Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Going for microservices without a central director role is indeed madness and leads to inefficiency.

My employer has a landscape like that, hundreds of microservices each managed by a different team (some teams manage multiple). However, we have an enterprise architecture group whose job it is to keep an overview and make sure every microservice is meaningful and fulfills a clear role for the organization. Every project presents their architecture to this group as well as a group of peers and this often results in changes that increase cohesion and avoid redundant work. We had a few semi-interconnected monoliths before, and from what I’m told (I joined after the microservice transition) the new way is better.

However, I still wouldn’t recommend microservices to a new team / org starting from scratch. IMHO microservices only make sense when the system grows so vast it cannot be understood in its entirety by a single person.



> However, I still wouldn’t recommend microservices to a new team / org starting from scratch. IMHO microservices only make sense when the system grows so vast it cannot be understood in its entirety by a single person.

I wouldn't go that far. The problem is prescribing a stock design solution to every problem without even considering the problem domain or what benefits it will bring.

There are domains where this style of programming is an absolute benefit, even at smaller scales, and it's really nothing new either. A lot of the patterns in microservice design rhyme rather well with what Erlang has done for decades.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: