Stop Drawing Architecture Diagrams Manually: Meet the Open-Source AI Architecture Review Agents
Designing and documenting software architecture is often a battle against static diagrams that become outdated the moment they are drawn. The Architecture Review Agent changes that by turning your design process into a dynamic, AI-powered workflow. In this post, we explore how to leverage Microsoft Foundry Hosted Agents, Azure OpenAI, and Excalidraw to build an open-source tool that instantly converts messy text descriptions, YAML, or README files into editable architecture diagrams. Beyond just drawing boxes, the agent acts as a technical co-pilot, delivering prioritized risk assessments, highlighting single points of failure, and mapping component dependencies. Discover how to eliminate manual diagramming, catch security flaws early, and deploy your own enterprise-grade agent with zero infrastructure overhead.
Using Azure API Management with Azure Front Door for Global, Multi‑Region Architectures
Modern API‑driven applications demand global reach, high availability, and predictable latency. Azure provides two complementary services that help achieve this: Azure API Management (APIM) as the API gateway and Azure Front Door (AFD) as the global entry point and load balancer. Going over the available documentation available, my team and I found this article on how to front a single-region APIM with an Azure Front Door , but we wanted to extend this to a multi-region APIM as well. That led us to design the solution detailed in this article which explains how to configure multi‑regional, active‑active APIM behind Azure Front Door using Custom origins and regional gateway endpoints. (I have also covered topics like why organizations commonly pair APIM with Front Door, when to use internal vs. external APIM modes, etc. but main topic first! Scroll down to the bottom for more info). Configuring Multi‑Regional APIM with Azure Front Door WHAT TO KNOW: If using APIM Premium with multi‑region gateways, each region exposes its own regional gateway endpoint, formatted as: https://<service-name>-<region>-01.regional.azure-api.net Examples: https://mydemo-apim-westeurope-01.regional.azure-api.net https://mydemo-apim-eastus-01.regional.azure-api.net where 'mydemo' is the name of the APIM instance. You will use these regional endpoints and configure them as a separate origin in Azure Front Door—using the Custom origin type. Solution Architecture Azure Front Door Configuration Steps 1. Create an Origin Group Inside your Front Door profile, define a group (Settings -> Origin Groups - > Add -> Add an origin) that will contain all APIM regional gateways. See images below: 2. Add Each APIM Region as a Custom Origin Use the Custom origin type: Origin type: Custom Host name: Use the APIM regional endpoint Example: mydemo-apim-westeurope-01.regional.azure-api.net Origin host header: Same as the host name. Enable certificate subject name validation (Recommended when private link or TLS integrity is required.) Priority: Lower value = higher priority (for failover). Weight: Controls how traffic is distributed across equally prioritized origins. Status: Enable origin. And repeat the same steps for additional APIM regions giving them priority and weightage as you feel appropriate. How to Know Which Region is being Invoked To test this setup, create 2 Virtual Machines (VMs) in Azure - one for each region. For this guide, we chose to create the VMs in West Europe and East US. Open up a Command Prompt from the VM and do a curl on the sample Echo API that comes with every new APIM deployment: Example: curl -v "afd-blah.b01.azurefd.net/echo/resource?param1=sample" Your results should show the region being hit as shown below: How AFD Routes Traffic Across Multiple APIM Regions AFD evaluates origins in this order: Available instances — the Health Probe removes unhealthy origins Priority — selects highest‑priority available origins Latency — optionally selects lowest‑latency pool Weight — round‑robin distribution across selected origins Example When origins are configured as below: West Europe (priority 1, weight 1000) East US (priority 1, weight 500) Central US (priority 2, weight 1000) AFD will: Use West Europe + East US in a 1000:500 ratio. Only use Central US if both West Europe & East US become unavailable. For more information on this nice algorithm, see here: Traffic routing methods to origin - Azure Front Door | Microsoft Learn More Info (as promised) Why Use Azure API Management? Azure API Management is a fully managed service providing: 1. Centralized API Gateway Enforces policies such as authentication, rate limiting, transformations, and caching. Acts as a single façade for backend services, enabling modernization without breaking existing clients. 2. Security & Governance Integrates with Azure AD, OAuth2, and mTLS (mutual TLS). Provides threat protection and schema validation. 3. Developer Ecosystem Developer portal, API documentation, testing console, versioning, and releases. 4. Multi‑Region Gateways (Premium Tier) Allows deployment of additional regional gateways for active‑active, low‑latency global experiences. APIM Deployment Modes: Internal vs. External External Mode The APIM gateway is reachable publicly over the internet. Common when: Exposing APIs to partners, mobile apps, or public clients. You can easily front this with an Azure Front Door for reasons listed in the next section. Internal Mode APIM gateway is deployed inside a VNet, accessible only privately. Used when: APIs must stay private to an enterprise network. Only internal consumers/VPN/VNet peered systems need access. To make your APIM publicly accessible, you need to front it with both an Application Gateway and an Azure Front Door because: Azure Front Door (AFD) cannot directly reach an internal‑mode APIM because AFD requires a publicly routable origin. Application Gateway is a Layer‑7 reverse proxy that can expose a public frontend while still reaching internal private backends (like APIM gateway). [Ref] But Why Put Azure Front Door in Front of API Management? Azure Front Door provides capabilities that APIM alone does not offer: 1. Global Load Balancing As discussed above. 2. Edge Security Web Application Firewall, TLS termination at the edge, DDoS absorption. Reduces load on API gateways. 3. Faster Global Performance Anycast network and global POPs reduce round‑trip latency before requests hit APIM. A POP (Point of Presence) is an Azure Front Door edge location—a physical site in Microsoft’s global network where incoming user traffic first lands. Azure Front Door uses numerous global and local POPs strategically placed close to end‑users (both enterprise and consumer) to improve performance. Anycast is a networking protocol Azure Front Door uses to improve global connectivity. Ref: Traffic acceleration - Azure Front Door | Microsoft Learn 4. Unified Global Endpoint A single public endpoint (e.g., https://api.contoso.com) that intelligently distributes traffic across multiple APIM regions. With all of the above features, it is best to pair API Management with a Front Door, especially when dealing with multi-region architectures. Credits: Junee Singh, Senior Solution Engineer at Microsoft Isiah Hudson, Senior Solution Engineer at MicrosoftUpcoming webinar: Maximize the Cost Efficiency of AI Agents on Azure
AI agents are quickly becoming central to how organizations automate work, engage customers, and unlock new insights. But as adoption accelerates, so do questions about cost, ROI, and long-term sustainability. That’s exactly what the Maximize the Cost Efficiency of AI Agents on Azure webinar is designed to address. The webinar will provide practical guidance on building and scaling AI agents on Azure with financial discipline in mind. Rather than focusing only on technology, the session helps learners connect AI design decisions to real business outcomes—covering everything from identifying high-impact use cases and understanding cost drivers to forecasting ROI. Whether you’re just starting your AI journey or expanding AI agents across the enterprise, the session will equip you with strategies to make informed, cost-conscious decisions at every stage—from architecture and model selection to ongoing optimization and governance. Who should attend? If you are in one of these roles and are a decision maker or can influence decision makers in AI decisions or need to show ROI metrics on AI, this session is for you. Developer Administrator Solution Architect AI Engineer Business Analyst Business User Technology Manager Why attending the webinar? In the webinar, you’ll hear how to translate theory into real-world scenarios, walk through common cost pitfalls, and show how organizations are applying these principles in practice. Most importantly, the webinar helps you connect the dots faster, turning what you’ve learned into actionable insights you can apply immediately, ask questions live, and gain clarity on how to maximize ROI while scaling AI responsibly. If you care about building AI agents that are not only innovative but also efficient, governable, and financially sustainable, this training—and this webinar that complements it—are well worth your time. Register for the free webinar today for the event on March 5, 2026, 8:00 AM - 9:00 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada). Who will speak at the webinar? Your speakers will be: Carlotta Castelluccio: Carlotta is a Senior AI Advocate with the mission of helping every developer to succeed with AI, by building innovative solutions responsibly. To achieve this goal, she develops technical content, and she hosts skilling sessions, enabling her audience to take the most out of AI technologies and to have an impact on Microsoft AI products’ roadmap. Nitya Narasimhan: Nitya is a PhD and Polyglot with 25+ years of software research & development experience spanning mobile, web, cloud and AI. She is an innovator (12+ patents), a visual storyteller (@sketchtedocs), and an experienced community builder in the Greater New York area. As a senior AI Advocate on the Core AI Developer Relations team, she acts as "developer 0" for the Microsoft Foundry platform, providing product feedback and empowering AI developers to build trustworthy AI solutions with code samples, open-source curricula and content-initiatives like Model Mondays. Prior to joining Microsoft, she spent a decade in Motorola Labs working on ubiquitous & mobile computing research, founded Google Developer Groups in New York, and consulted for startups building real-time experiences for enterprise. Her current interests span Model understanding & customization, E2E Observability & Safety, and agentic AI workflows for maintainable software. Moderator Lee Stott is a Principal Cloud Advocate at Microsoft, working in the Core AI Developer Relations Team. He helps developers and organizations build responsibly with AI and cloud technologies through open-source projects, technical guidance, and global developer programs. Based in the UK, Lee brings deep hands-on experience across AI, Azure, and developer tooling. .Building a Smart Building HVAC Digital Twin with AI Copilot Using Foundry Local
Introduction Building operations teams face a constant challenge: optimizing HVAC systems for energy efficiency while maintaining occupant comfort and air quality. Traditional building management systems display raw sensor data, temperatures, pressures, CO₂ levels—but translating this into actionable insights requires deep HVAC expertise. What if operators could simply ask "Why is the third floor so warm?" and get an intelligent answer grounded in real building state? This article demonstrates building a sample smart building digital twin with an AI-powered operations copilot, implemented using DigitalTwin, React, Three.js, and Microsoft Foundry Local. You'll learn how to architect physics-based simulators that model thermal dynamics, implement 3D visualizations of building systems, integrate natural language AI control, and design fault injection systems for testing and training. Whether you're building IoT platforms for commercial real estate, designing energy management systems, or implementing predictive maintenance for building automation, this sample provides proven patterns for intelligent facility operations. Why Digital Twins Matter for Building Operations Physical buildings generate enormous operational data but lack intelligent interpretation layers. A 50,000 square foot office building might have 500+ sensors streaming metrics every minute, zone temperatures, humidity levels, equipment runtimes, energy consumption. Traditional BMS (Building Management Systems) visualize this data as charts and gauges, but operators must manually correlate patterns, diagnose issues, and predict failures. Digital twins solve this through physics-based simulation coupled with AI interpretation. Instead of just displaying current temperature readings, a digital twin models thermal dynamics, heat transfer rates, HVAC response characteristics, occupancy impacts. When conditions deviate from expectations, the twin compares observed versus predicted states, identifying root causes. Layer AI on top, and operators get natural language explanations: "The conference room is 3 degrees too warm because the VAV damper is stuck at 40% open, reducing airflow by 60%." This application focuses on HVAC, the largest building energy consumer, typically 40-50% of total usage. Optimizing HVAC by just 10% through better controls can save thousands of dollars monthly while improving occupant satisfaction. The digital twin enables "what-if" scenarios before making changes: "What happens to energy consumption and comfort if we raise the cooling setpoint by 2 degrees during peak demand response events?" Architecture: Three-Tier Digital Twin System The application implements a clean three-tier architecture separating visualization, simulation, and state management: The frontend uses React with Three.js for 3D visualization. Users see an interactive 3D model of the three-floor building with color-coded zones indicating temperature and CO₂ levels. Click any equipment, AHUs, VAVs, chillers, to see detailed telemetry. The control panel enables adjusting setpoints, running simulation steps, and activating demand response scenarios. Real-time charts display KPIs: energy consumption, comfort compliance, air quality levels. The backend Node.js/Express server orchestrates simulation and state management. It maintains the digital twin state as JSON, the single source of truth for all equipment, zones, and telemetry. REST API endpoints handle control requests, simulation steps, and AI copilot queries. WebSocket connections push real-time updates to the frontend for live monitoring. The HVAC simulator implements physics-based models: 1R1C thermal models for zones, affinity laws for fan power, chiller COP calculations, CO₂ mass balance equations. Foundry Local provides AI copilot capabilities. The backend uses foundry-local-sdk to query locally running models. Natural language queries ("How's the lobby temperature?") get answered with building state context. The copilot can explain anomalies, suggest optimizations, and even execute commands when explicitly requested. Implementing Physics-Based HVAC Simulation Accurate simulation requires modeling actual HVAC physics. The simulator implements several established building energy models: // backend/src/simulator/thermal-model.js class ZoneThermalModel { // 1R1C (one resistance, one capacitance) thermal model static calculateTemperatureChange(zone, delta_t_seconds) { const C_thermal = zone.volume * 1.2 * 1000; // Heat capacity (J/K) const R_thermal = zone.r_value * zone.envelope_area; // Thermal resistance // Internal heat gains (occupancy, equipment, lighting) const Q_internal = zone.occupancy * 100 + // 100W per person zone.equipment_load + zone.lighting_load; // Cooling/heating from HVAC const airflow_kg_s = zone.vav.airflow_cfm * 0.0004719; // CFM to kg/s const c_p_air = 1006; // Specific heat of air (J/kg·K) const Q_hvac = airflow_kg_s * c_p_air * (zone.vav.supply_temp - zone.temperature); // Envelope losses const Q_envelope = (zone.outdoor_temp - zone.temperature) / R_thermal; // Net energy balance const Q_net = Q_internal + Q_hvac + Q_envelope; // Temperature change: Q = C * dT/dt const dT = (Q_net / C_thermal) * delta_t_seconds; return zone.temperature + dT; } } This model captures essential thermal dynamics while remaining computationally fast enough for real-time simulation. It accounts for internal heat generation from occupants and equipment, HVAC cooling/heating contributions, and heat loss through the building envelope. The CO₂ model uses mass balance equations: class AirQualityModel { static calculateCO2Change(zone, delta_t_seconds) { // CO₂ generation from occupants const G_co2 = zone.occupancy * 0.0052; // L/s per person at rest // Outdoor air ventilation rate const V_oa = zone.vav.outdoor_air_cfm * 0.000471947; // CFM to m³/s // CO₂ concentration difference (indoor - outdoor) const delta_CO2 = zone.co2_ppm - 400; // Outdoor ~400ppm // Mass balance: dC/dt = (G - V*ΔC) / Volume const dCO2_dt = (G_co2 - V_oa * delta_CO2) / zone.volume; return zone.co2_ppm + (dCO2_dt * delta_t_seconds); } } These models execute every simulation step, updating the entire building state: async function simulateStep(twin, timestep_minutes) { const delta_t = timestep_minutes * 60; // Convert to seconds // Update each zone for (const zone of twin.zones) { zone.temperature = ZoneThermalModel.calculateTemperatureChange(zone, delta_t); zone.co2_ppm = AirQualityModel.calculateCO2Change(zone, delta_t); } // Update equipment based on zone demands for (const vav of twin.vavs) { updateVAVOperation(vav, twin.zones); } for (const ahu of twin.ahus) { updateAHUOperation(ahu, twin.vavs); } updateChillerOperation(twin.chiller, twin.ahus); updateBoilerOperation(twin.boiler, twin.ahus); // Calculate system KPIs twin.kpis = calculateSystemKPIs(twin); // Detect alerts twin.alerts = detectAnomalies(twin); // Persist updated state await saveTwinState(twin); return twin; } 3D Visualization with React and Three.js The frontend renders an interactive 3D building view that updates in real-time as conditions change. Using React Three Fiber simplifies Three.js integration with React's component model: // frontend/src/components/BuildingView3D.jsx import { Canvas } from '@react-three/fiber'; import { OrbitControls } from '@react-three/drei'; export function BuildingView3D({ twinState }) { return ( {/* Render building floors */} {twinState.zones.map(zone => ( selectZone(zone.id)} /> ))} {/* Render equipment */} {twinState.ahus.map(ahu => ( ))} ); } function ZoneMesh({ zone, onClick }) { const color = getTemperatureColor(zone.temperature, zone.setpoint); return ( ); } function getTemperatureColor(current, setpoint) { const deviation = current - setpoint; if (Math.abs(deviation) < 1) return '#00ff00'; // Green: comfortable if (Math.abs(deviation) < 3) return '#ffff00'; // Yellow: acceptable return '#ff0000'; // Red: uncomfortable } This visualization immediately shows building state at a glance, operators see "hot spots" in red, comfortable zones in green, and can click any area for detailed metrics. Integrating AI Copilot for Natural Language Control The AI copilot transforms building data into conversational insights. Instead of navigating multiple screens, operators simply ask questions: // backend/src/routes/copilot.js import { FoundryLocalClient } from 'foundry-local-sdk'; const foundry = new FoundryLocalClient({ endpoint: process.env.FOUNDRY_LOCAL_ENDPOINT }); router.post('/api/copilot/chat', async (req, res) => { const { message } = req.body; // Load current building state const twin = await loadTwinState(); // Build context for AI const context = buildBuildingContext(twin); const completion = await foundry.chat.completions.create({ model: 'phi-4', messages: [ { role: 'system', content: `You are an HVAC operations assistant for a 3-floor office building. Current Building State: ${context} Answer questions about equipment status, comfort conditions, and energy usage. Provide specific, actionable information based on the current data. Do not speculate beyond provided information.` }, { role: 'user', content: message } ], temperature: 0.3, max_tokens: 300 }); res.json({ response: completion.choices[0].message.content, model: 'phi-4', timestamp: new Date().toISOString() }); }); function buildBuildingContext(twin) { const alerts = twin.alerts.filter(a => a.active); const zoneStatus = twin.zones.map(z => `${z.name}: ${z.temperature.toFixed(1)}°F (setpoint: ${z.setpoint}°F), CO₂: ${z.co2_ppm}ppm, ${z.occupancy} people` ); return ` Zones: ${zoneStatus.join('\n')} Active Alerts: ${alerts.length} ${alerts.map(a => `- ${a.severity}: ${a.message}`).join('\n')} Energy: ${twin.kpis.total_power_kw.toFixed(1)} kW Chiller: ${twin.chiller.percent_load}% load, ${twin.chiller.cop.toFixed(2)} COP `.trim(); } Example interactions: User: "Why is the third floor conference room warm?" AI: "The Executive Suite on Floor 3 is currently 75.2°F, 3 degrees above the 72°F setpoint. This is due to high occupancy (8 people) and VAV-F3-EXEC operating at reduced airflow (285 CFM vs 450 CFM capacity). AHU-2 is supplying adequate cool air at 55°F. Recommend checking VAV damper position—it may be partially stuck." User: "What's our current energy usage?" AI: "Total building power consumption is 47.3 kW. Breakdown: Chiller (24.1 kW, 51%), AHU fans (12.8 kW, 27%), Pumps (7.2 kW, 15%), Other (3.2 kW, 7%). Chiller is operating at 62% load with a COP of 4.8, which is efficient for current conditions." User: "Activate demand response level 2" AI: "I cannot directly control building systems for safety reasons. To activate DR Level 2, use the Control Panel and click 'Demand Response' → 'Level 2'. This will raise cooling setpoints by 3°F and reduce auxiliary loads, targeting 15% energy reduction." The AI provides grounded, specific answers citing actual equipment IDs and metrics. It refuses to directly execute control commands, instead guiding operators to explicit control interfaces, a critical safety pattern for building systems. Fault Injection for Testing and Training Real building operations experience equipment failures, stuck dampers, sensor drift, communication losses. The digital twin includes comprehensive fault injection capabilities to train operators and test control logic: // backend/src/simulator/fault-injector.js const FAULT_CATALOG = { chillerFailure: { description: 'Chiller compressor failure', apply: (twin) => { twin.chiller.status = 'FAULT'; twin.chiller.cooling_output = 0; twin.alerts.push({ id: 'chiller-fault', severity: 'CRITICAL', message: 'Chiller compressor failure - no cooling available', equipment: 'CHILLER-01' }); } }, stuckVAVDamper: { description: 'VAV damper stuck at current position', apply: (twin, vavId) => { const vav = twin.vavs.find(v => v.id === vavId); vav.damper_stuck = true; vav.damper_position_fixed = vav.damper_position; twin.alerts.push({ id: `vav-stuck-${vavId}`, severity: 'HIGH', message: `VAV ${vavId} damper stuck at ${vav.damper_position}%`, equipment: vavId }); } }, sensorDrift: { description: 'Temperature sensor reading 5°F high', apply: (twin, zoneId) => { const zone = twin.zones.find(z => z.id === zoneId); zone.sensor_drift = 5.0; zone.temperature_measured = zone.temperature_actual + 5.0; } }, communicationLoss: { description: 'Equipment communication timeout', apply: (twin, equipmentId) => { const equipment = findEquipmentById(twin, equipmentId); equipment.comm_status = 'OFFLINE'; equipment.stale_data = true; twin.alerts.push({ id: `comm-loss-${equipmentId}`, severity: 'MEDIUM', message: `Lost communication with ${equipmentId}`, equipment: equipmentId }); } } }; router.post('/api/twin/fault', async (req, res) => { const { faultType, targetEquipment } = req.body; const twin = await loadTwinState(); const fault = FAULT_CATALOG[faultType]; if (!fault) { return res.status(400).json({ error: 'Unknown fault type' }); } fault.apply(twin, targetEquipment); await saveTwinState(twin); res.json({ message: `Applied fault: ${fault.description}`, affectedEquipment: targetEquipment, timestamp: new Date().toISOString() }); }); Operators can inject faults to practice diagnosis and response. Training scenarios might include: "The chiller just failed during a heat wave, how do you maintain comfort?" or "Multiple VAV dampers are stuck, which zones need immediate attention?" Key Takeaways and Production Deployment Building a physics-based digital twin with AI capabilities requires balancing simulation accuracy with computational performance, providing intuitive visualization while maintaining technical depth, and enabling AI assistance without compromising safety. Key architectural lessons: Physics models enable prediction: Comparing predicted vs observed behavior identifies anomalies that simple thresholds miss 3D visualization improves spatial understanding: Operators immediately see which floors or zones need attention AI copilots accelerate diagnosis: Natural language queries get answers in seconds vs. minutes of manual data examination Fault injection validates readiness: Testing failure scenarios prepares operators for real incidents JSON state enables integration: Simple file-based state makes connecting to real BMS systems straightforward For production deployment, connect the twin to actual building systems via BACnet, Modbus, or MQTT integrations. Replace simulated telemetry with real sensor streams. Calibrate model parameters against historical building performance. Implement continuous learning where the twin's predictions improve as it observes actual building behavior. The complete implementation with simulation engine, 3D visualization, AI copilot, and fault injection system is available at github.com/leestott/DigitalTwin. Clone the repository and run the startup scripts to explore the digital twin, no building hardware required. Resources and Further Reading Smart Building HVAC Digital Twin Repository - Complete source code and simulation engine Setup and Quick Start Guide - Installation instructions and usage examples Microsoft Foundry Local Documentation - AI integration reference HVAC Simulation Documentation - Physics model details and calibration Three.js Documentation - 3D visualization framework ASHRAE Standards - Building energy modeling standardsHow To: Send requests to Azure Storage from Azure API Management
In this How To, I will show a simple mechanism for writing a payload to Azure Blob Storage from Azure API Management. Some examples where this is useful is implementing a Claim-Check pattern for large messages or to support message logging when Application Insights is not suitable.Rethinking Documentation Translation: Treating Translations as Versioned Software Assets
Rethinking Documentation Translation: Treating Translations as Versioned Software Assets This article is written from the perspective of maintaining large, open-source documentation repositories in the Microsoft ecosystem. I am the maintainer of Co-op Translator, an open-source tool for automating multilingual documentation translation, used across multiple large documentation repositories, including Microsoft’s For Beginners series. In large documentation repositories, translation problems rarely fail loudly. They fail quietly, and they accumulate over time. Recently, we made a fundamental design decision in how Co-op Translator handles translations. Translations are treated as versioned software assets, not static outputs. This article explains why we reached that conclusion, and what this perspective enables for teams maintaining large, fast-moving documentation repositories. When translations quietly become a liability In most documentation projects, translations are treated as finished outputs. Once a file is translated, it is assumed to remain valid until someone explicitly notices a problem. But documentation rarely stands still. Text changes. Code examples evolve. Screenshots are replaced. Notebooks are updated to reflect new behavior. The problem is that these changes are often invisible in translated content. A translation may still read fluently, while the information it contains is already out of date. At that point, the issue is no longer about translation quality. It becomes a maintenance problem. Reframing the question Most translation workflows implicitly ask: Is this translation correct? In practice, maintainers struggle with a different question: Is this translation still synchronized with the current source? This distinction matters. A translation can be correct and still be out of sync. Once we acknowledged this, it became clear that treating translations as static content was no longer sufficient. The design decision: translations as versioned assets Starting with Co-op Translator 0.16.2, we made a deliberate design decision: Translations are treated as versioned software assets. This applies not only to Markdown files, but also to images, notebooks, and any other translated artifacts. Translated content is not just text. It is an artifact generated from a specific version of a source. To make this abstraction operational rather than theoretical, we did not invent a new mechanism. Instead, we looked to systems that already solve a similar problem: pip, poetry, and npm. These tools are designed to track artifacts as their sources evolve. We applied the same thinking to translated content. Closer to dependency management than translation jobs The closest analogy is software dependency management. When a dependency becomes outdated: it is not suddenly “wrong,” it is simply no longer aligned with the current version. Translations behave the same way. When the source document changes: the translated file does not immediately become incorrect, it becomes out of sync with its source version. This framing shifts the problem away from translation output and toward state and synchronization. Why file-level versioning matters Many translation systems operate at the string or segment level. That model works well for UI text and relatively stable resources. Documentation is different. A Markdown file is an artifact. A screenshot is an artifact. A notebook is an artifact. They are consumed as units, not as isolated strings. Managing translation state at the file level allows maintainers to reason about translations using the same mental model they already apply to other repository assets. What changed in practice From embedded markers to explicit state Previously, translation metadata lived inside translated files as embedded comments or markers. This approach had clear limitations: translation state was fragmented, difficult to inspect globally, and easy to miss as repositories grew. We moved to language-scoped JSON state files that explicitly track: the source version, the translated artifact, and its synchronization status. Translation state is no longer hidden inside content. It is a first-class, inspectable part of the repository. Extending the model to images and notebooks The same model now applies consistently to: translated images, localized notebooks, and other non-text artifacts. If an image changes in the source language, the translated image becomes out of sync. If a notebook is updated, its translated versions are evaluated against the new source version. The format does not matter. The lifecycle does. Once translations are treated as versioned assets, the system remains consistent across all content types. What this enables This design enables: Explicit drift detection See which translations are out of sync without guessing. Consistent maintenance signals Text, images, and notebooks follow the same rules. Clear responsibility boundaries The system reports state. Humans decide action. Scalability for fast-moving repositories Translation maintenance becomes observable, not reactive. In large documentation sets, this difference determines whether translation maintenance is sustainable at all. What this is not This system does not: judge translation quality, determine semantic correctness, or auto-approve content. It answers one question only: Is this translated artifact synchronized with its source version? Who this is for This approach is designed for teams that: maintain multilingual documentation, update content frequently, and need confidence in what is actually up to date. When documentation evolves faster than translations, treating translations as versioned assets becomes a necessity, not an optimization. Closing thought Once translations are modeled as software assets, long-standing ambiguities disappear. State becomes visible. Maintenance becomes manageable. And translations fit naturally into existing software workflows. At that point, the question is no longer whether translation drift exists, but: Can you see it? Reference Co-op Translator repository https://github.com/Azure/co-op-translatorHow to Build Safe Natural Language-Driven APIs
TL;DR Building production natural language APIs requires separating semantic parsing from execution. Use LLMs to translate user text into canonical structured requests (via schemas), then execute those requests deterministically. Key patterns: schema completion for clarification, confidence gates to prevent silent failures, code-based ontologies for normalization, and an orchestration layer. This keeps language as input, not as your API contract. Introduction APIs that accept natural language as input are quickly becoming the norm in the age of agentic AI apps and LLMs. From search and recommendations to workflows and automation, users increasingly expect to "just ask" and get results. But treating natural language as an API contract introduces serious risks in production systems: Nondeterministic behavior Prompt-driven business logic Difficult debugging and replay Silent failures that are hard to detect In this post, I'll describe a production-grade architecture for building safe, natural language-driven APIs: one that embraces LLMs for intent discovery and entity extraction while preserving the determinism, observability, and reliability that backend systems require. This approach is based on building real systems using Azure OpenAI and LangGraph, and on lessons learned the hard way. The Core Problem with Natural Language APIs Natural language is an excellent interface for humans. It is a poor interface for systems. When APIs accept raw text directly and execute logic based on it, several problems emerge: The API contract becomes implicit and unversioned Small prompt changes cause behavioral changes Business logic quietly migrates into prompts In short: language becomes the contract, and that's fragile. The solution is not to avoid natural language, but to contain it. A Key Principle: Natural Language Is Input, Not a Contract So how do we contain it? The answer lies in treating natural language fundamentally differently than we treat traditional API inputs. The most important design decision we made was this: Natural language should be translated into structure, not executed directly. That single principle drives the entire architecture. Instead of building "chatty APIs," we split responsibilities clearly: Natural language is used for intent discovery and entity extraction Structured data is used for execution Two Explicit API Layers This principle translates into a concrete architecture with two distinct API layers, each with a single, clear responsibility. 1. Semantic Parse API (Natural Language → Structure) This API: Accepts user text Extracts intent and entities using LLMs Completes a predefined schema Asks clarifying questions when required Returns a canonical, structured request Does not execute business logic Think of this as a compiler, not an engine. 2. Structured Execution API (Structure → Action) This API: Accepts only structured input Calls downstream systems to process the request and get results Is deterministic and versioned Contains no natural language handling Is fully testable and replayable This is where execution happens. Why This Separation Matters Separating these layers gives you: A stable, versionable API contract Freedom to improve NLP without breaking clients Clear ownership boundaries Deterministic execution paths Most importantly, it prevents LLM behavior from leaking into core business logic. Canonical Schemas Are the Backbone Now that we've established the two-layer architecture, let's dive into what makes it work: canonical schemas. Each supported intent is defined by a canonical schema that lives in code. Example (simplified): This schema is used when a user is looking for similar product recommendations. The entities capture which product to use as reference and how to bias the recommendations toward price or quality. { "intent": "recommend_similar", "entities": { "reference_product_id": "string", "price_bias": "number (-1 to 1)", "quality_bias": "number (-1 to 1)" } } Schemas define: Required vs optional fields Allowed ranges and types Validation rules They are the contract, not the prompt. When a user says "show me products like the blue backpack but cheaper", the LLM extracts: Intent: recommend_similar reference_product_id: "blue_backpack_123" price_bias: -0.8 (strongly prefer cheaper) quality_bias: 0.0 (neutral) The schema ensures that even if the user phrased it as "find alternatives to item 123 with better pricing" or "cheaper versions of that blue bag", the output is always the same structure. The natural language variation is absorbed at the semantic layer. The execution layer receives a consistent, validated request every time. This decoupling is what makes the system maintainable. Schema Completion, Not Free-Form Chat But what happens when the user's input doesn't contain all the information needed to complete the schema? This is where structured clarification comes in. A common misconception is that clarification means "chatting until it feels right." In production systems, clarification is schema completion. If required fields are missing or ambiguous, the semantic API responds with: What information is missing A targeted clarification question The current schema state Example response: { "status": "needs_clarification", "missing_fields": ["reference_product_id"], "question": "Which product should I compare against?", "state": { "intent": "recommend_similar", "entities": { "reference_product_id": null, "price_bias": -0.3, "quality_bias": 0.4 } } } The state object is the memory. The API itself remains stateless. A Complete Conversation Flow To illustrate how schema completion works in practice, here's a full conversation flow where the user's initial request is missing required information: Initial Request: User: "Show me cheaper alternatives with good quality" API Response (needs clarification): { "status": "needs_clarification", "missing_fields": ["reference_product_id"], "question": "Which product should I compare against?", "state": { "intent": "recommend_similar", "entities": { "reference_product_id": null, "price_bias": -0.3, "quality_bias": 0.4 } } } Follow-up Request: User: "The blue backpack" Client sends: { "user_input": "The blue backpack", "state": { "intent": "recommend_similar", "entities": { "reference_product_id": null, "price_bias": -0.3, "quality_bias": 0.4 } } } API Response (complete): { "status": "complete", "canonical_request": { "intent": "recommend_similar", "entities": { "reference_product_id": "blue_backpack_123", "price_bias": -0.3, "quality_bias": 0.4 } } } The client passes the state back with each clarification. The API remains stateless, while the client manages the conversation context. Once complete, the canonical_request can be sent directly to the execution API. Why LangGraph Fits This Problem Perfectly With schemas and clarification flows defined, we need a way to orchestrate the semantic parsing workflow reliably. This is where LangGraph becomes valuable. LangGraph allows semantic parsing to be modeled as a structured, deterministic workflow with explicit decision points: Classify intent: Determine what the user wants to do from a predefined set of supported actions Extract candidate entities: Pull out relevant parameters from the natural language input using the LLM Merge into schema state: Map the extracted values into the canonical schema structure Validate required fields: Check if all mandatory fields are present and values are within acceptable ranges Either complete or request clarification: Return the canonical request if complete, or ask a targeted question if information is missing Each node has a single responsibility. Validation and routing are done in code, not by the LLM. LangGraph provides: Explicit state transitions Deterministic routing Observable execution Safe retries Used this way, it becomes a powerful orchestration tool, not a conversational agent. Confidence Gates Prevent Silent Failures Structured workflows handle the process, but there's another critical safety mechanism we need: knowing when the LLM isn't confident about its extraction. Even when outputs are structurally valid, they may not be reliable. We require the semantic layer to emit a confidence score. If confidence falls below a threshold, execution is blocked and clarification is requested. This simple rule eliminates an entire class of silent misinterpretations that are otherwise very hard to detect. Example: When a user says "Show me items similar to the bag", the LLM might extract: { "intent": "recommend_similar", "confidence": 0.55, "entities": { "reference_product_id": "generic_bag_001", "confidence_scores": { "reference_product_id": 0.4 } } } The overall confidence is low (0.55), and the entity confidence for reference_product_id is very low (0.4) because "the bag" is ambiguous. There might be hundreds of bags in the catalog. Instead of proceeding with a potentially wrong guess, the API responds: { "status": "needs_clarification", "reason": "low_confidence", "question": "I found multiple bags. Did you mean the blue backpack, the leather tote, or the travel duffel?", "confidence": 0.55 } This prevents the system from silently executing the wrong recommendation and provides a better user experience. Lightweight Ontologies (Keep Them in Code) Beyond confidence scoring, we need a way to normalize the variety of terms users might use into consistent canonical values. We also introduced lightweight, code-level ontologies: Allowed intents Required entities per intent Synonym-to-canonical mappings Cross-field validation rules These live in code and configuration, not in prompts. LLMs propose values. Code enforces meaning. Example: Consider these user inputs that all mean the same thing: "Show me cheaper options" "Find budget-friendly alternatives" "I want something more affordable" "Give me lower-priced items" The LLM might extract different values: "cheaper", "budget-friendly", "affordable", "lower-priced". The ontology maps all of these to a canonical value: PRICE_BIAS_SYNONYMS = { "cheaper": -0.7, "budget-friendly": -0.7, "affordable": -0.7, "lower-priced": -0.7, "expensive": 0.7, "premium": 0.7, "high-end": 0.7 } When the LLM extracts "budget-friendly", the code normalizes it to -0.7 for the price_bias field. Similarly, cross-field validation catches logical inconsistencies: if entities["price_bias"] < -0.5 and entities["quality_bias"] > 0.5: return clarification("You want cheaper items with higher quality. This might be difficult. Should I prioritize price or quality?") The LLM proposes. The ontology normalizes. The validation enforces business rules. What About Latency? A common concern with multi-step semantic parsing is performance. In practice, we observed: Intent classification: ~40 ms Entity extraction: ~200 ms Validation and routing: ~1 ms Total overhead: ~250–300 ms. For chat-driven user experiences, this is well within acceptable bounds and far cheaper than incorrect or inconsistent execution. Key Takeaways Let's bring it all together. If you're building APIs that accept natural language in production: Do not make language your API contract Translate language into canonical structure Own schema completion server-side Use LLMs for discovery and extraction, not execution Treat safety and determinism as first-class requirements Natural language is an input format. Structure is the contract. Closing Thoughts LLMs make it easy to build impressive demos. Building safe, reliable systems with them requires discipline. By separating semantic interpretation from execution, and by using tools like Azure OpenAI and LangGraph thoughtfully, you can build natural language-driven APIs that scale, evolve, and behave predictably in production. Hopefully, this architecture saves you a few painful iterations.Background tasks in .NET
What is a Background Task? A background task (or background service) is work that runs behind the scenes in an application without blocking the main user flow and often without direct user interaction. Think of it as a worker or helper that performs tasks independently while the main app continues doing other things. Problem Statement - What do you do when your downstream API is flaky or sometimes down for hours or even days , yet your UI and main API must stay responsive? Solution - This is a very common architecture problem in enterprise systems, and .NET gives us excellent tools to solve it cleanly: BackgroundService and exponential backoff retry logic. In this article, I’ll walk you through: A real production-like use case The architecture needed to make it reliable Why exponential backoff matters How to build a robust BackgroundService A full working code example The Use Case You have two APIs: API 1 : called frequently by the UI (hundreds or thousands of times). API 2 : a downstream system you must call, but it is known to be unstable, slow, or completely offline for long periods. If API 1 directly calls API 2: * Users experience lag * API 1 becomes slow or unusable * You overload API 2 with retries * Calls fail when API 2 is offline * You lose data What do we do then? Here goes the solution The Architecture Instead of calling API 2 synchronously, API 1 simply stores the intended call, and returns immediately. A BackgroundService will later: Poll for pending jobs Call API 2 Retry with exponential backoff if API 2 is still unavailable Mark jobs as completed when successful This creates a resilient, smooth, non-blocking system. Why Exponential Backoff? When a downstream API is completely offline, retrying every 1–5 seconds is disastrous: It wastes CPU and bandwidth It floods logs It overloads API 2 when it comes back online It burns resources Exponential backoff solves this. Examples retry delays: Retry 1 → 2 sec Retry 2 → 4 sec Retry 3 → 8 sec Retry 4 → 16 sec Retry 5 → 32 sec Retry 6 → 64 sec (Max delay capped at 5 minutes) This gives the system room to breathe. Complete Working Example (Using In-Memory Store) 1. The Model public class PendingJob { public Guid Id { get; set; } = Guid.NewGuid(); public string Payload { get; set; } = string.Empty; public int RetryCount { get; set; } = 0; public DateTime NextRetryTime { get; set; } = DateTime.UtcNow; public bool Completed { get; set; } = false; } 2. The In-Memory Store public interface IPendingJobStore { Task AddJobAsync(string payload); Task<List<PendingJob>> GetExecutableJobsAsync(); Task MarkJobAsCompletedAsync(Guid jobId); Task UpdateJobAsync(PendingJob job); } public class InMemoryPendingJobStore : IPendingJobStore { private readonly List<PendingJob> _jobs = new(); private readonly object _lock = new(); public Task AddJobAsync(string payload) { lock (_lock) { _jobs.Add(new PendingJob { Payload = payload, RetryCount = 0, NextRetryTime = DateTime.UtcNow }); } return Task.CompletedTask; } public Task<List<PendingJob>> GetExecutableJobsAsync() { lock (_lock) { return Task.FromResult(_jobs.Where(j => !j.Completed && j.NextRetryTime <= DateTime.UtcNow).ToList()); } } public Task MarkJobAsCompletedAsync(Guid jobId) { lock (_lock) { var job = _jobs.FirstOrDefault(j => j.Id == jobId); if (job != null) job.Completed = true; } return Task.CompletedTask; } public Task UpdateJobAsync(PendingJob job) => Task.CompletedTask; } 3. The BackgroundService with Exponential Backoff using System.Text; public class Api2RetryService : BackgroundService { private readonly IHttpClientFactory _clientFactory; private readonly IPendingJobStore _store; private readonly ILogger<Api2RetryService> _logger; public Api2RetryService(IHttpClientFactory clientFactory, IPendingJobStore store, ILogger<Api2RetryService> logger) { _clientFactory = clientFactory; _store = store; _logger = logger; } protected override async Task ExecuteAsync(CancellationToken stoppingToken) { _logger.LogInformation("Background retry service started."); while (!stoppingToken.IsCancellationRequested) { var jobs = await _store.GetExecutableJobsAsync(); foreach (var job in jobs) { var client = _clientFactory.CreateClient("api2"); try { var response = await client.PostAsync("/simulate", new StringContent(job.Payload, Encoding.UTF8, "application/json"), stoppingToken); if (response.IsSuccessStatusCode) { _logger.LogInformation("Job {JobId} processed successfully.", job.Id); await _store.MarkJobAsCompletedAsync(job.Id); } else { await HandleFailure(job); } } catch (Exception ex) { _logger.LogError(ex, "Error calling API 2."); await HandleFailure(job); } } await Task.Delay(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(5), stoppingToken); } } private async Task HandleFailure(PendingJob job) { job.RetryCount++; var delay = CalculateBackoff(job.RetryCount); job.NextRetryTime = DateTime.UtcNow.Add(delay); await _store.UpdateJobAsync(job); _logger.LogWarning("Retrying job {JobId} in {Delay}. RetryCount={RetryCount}", job.Id, delay, job.RetryCount); } private TimeSpan CalculateBackoff(int retryCount) { var seconds = Math.Pow(2, retryCount); var maxSeconds = TimeSpan.FromMinutes(5).TotalSeconds; return TimeSpan.FromSeconds(Math.Min(seconds, maxSeconds)); } } 4. The API 1 — Public Endpoint using System.Runtime.InteropServices; using System.Text.Json; [ApiController] [Route("api1")] public class Api1Controller : ControllerBase { private readonly IPendingJobStore _store; private readonly ILogger<Api1Controller> _logger; public Api1Controller(IPendingJobStore store, ILogger<Api1Controller> logger) { _store = store; _logger = logger; } [HttpPost("process")] public async Task<IActionResult> Process([FromBody] object data) { var payload = JsonSerializer.Serialize(data); await _store.AddJobAsync(payload); _logger.LogInformation("Stored job for background processing."); return Ok("Request received. Will process when API 2 recovers."); } } 5. The API 2 (Simulating Downtime) using System.Runtime.InteropServices; [ApiController][Route("api2")] public class Api2Controller: ControllerBase { private static bool shouldFail = true; [HttpPost("simulate")] public IActionResult Simulate([FromBody] object payload) { if (shouldFail) return StatusCode(503, "API 2 is down"); return Ok("API 2 processed payload"); } [HttpPost("toggle")] public IActionResult Toggle() { shouldFail = !shouldFail; return Ok($"API 2 failure mode = {shouldFail}"); } } 6. The Program.cs var builder = WebApplication.CreateBuilder(args); builder.Services.AddControllers(); builder.Services.AddSingleton<IPendingJobStore, InMemoryPendingJobStore>(); builder.Services.AddHttpClient("api2", c => { c.BaseAddress = new Uri("http://localhost:5000/api2"); }); builder.Services.AddHostedService<Api2RetryService>(); var app = builder.Build(); app.MapControllers(); app.Run(); Testing the Whole Flow #1 API 2 starts in failure mode All attempts will fail and exponential backoff kicks in. #2 Send a request to API 1 POST /api1/process { "name": "hello" } Job is stored. #3 Watch logs You’ll see: Retrying job in 2 seconds... Retrying job in 4 seconds... Retrying job in 8 seconds... ... #4 Bring API 2 back online: POST /api2/toggle Next retry will succeed: Job {id} processed successfully. Conclusion This pattern is extremely powerful for: Payment gateways ERP integrations Long-running partner APIs Unstable third-party services Internal microservices that spike or go offline References Background tasks with hosted services in ASP.NET CoreSimplifying Microservice Reliability with Dapr
What is Dapr? Dapr is an open-source runtime developed by Microsoft that is used in building resilient, event-driven, and portable applications. It works using the sidecar pattern, meaning every microservice gets a small companion container — the Dapr sidecar — which handles communication, retries, secrets, state, and more. What is Sidecar ? A sidecar is a helper process that runs beside your app, handling system tasks so your code can focus on business logic. Lets see some offerings from Dapr along with examples. #1 . Bindings Connects your app to external systems (like queues, email, or storage) with zero SDK or protocol handling. Without Dapr ❌ var httpClient = new HttpClient(); await httpClient.PostAsJsonAsync("https://api.sendgrid.com/send", email); * Manage HTTP endpoints & credentials * Change provider → rewrite logic With Dapr ✅ await daprClient.InvokeBindingAsync("send-email", "create", email); * One call, no SDK * Replace SendGrid → SMTP → Twilio just by editing config * No code change, no redeploy How to enable binding in for a Azure Container App Open Azure Portal → go to your Container App Environment. From the left pane, click on Container Apps, and choose your desired app (e.g., orders-api). In the Settings section, select Dapr. Enable Dapr toggle → switch it ON. Provide the basic Dapr settings: App ID: A unique name (e.g., orders-app). App Port: The internal port your API listens on (e.g., 8080). App Protocol: Choose HTTP or gRPC (usually HTTP). Click Save to apply. Now, under the same Container App Environment, go to Dapr Components. Click Create → select Binding → choose the type of binding (e.g., azure.storagequeues). #2 . Configuration Centralizes app settings, allowing live configuration updates without redeploying services. Without Dapr ❌ var featureFlag = Configuration["FeatureX"]; * Requires redeploys for every config change * No centralized versioning or dynamic update With Dapr ✅ var config = await daprClient.GetConfiguration("appconfigstore", new[] { "FeatureX" }); * Use Azure App Config, Consul, or any provider * Centralized updates — no redeploys * Consistent access via Dapr SDK How to enable configuration in for a Azure Container App Open Azure Portal → go to your Container App Environment. From the left pane, click on Container Apps, and choose your desired app (e.g., orders-api). In the Settings section, select Dapr. Enable Dapr toggle → switch it ON. Provide the basic Dapr settings: App ID: A unique name (e.g., orders-app). App Port: The internal port your API listens on (e.g., 8080). App Protocol: Choose HTTP or gRPC (usually HTTP). Click Save to apply. Now, under the same Container App Environment, go to Dapr Components. Click Create → select Configuration→ choose the type of configuration (e.g., configuration.azure.appconfig). #3 . Pub/Sub Enables event-driven communication between microservices without needing to know each other's endpoints. Without Dapr ❌ var client = new ServiceBusClient("<connection-string>"); var sender = client.CreateSender("order-topic"); await sender.SendMessageAsync(new ServiceBusMessage(orderJson)); * Tied to Azure Service Bus * Must manage SDKs, connections, retries * Hard to switch to another broker (Kafka, RabbitMQ) With Dapr ✅ await daprClient.PublishEventAsync("pubsub", "order-created", order); * pubsub component defined in YAML (can be Kafka, Redis Streams, etc.) * No SDK, no broker dependency * Just publish the event — Dapr handles transport & retries How to enable pub/sub in for a Azure Container App Open Azure Portal → go to your Container App Environment. From the left pane, click on Container Apps, and choose your desired app (e.g., orders-api). In the Settings section, select Dapr. Enable Dapr toggle → switch it ON. Provide the basic Dapr settings: App ID: A unique name (e.g., orders-app). App Port: The internal port your API listens on (e.g., 8080). App Protocol: Choose HTTP or gRPC (usually HTTP). Click Save to apply. Now, under the same Container App Environment, go to Dapr Components. Click Create → select Pub/Sub→ choose the type of configuration (e.g., pubsub.azure.servicebus.topics). #4 . Secret Stores Securely retrieves credentials and secrets from vaults, keeping them out of configs and code. Without Dapr ❌ var connString = Configuration["ConnectionStrings:DB"]; * Secrets stored in configs or env vars * Risk of leaks and manual rotation With Dapr ✅ var secret = await daprClient.GetSecretAsync("vault", "dbConnection"); * Fetch directly from Azure Key Vault, AWS Secrets, etc. * No secrets in configs * Secure by default, consistent across services How to enable Secret Stores in for a Azure Container App Open Azure Portal → go to your Container App Environment. From the left pane, click on Container Apps, and choose your desired app (e.g., orders-api). In the Settings section, select Dapr. Enable Dapr toggle → switch it ON. Provide the basic Dapr settings: App ID: A unique name (e.g., orders-app). App Port: The internal port your API listens on (e.g., 8080). App Protocol: Choose HTTP or gRPC (usually HTTP). Click Save to apply. Now, under the same Container App Environment, go to Dapr Components. Click Create → select Secret stores→ choose the type of configuration (e.g., secretstores.azure.keyvault). #5 . State Provides a consistent way to store and retrieve application data across services using a simple API. Without Dapr ❌ var cosmosClient = new CosmosClient(connStr); var container = cosmosClient.GetContainer("db", "state"); await container.UpsertItemAsync(order); * Direct dependency on Cosmos DB * Manual retry logic * Tight coupling to storage type With Dapr ✅ await daprClient.SaveStateAsync("statestore", "order-101", order); var data = await daprClient.GetStateAsync<Order>("statestore", "order-101"); * Plug any backend (Redis, Cosmos, PostgreSQL) * Dapr handles retries and consistency * Same code, different backend — total flexibility How to enable State in for a Azure Container App Open Azure Portal → go to your Container App Environment. From the left pane, click on Container Apps, and choose your desired app (e.g., orders-api). In the Settings section, select Dapr. Enable Dapr toggle → switch it ON. Provide the basic Dapr settings: App ID: A unique name (e.g., orders-app). App Port: The internal port your API listens on (e.g., 8080). App Protocol: Choose HTTP or gRPC (usually HTTP). Click Save to apply. Now, under the same Container App Environment, go to Dapr Components. Click Create → select State → choose the type of configuration (e.g., state.azure.cosmosdb). 🧩 Summary Think of Dapr as your invisible co-pilot for building distributed apps. It abstracts away all the repetitive plumbing — state management, pub/sub messaging, secret handling, and external bindings — letting you focus on writing features that matter. With Dapr, you don’t just write code that runs locally; you write code that just works across clouds, containers, and environments, without having to worry about wiring up retries, event delivery, or service-to-service communication manually. 🧰 Demo Source Code I've prepared complete sample on .Net core that touches all major Dapr features: * State Store * Pub/Sub * Bindings * Configuration * Secret Store You can explore it from Github-Dapr-Api Clone, run locally, and experiment — the project uses in-memory storage to keep things lightweight for testing and learning. 📚 References for Deep Dive Official Dapr Docs Dapr for .NET Developers — Microsoft Learn Dapr .NET SDK GitHubAMA Spotlight: Build Smarter with Azure Developer CLI 'AZD'
Weekly AMA 'Ask Me Anything': Build Smarter with Azure Developer CLI Calling all AI engineers, developers, and builders of the future, this is your backstage pass to the tools shaping scalable, agentic AI deployments. Join Kristen Womack, Product Manager for the Azure Developer CLI (azd) Developer CLI (azd), and the engineering team behind azd for a live Ask Me Anything session every Thursday at 12:30pm PT in the Azure AI Foundry Discord. Whether you're: 🧠 Orchestrating multi-agent systems 📦 Deploying LLM-powered apps with Azure AI Foundry 🔐 Navigating least-privilege infrastructure setups 🛠️ Debugging and optimizing reproducible workflows …this AMA is your chance to connect directly with the team building the CLI that powers it all. 💡 Why Join? Real-time answers from the azd engineers and product team Deployment walkthroughs for Foundry templates, from chatbots to document processors Tips for CI/CD, debugging, and reproducibility in enterprise environments Community-first mindset: bring your feedback, challenges, and ideas Kristen Womack brings deep insight into developer experience and product strategy; this is a rare opportunity to learn from the source and shape the future of AI tooling. 🔧 Get Ready Before you join: Install azd 👉 Install Guide Explore Kristen’s work 👉 www.kristenwomack.io Join the Discord 👉 Azure AI Foundry Community 🗓️ Weekly Schedule 🕧 Thursdays at 12:30pm PT 📍 Azure AI Foundry Discord Bring your questions. Bring your curiosity. Build with the best. Additional resources: check out the AZD for Beginners course https://aka.ms/azd-for-beginners
