3 ms·
You could say this about any criticism of mainstream practice. This is not a rebuttal and contains no new information. Actually, I lied - this post is actually
by gfodor 4y ago
You could say this about any criticism of mainstream practice. This is not a rebuttal and contains no new information.
Actually, I lied - this post is actually a strawman: it contains the information that you actually didn’t understand the point of the article. He is referring to people who have deployed microservices when they needed modules, not people who deployed microservices when they needed microservices.
- _ea1k 4y agoTBH, his definition of "module" brings it awfully close to microservice.
- JAlexoid 4y agoCommon definition of a microservice is basically a module. This is not the first thread on the topic. And considering the number of people actively defending microservices, like it's debates about iPhone vs Android over a decade ago - I'm going to say that too many people can't rationally look at this at this point. Too many emotions flying around.
- gfodor 4y agoI thought he was referring to typical in-process encapsulation. If you do that well, you can run those separately “for free” optionally, but I think his definition of module is nothing unique.
- _ea1k 4y agoFrom the article: "Modules which can be easily be deployed independently - when the need arises." I read this to mean that they would always be deployed independently, but now I think I misread it. He actually meant that they should be really easy to split. In practice, I think people with this view underestimate the difficulty in splitting even seemingly unrelated services from a monolith. Its never completely trivial. Its better not to start that way if it is foreseeable as an undesirable end state.