entity versions. Each operation that leads  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | to a change (`PUT`, `POST`, `PATCH`) will generate a trace that is going to be stored in the table `change_event`. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | Using the API to get events data, or directly exploring the different versions of each entity gives great debugging  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | power to both data consumers and producers. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | ## API Component Diagram
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | Now that we have a clear picture of the main pieces and their roles, we will analyze the logical flow of a `POST` and a | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | `PUT` calls to the API. The main goal of this section is to get familiar with the code organisation and its main steps. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | {% note %} | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | To take the most out of this section, it is recommended to follow the source code as well, from the Entity JSON you'd | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | like to use as an example to its implementation of Resource and Repository. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | {% /note %} | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | ### Create a new Entity - POST
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | We will start with the simplest scenario: Creating a new Entity via a `POST` call. This is a great first point to review | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | as part of the logic and methods are reused during updates. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | {% image | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2025-04-18 08:42:17 +02:00
										 |  |  | src="/images/v1.8/main-concepts/high-level-design/create-new-entity.png" | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2024-06-18 15:53:06 +02:00
										 |  |  | alt="create-new-entity" /%} | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | #### Create
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | As we already know, the recipient of the HTTP call will be the `EntityResource`. In there, we have the create function | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | with the @POST annotation and the description of the API endpoint and expected schemas.  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | The role of this first component is to receive the call and validate the request body and headers, but the real  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | implementation happens in the `EntityRepository`, which we already described as the **DAO**. For the `POST` operation, the  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | internal flow is rather simple and is composed of two steps: | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | - **Prepare**: Which validates the Entity data and computes some attributes at the server-side.  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | - **Store**: This saves the Entity JSON and its Relationships to the backend DB. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | #### Prepare
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | This method is used for validating an entity to be created during `POST`, `PUT`, and `PATCH` operations and preparing the  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | entity with all the required attributes and relationships. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | Here we handle, for example, the process of setting up the FQN of an Entity based on its hierarchy. While all Entities | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | require an FQN, this is not an attribute we expect to receive in a request. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | Moreover, this checks that the received attributes are being correctly informed, e.g., we have a valid `User` as an `owner`  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | or a valid `Database` for a `Table`. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | #### Store
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | The storing process is divided into two different steps (as we have two tables holding the information). | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | We strip the validated Entity from any `href` attribute (such as `owner` or `tags`) in order to just store a JSON document  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | with the Entity intrinsic values. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | We then store the graph representation of the Relationships for the attributes omitted above. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | At the end of these calls, we end up with a validated Entity holding all the required attributes,  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | which have been validated and stored accordingly. We can then return the created Entity to the caller. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | ### Create or Update an Entity - PUT
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | Let's now build on top of what we learned during the `POST` discussion, expanding the example to a `PUT` request handling. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | {% image | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2025-04-18 08:42:17 +02:00
										 |  |  | src="/images/v1.8/main-concepts/high-level-design/create-or-update.png" | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2024-06-18 15:53:06 +02:00
										 |  |  | alt="create-update-entity" /%} | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | The first steps are fairly similar: | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 1. We have a function in our `Resource` annotated as `@PUT` and handling headers, auth and schemas. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 2. The `Resource` then calls the DAO at the Repository, bootstrapping the data-related logic. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 3. We validate the Entity and cook some attributes during the prepare step. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | After processing and validating the Entity request, we then check if the Entity instance has already been stored,  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | querying the backend database by its FQN. If it has not, then we proceed with the same logic as the `POST`  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | operation -> simple creation. Otherwise, we need to validate the updated fields. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | #### Set Fields
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | We cannot allow all fields to be updated for a given Entity instance. For example, the `id` or `name` stay immutable once  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | the instance is created, and the same thing happens to the `Database` of a `Table`. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | The list of specified fields that can change is defined at each Entity's Repository, and we should only allow changes  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | on those attributes that can naturally evolve throughout the lifecycle of the object. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | At this step, we set the fields to the Entity that are either required by the JSON schema definition (e.g.,  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | the algorithm for an `MlModel`) or, in the case of a `GET` operation, that are requested as | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | `GET <url>/api/v1/<collectionName>/<id>?fields=field1,field2...` | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | #### Update
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | In the `EntityRepository` there is an abstract implementation of the `EntityUpdater` interface, which is in charge of  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | defining the generic update logic flow common for all the Entities. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | The main steps handled in the update calls are: | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | **1.** Update the Entity **generic** fields, such as the description or the owner. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | **2.** Run Entity **specific** updates, which are implemented by each Entity's `EntityUpdater` extension. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | **3.** **Store** the updated Entity JSON doc to the Entity Table in MySQL. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | #### Entity Specific Updates
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | Each Entity has a set of attributes that define it. These attributes are going to have a very specific behaviour,  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | so the implementation of the `update` logic falls to each Entity Repository. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | For example, we can update the `Columns` of a `Table`, or the `Dashboard` holding the performance metrics of an `MlModel`.  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | Both of these changes are going to be treated differently, in terms of how the Entity performs internally the update,  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | how the Entity version gets affected, or the impact on the **Relationship** data. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | For the sake of discussion, we'll follow a couple of update scenarios. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | #### Example 1 - Updating Columns of a Table
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | When updating `Columns`, we need to compare the existing set of columns in the original Entity vs. the incoming columns  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | of the `PUT` request. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | If we are receiving an existing column, we might need to update its description or tags. This change will be  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | considered a minor change. Therefore, the version of the Entity will be bumped by 0.1, following the software  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | release specification model. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | However, what happens if a stored column is not received in the updated instance? That would mean that such a column | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | has been deleted. This is a type of change that could possibly break integrations on top of the `Table`'s data.  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | Therefore, we can mark this scenario as a major update. In this case, the version of the Entity will increase by `1.0`. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | Checking the Change Events or visiting the Entity history will easily show us the evolution of an Entity instance, | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | which will be immensely valuable when debugging data issues. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | #### Example 2 - Updating the Dashboard of an ML Model
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | One of the attributes for an MlModel is the `EntityReference` to a `Dashboard` holding its performance metrics evolution. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | As this attribute is a reference to another existing Entity, this data is not directly stored in the `MlModel` JSON doc,  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | but rather as a Relationship graph, as we have been discussing previously. Therefore, during the update step we will need to: | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | **1.** Insert the relationship, if the original Entity had no `Dashboard` informed, | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | **2.** Delete the relationship if the `Dashboard` has been removed, or | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | **3.** Update the relationship if we now point to a different `Dashboard`. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | Note how during the `POST` operation we needed to always call the `storeRelationship` function, as it was the first  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | time we were storing the instance's information. During an update, we will just modify the Relationship data if the  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | Entity's specific attributes require it. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | ## Handling Events
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | During all these discussions and examples we've been showing how the backend API handles HTTP requests and what the  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | Entities' data lifecycle is. Not only we've been focusing on the JSON docs and **Relationships**, but from time to time we  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | have talked about Change Events. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | Moreover, In the API Container Diagram we drew a Container representing the `Table` holding the Change Event data,  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | but yet, we have not found any Component accessing it. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | This is because the API server is powered by Jetty, which means that luckily we do not need to make those calls ourselves!  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | By defining a `ChangeEventHandler` and registering it during the creation of the server, this postprocessing of the calls  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | happens transparently. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | Our `ChangeEventHandler` will check if the Entity has been `Created`, `Updated` or `Deleted` and will store the appropriate  | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | `ChangeEvent` data from our response to the backend DB. |