Hacker News Reader

It's usually a consequence of something like Bezos' API mandate https://api-university.com/blog/the-api-mandate/

Multi-team ownership of a single deployable has downsides to tradeoff against the complexity of more service and harder boundaries.

View on HN

That doesn't translate from the mandate, which is what I'm trying to cautiously call out. There's a big difference between "our company will not have a god database" and "we need to make more services just because we have more people". The link also mentions that the mandate was "something long these lines" - we don't know exactly what the split rules were.

I think people bring up an exaggerated idea of extreme microservices being forced on people when it rarely if ever happens. If not, I'm happy to hear actual first hand experiences.

It does if there's an upper bound on the number of people in an effective team.

It's not "there's an extra person, now we need to create a new service". It's more likely "we need this extra service and that means some people will need to take care of it". It's an inverse of what the comment I'm disputing said.

Anyways, it's still not an example of this happening. It's a recollection of a letter that maybe implies this result.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com