(no title)
sazz | 2 years ago
The only valid reason for actual doing the change seems to be for scaling reasons due to performance bottlenecks. Everything else is just shifting complexity from software development to system maintenance.
Of course, developers will be happy that they have that huge "alignment with other teams" burden off their shoulders. But the clarity when and how a feature is implemented, properly tested across microservices and then activated and hypercared on production will be much harder to reach if the communication between the development teams is not mature enough (which is often the actual reason from breaking up the monolith).
buster|2 years ago
Regarding "Everything else is just shifting complexity from software development to system maintenance.": This sounds reasonable if your software is actively developed. Development is expensive. It may very well be, that the costs of maintaining a distributed system is lower then the cost of developing a very large monolith with a large team. In the end, it depends.
sazz|2 years ago
Of course this is the bottom line. But everything you define in the sentence can be achieved with a proper pipeline and repository architecture based on a monolith as well. For example teams could use a branch setup where they own their own team branches capable of merging to master and deploying. Each team could then define their own testing strategy and Definition of Done on their "team master".
Having the ability to release independently is actually a social problem, not a technical one. But the symptom of that social misalignment often shows up as a technical problem (dropping release KPIs, etc.)
So changing from a monolith to microservice will most likely only fight the symptom, not the root cause.
altairTF|2 years ago