4 ms·
Very true. There's an alchemy between the software you already have, the tools and technologies your team are familiar with, the problem domain you have, and th
by barrkel 9y ago
Very true. There's an alchemy between the software you already have, the tools and technologies your team are familiar with, the problem domain you have, and the solution you implement. There are multiple stable equilibria, multiple local optima. In a more complex environment, microservices can let different teams find local optima better suited to their combination of factors.
I'd still be suspicious of people who start out saying they're going to implement a microservice architecture (especially greenfield) without having an understanding of why, though.
- crdoconnor 9y agoI'm suspicious of anybody who starts out with a clear picture in their head of "what the architecture should look like". I've almost always found that the earlier on in the process I made hard-to-reverse architectural decisions, the worse the architecture ended up being. The more the architecture came about as a series of gradual, iterative refactors that took in to account the various trade offs that became evident, the better it ended up being.
- pas 9y agoI'm an anonymous architecture astronaut, so usually I have those "should look like" high-level pictures in my head. But that's just a fucking picture. A plan. That usually does not survive contact with the changing requirements and implementation reality. Anyone incapable of admitting that there will be changes should be taken upstate to a nice farm, then shot behind the barn. Usually these people are on the client's team. :(