orchestrated-discussions/examples/feature_discussion.discussi...

4.0 KiB

Example Feature Discussion

Context

This is an example discussion file demonstrating the format and structure used by Orchestrated Discussions.

We want to add a new caching layer to improve API response times. The cache should store frequently accessed data and invalidate appropriately when the underlying data changes.

Requirements

  • Cache frequently accessed API responses
  • Support configurable TTL per cache key
  • Invalidate cache on data mutations
  • Provide cache statistics and monitoring

Open Questions

  • What caching backend should we use? (Redis, Memcached, in-memory)
  • How do we handle cache stampedes?
  • What's the expected cache hit ratio?

Constraints

  • Must work in our Kubernetes environment
  • Cannot add more than 100ms latency on cache miss
  • Must support horizontal scaling

Discussion begins below. Use discussions turn example.md @architect to get feedback.


Name: AI-Architect Looking at this caching proposal, I have several architectural considerations:

Caching Backend For a Kubernetes environment, I'd recommend Redis over in-memory caching. Redis provides:

  • Persistence options for durability
  • Built-in TTL support
  • Cluster mode for horizontal scaling
  • Pub/sub for cache invalidation across instances

Cache Stampede Prevention We should implement one of these patterns:

  1. Lock-based: Only one request populates cache, others wait
  2. Probabilistic early expiration: Refresh before actual TTL
  3. Background refresh: Async refresh while serving stale data

Q: What's our tolerance for serving slightly stale data? That affects which pattern works best.

Architecture Concern The requirement to "invalidate on data mutations" needs more specificity. Are we talking about:

  • Same-service mutations (easier, can invalidate directly)
  • Cross-service mutations (harder, needs event-driven invalidation)

CONCERN: Cross-service cache invalidation can become a distributed systems nightmare if not carefully designed.

VOTE: CHANGES


Name: AI-Security From a security perspective, I need to raise several concerns:

Cache Poisoning If an attacker can poison the cache with malicious data, that data gets served to all users. Mitigations:

  • Validate data before caching
  • Use signed cache keys
  • Implement cache isolation per tenant (if multi-tenant)

Sensitive Data Q: Will any cached responses contain sensitive data? If so, we need:

  • Encryption at rest in Redis
  • Secure cache key generation (no user IDs in keys if possible)
  • Appropriate TTLs for sensitive data

Access Control Redis should not be exposed to the public internet. Ensure:

  • Redis is in private subnet
  • Authentication enabled (requirepass)
  • TLS for data in transit if crossing network boundaries

CONCERN: The requirements don't mention data sensitivity classification. We need to know what's being cached.

VOTE: CHANGES


Name: AI-Pragmatist I appreciate the thorough analysis, but let's not over-engineer this.

MVP Proposal For v1, I suggest:

  1. Use Redis (it's already in our stack, right?)
  2. Simple TTL-based expiration (no fancy invalidation)
  3. Cache-aside pattern (app checks cache, falls back to DB)
  4. Start with just the top 3 most accessed endpoints

What We Can Defer

  • Sophisticated invalidation (use short TTLs instead for MVP)
  • Cache stampede handling (monitor first, optimize if needed)
  • Cross-service invalidation (start with single-service scope)

The architect's concerns about cross-service invalidation are valid, but we don't need to solve that for v1. Let's ship something, measure the impact, then iterate.

Q: What's the timeline pressure here? If we have 2 weeks, MVP is the way. If we have 2 months, we can be more thorough.

VOTE: READY


This example shows a typical discussion with different perspectives. The discussion would continue until consensus is reached.