Hacker News Reader

Comment by seperman | Hacker News Reader

Not sure if I agree with you regarding the agile part. If each team owns their "micro-service", then they can have their own "sprints".

View on HN

Yes in very large systems that's true. But in the other systems, there's huge overheads which restrict systems from changing.

- Multiple execution environments

- Complexity in communication between services

- Managing the versioning of each service and it's dependent services.

Although services are easily to scale and change independently, they are hard to reconfigure globally, which means the application as a whole is hard to change...

There are pros and cons to the micro-services architecture. To your point it is not a black or white solution. Our systems are fairly large and over-engineered.

Often switching to microservices means reducing the complexity of communication between teams at the expense of increasing the complexity of communication between services.

What is the difference between each team owning a microservice and owning a part of the monolith?

There is common release process, but with proper infra in place, that shouldn't be a problem.

I was just disagreeing with "Microservices are almost completely opposed to agile development". You can be agile in both monolith architecture and micro-services. I don't see why microservices can be opposed to agile.

It all comes down to coordination and regression, which are quite complex in monoliths.

Suppose you'd like to push code change to production for your monolith - how do you know that someone else's change 1) is ready to to production together with yours 2) does not affect your module. Typically these can't be answered easily - and so release process is converted to manual testing and scheduled (and often slow) releases.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com