> 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

> 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).