A little off topic but there are even more sinister patterns than the shared database which some architects are actively advocating for, like 1. The "data serv

A little off topic but there are even more sinister patterns than the shared database which some architects are actively advocating for, like 1. The "data service" layer, which (if done improperly) is basically just a worse SQL implemented on top of HTTP but still centralised. Though now you can claim it's a shared service instead of a DB. 2. The "fat cache" database - especially common in strongly event-based systems. Basically every service decides to store whatever it needs from events to have lower latency access for common data. Sounds great but in practice leads to (undocumented) duplicate data, which theoretically should be synchronised but since those service-local mirror DBs are usually introduced without central coordination it's bound to desync at some point.