4 ms·
More macro level complexity for sure, but I guess you eliminate some issues from having all that as a monolith.
by 7thaccount 3y ago
More macro level complexity for sure, but I guess you eliminate some issues from having all that as a monolith.
- namaria 3y agoAnd create many others by having networking being now part of your architecture. Bloat is bloat, changing how it's distributed isn't getting at the problem.
- 7thaccount 3y agoI agree and don't really work in this area anyway, but work with brilliant developers who didn't go that route just to add something on their resume. There are obviously tradeoffs and it isn't a silver bullet. Trading one kind of complexity for another may make sense depending on the use.
- infogulch 3y agoYes this is a great move, turning code bloat problems into a distributed systems bloat problem is definitely an improvement.
- shrimp_emoji 3y agoWe'll break the elephant apart into a brainiphant, a heartiphant, a liveriphant, two lungiphants, and they'll all agree over a communication protocol with which to exchange matter and energy. It's more a way to enforce API boundaries than reducing complexity. I guess when you have some anxiety about your ability to do so otherwise.
- thfuran 3y agoIf the goal is just to have harder boundaries, it seems like entirely the wrong tool for the job and comes with a ton of unnecessary baggage. Something like java's module system seems like a much better way to try to enforce API boundaries. Of course, there are languages that lack an equivalent but which can be used to write microservices.
- troupe 3y agoAgreed, and if security is an issue, creating network connections between every single piece of your application seems to exponentially increase the attack surface.
- burnished 3y agoAu contraire, an attacker must understand and then navigate the web you have woven which as we all know is impossible. Security could not be more perfect