4 ms·
The version of this that continually bites me is when someone is designing what is essentially a distributed system but doesn't know that's what they are design
by EsotericAlgo 6y ago
The version of this that continually bites me is when someone is designing what is essentially a distributed system but doesn't know that's what they are designing. System W -> System X -> System Y -> System Z are connected with the assumption no guarantees or coherency checks are needed. Might as well just email spreadsheets...
- 8note 6y agoIsn't the usual assumption that team w is responsible for system W to work, team x for system X, etc? And you can figure out who needs to fix a problem when it comes up?
- EsotericAlgo 6y agoYes, but a path of heartache if the interfaces between systems aren't robust. Say W sends a message to Y but doesn't record the message was sent Y or wait for any sort of ack (say a process that drops a flat file to an FTP server that gets deleted after 7 days). Now someone finds out Y is missing a bunch of things. Who's fixing it and who should be fixing it?