3 ms·

I think that publishing 3 artifacts causes a number of other changes which expand the difficulty of management of the backend of the app. While they do allow, h

I think that publishing 3 artifacts causes a number of other changes which expand the difficulty of management of the backend of the app. While they do allow, hopefully, independent scaling and seperate recovery processes. Separate artifacts also make it a bit more difficult to do local development, and deployments become more complex so it's not a completely clean tradeoff. I know systems kubernetes / dockerswarm which handle the management of multiple artifacts but that is now another tool needed in order to do development. So I guess what I'm saying is that "just" publishing multiple artifacts has more knock-on effects which need to be considered. Eventhough I do agree with you that it's probably for the best in the long term if these processes are in seperate containers.

jameshart 3y ago
In this model there are already three different command lines to run the thing in three different modes. Deployment complexity of moving that decision one notch left to buildtime instead of startup time seems like it doesn’t increase the accidental complexity at all. In fact now you can eliminate variation in how your three different processes are started up and health checked and monitored, so instead of code that knows how to operate three different things, you have code that knows how to start and operate an arbitrary thing, and you parameterize it with your three different containers. Oh hey - that’s what kubernetes is for. Maybe all this ‘complexity’ of tooling isn’t dumb after all.