5 ms·
Would you care to explain your reasoning? This topic genuinely interests me. My experience is quite the opposite. To deliver a feature, you still need to integ
by krab 7y ago
Would you care to explain your reasoning? This topic genuinely interests me.
My experience is quite the opposite. To deliver a feature, you still need to integrate changes in multiple services. To do it in a monolith is IMHO easier. You have a single artifact you can test, the probability you have the right automation is higher. Also, the devs will run bigger part of the system in the development version.
What I was talking about was the latency of smaller changes. Think of bug fixes. Somebody has to notice it, triage, fix, (wait for automated tests) and deploy. Often, a bug fix affects just one service. With smaller services, this chain is simpler.
- nradov 7y agoThere are no hard rules. In general a microservices architecture tends to enforce segmentation which makes it faster to iterate on features that only impact a single service. But coordinating larger changes across multiple services owned by separate teams can certainly be slower. Monolith architectures often degenerate into the proverbial "big ball of mud" over time. But if the team has the discipline to maintain proper design through continuous refactoring then they can retain the ability to deliver features with short cycle times.