3 ms·

> Processes and networks are amazing abstractions. They force you to not share memory on a single system, they encourage you to focus on how you communicate, th

> Processes and networks are amazing abstractions. They force you to not share memory on a single system, they encourage you to focus on how you communicate, they give you scale and failure isolation, for force you to handle the fact that a called subroutine might fail because it's across a network. Stop on! Its so much easier to enforce separation of concern if there is an actual physical barrier. Its just to easy to just slip bad decision through peer review. So I totally agree

mattupstate 6y ago
Stop off! Drop a bunch "microservices" into the same network without any access control and you don't have a physical barrier at all! In fact, it becomes even harder to have a clue as to what's interfacing with what unless you can observe your inter process traffic.
- staticassertion 6y ago
  This is a completely unrelated issue. Microservices have nothing to do with access control. If anything, they should lend themselves to more fine grained control, but again, microservice architecture says nothing about it.
  - maattdd 6y ago
    This is exactly the point of the original article by Monzo. Microservices don't provide any tool to deal with access control, thus you have to implement it yourself. I rather avoid that when I can.
  - mattupstate 6y ago
    Unrelated? I' beg to differ. More to the point, all systems have an access control model. It could be explicit or implicit depending on how the system is built. Regardless, it defines the barriers and boundaries between everything in the system. The comment suggests that just by separating things in the popular sense of microservices results in a barrier to enforce separation of concerns. That's how I read it, at least, and I find that to be is misleading. This is the crux I see around popular discourse of microservices. It's often presented without a broader context.
- yellowapple 6y ago
  > without any access control The point, I reckon, is that you should be implementing access control.
karatestomp 6y ago
> Stop on! Not sure if typo or joke about out-of-order message processing in distributed systems. > just to easy to just slip And maybe also about the impossibility of exactly-once message delivery?

mattupstate 6y ago

Stop off! Drop a bunch "microservices" into the same network without any access control and you don't have a physical barrier at all! In fact, it becomes even harder to have a clue as to what's interfacing with what unless you can observe your inter process traffic.

staticassertion 6y ago
This is a completely unrelated issue. Microservices have nothing to do with access control. If anything, they should lend themselves to more fine grained control, but again, microservice architecture says nothing about it.
- maattdd 6y ago
  This is exactly the point of the original article by Monzo. Microservices don't provide any tool to deal with access control, thus you have to implement it yourself. I rather avoid that when I can.
- mattupstate 6y ago
  Unrelated? I' beg to differ. More to the point, all systems have an access control model. It could be explicit or implicit depending on how the system is built. Regardless, it defines the barriers and boundaries between everything in the system. The comment suggests that just by separating things in the popular sense of microservices results in a barrier to enforce separation of concerns. That's how I read it, at least, and I find that to be is misleading. This is the crux I see around popular discourse of microservices. It's often presented without a broader context.
yellowapple 6y ago
> without any access control The point, I reckon, is that you should be implementing access control.

karatestomp 6y ago

> Stop on! Not sure if typo or joke about out-of-order message processing in distributed systems. > just to easy to just slip And maybe also about the impossibility of exactly-once message delivery?