3 ms·
The post you're replying to is describing a straightforward implementation of the strangler pattern. It's a valid and useful technique. Even if you disfavor it
by oasisbob 2y ago
The post you're replying to is describing a straightforward implementation of the strangler pattern.
It's a valid and useful technique. Even if you disfavor it, I don't see why you feel the need to judge the comprehension skills of the commenter.
https://www.redhat.com/architect/pros-and-cons-strangler-architecture-pattern https://www.redhat.com/architect/pros-and-cons-strangler-arc...
- chipdart 2y ago> The post you're replying to is describing a straightforward implementation of the strangler pattern. I'm not sure you are aware the strangler pattern is completely irrelevant to the problem of shutting down old versions of APIs still in use, specially when the goal is to shed maintenance needs. Just because you are confident you can serve the same requests through an adapter, that does not mean you have less code to maintain and less work to do. Quite the opposite. And now your services also have to deal with more constraints as you're now bounded to comply with far more scenarios, some conflicting, from the same code base. Talking about strangler fig patterns makes as much sense as blabbering about interfaces and dependency injection when talking about deleting old code. Irrelevant.