3 ms·
What you just described is still very much what I'd call a monolith. Much like if you have a microservice architecure (that we had a system level prior to syste
by flukus 7y ago
What you just described is still very much what I'd call a monolith. Much like if you have a microservice architecure (that we had a system level prior to systemd) then each component should be testable, upgradeable and swappable in isolotation, if you don't have that then what you've really got is a distributed monolith (obligatory xkcd: https://sebiwi.github.io/comics/distributed-monolith/ https://sebiwi.github.io/comics/distributed-monolith/).
What we have here is a dependency chain that pulls in all of systemd, therefor it isn't modular.
It isn't modular just because it's divided into modules.
- sjwright 7y ago> It isn't modular just because it's divided into modules. Come on, that's literally what it means. Just because your modules aren't compatible doesn't mean it isn't modular.
- geofft 7y agoEach component is testable, upgradable, and swappable in isolation. There are no technical issues with doing so. What is missing is interest in implementing and testing a full-featured alternative to some of the components. As soon as that alternative exists, it's usable. You wouldn't say that a company lacks a microservice architecture simply because they don't have unused reimplementations of each microservice lying around, would you?