4 ms·

This article is all over the place. The author acknowledges that microservices are about organizational clarity, then writes "In theory, anyway" without elabora

This article is all over the place. The author acknowledges that microservices are about organizational clarity, then writes "In theory, anyway" without elaboration, and then goes on to talk about the latency impact of network-level IPC. Why do we care about network latency, when we JUST established that microservices are about scaling large development teams? I have no problem with hackers ranting about slow, bloated and messy software architecture...but this is not the focus of discussion as presented in the article. And then this conclusion: > The key is to establish that common architectural backplane with well-understood integration and communication conventions, whatever you want or need it to be. ...so, like gRPC over HTTP? Last time I checked, gRPC is pretty well understood from an integration perspective. Much better than Enterprise Java Beans from the last century. Isn't this ironic? And where are the performance considerations for this backplane? Didn't we criticize microservices before because they have substandard performance?

pionar 4y ago
Just saying "gRPC over HTTP" doesn't solve any of the sentence you quoted. > common architectural backplane with well-understood integration and communication conventions, whatever you want or need it to be Regardless of the tech used to implement, this paradigm needs to be solved to have a good system. That backplane is not an implementation, but a set of understood guiderails for inter-module communication. Even with gRPC, both sides need to know what to call and what to provide and expect in response. That's the "conventions" part. Having consistency is more important than the underlying tech. Just simple ReST over HTTP works just as well as gRPC.
- dist1ll 4y ago
  > That backplane is not an implementation, but a set of understood guiderails for inter-module communication. Then why is the author even discussing microservices in the first place? Following your logic, they are an implementation detail just like modules.

pionar 4y ago

Just saying "gRPC over HTTP" doesn't solve any of the sentence you quoted. > common architectural backplane with well-understood integration and communication conventions, whatever you want or need it to be Regardless of the tech used to implement, this paradigm needs to be solved to have a good system. That backplane is not an implementation, but a set of understood guiderails for inter-module communication. Even with gRPC, both sides need to know what to call and what to provide and expect in response. That's the "conventions" part. Having consistency is more important than the underlying tech. Just simple ReST over HTTP works just as well as gRPC.

dist1ll 4y ago
> That backplane is not an implementation, but a set of understood guiderails for inter-module communication. Then why is the author even discussing microservices in the first place? Following your logic, they are an implementation detail just like modules.