3 ms·
I don't think this is a "No true Scotsman" situation. I didn't defend microservices on the premise that "Good" users will do it right, I stated that what is des
by staticassertion 7y ago
I don't think this is a "No true Scotsman" situation. I didn't defend microservices on the premise that "Good" users will do it right, I stated that what is described is not microservices.
Similarly, if I build a microservice architecture, and then say "My monolith is too hard to manage because it's in so many pieces" I think it would be fair to say "You didn't build a monolith".
- Cpoll 7y ago> I stated that what is described is not microservices. You're sliding the definition of microservices over from the obvious one (many small services[1]), that's what's a 'No True Scotsman.' With that said, I don't think you necessarily committed a fallacy, it's just a matter of phrasing. "You weren't doing microservices at all" is the fallacy, but the underlying message is sound: It's not enough to split a monolith into services, you also need to spend some time architecting the services to play well with each other. But I think it's unhealthy to say "you didn't do multiservices" instead of "this issue isn't inherent to multiservices, you can overcome it," because the former sets up multiservices to be a silver bullet. [1] We can expand this definition to how Fowler and the like define it and still run into 'split monolith' problems (dependency issues being the biggest in my mind).
- staticassertion 7y agoI disagree about the definition sliding. SOA is closer to "many small services", Microservices is SOA + a set of practices and patterns. You can do SOA and not be doing microservices. It sounds like what they did was attempt to split a monolith into separate services, which is distinctly different from a microservice approach.