3 ms·
The issue (for me at least) is not the idea of microservices itself, it is the granularity at which services get defined/split off. What usually happens is that
by gajjanag 6y ago
The issue (for me at least) is not the idea of microservices itself, it is the granularity at which services get defined/split off. What usually happens is that companies go all-in on the microservices idea, and force it upon all teams regardless of their size/head count. It is far easier for a 10 person team to maintain a microservice than it is for a 3 person team. Microservices impart some fixed costs to every team managing a service and thus make very little sense for small teams.
On the other hand, a 3 person team can much more productively contribute to a monolith. From my experience in the industry so far, taking into account the current quality of tooling, I would say it starts to make sense for teams above the 10 person mark to own their own service.
- mcny 6y agoMaybe I don't understand microservices but what is to stop a team from declaring the whole monolith to be just one microservice? I have interviewed at a few places over the last year and not one interviewer has given me a hundred percent guarantee that we will never have to allow access to the backing store (database) that isn't through our service. Of course, microservice will fail in such environments. That's not a microservice fault. That's a defect in management.