Hacker News Reader

Comment by adamwong246 | Hacker News Reader

the problem with "microservices" is the "micro". Why we thought we need so many tiny services is beyond me. How about just a few regular sized services?

View on HN

At the time “microservices” was coined, “service oriented architecture” had drifted from being an architectural style to being associated with inplementation of the WS-* technical standards, and was frequently used to describe what were essentially monoliths with web services interfaces.

“Microservices” was, IIRC, more about rejecting that and returning to the foundations of SOA than anything else. The original description was each would support a single business domain (sometimes described “business function”, and this may be part of the problem, because in some later descriptions, perhaps through a version of the telephone game, this got shortened to “function” and without understanding the original context...)

Micro is a relative term. And was coined by these massive conglomerates, where micro to them is "normal sized" to us. They work better if you ignore what "micro" normally means. But "not too too large services" doesn't quite roll off the tongue.

I always took it to be a minimum and that "micro" meant "we don't need to wait for a service to have enough features to exist. They can be small." Instead, people see it as a maximum and services should be as small as possible, which ends up being a mess.

"Micro" refers to the economy, not the technology. A service in the macro economy is provided by another company. Think of a SaaS you use. Microservices takes the same model and moves it under the umbrella of a micro economy (i.e. a single company). Like traditional SaaS, each team is responsible for their own product, with communication between teams limited to sharing of documentation. You don't get to call up a developer when you need help.

It's a (human) scaling technique for large organizations. When you have thousands of developers they can't possibly keep in communication with each other. You have to draw a line between them. So, we draw the line the same way we do at the global scale.

Conway's Law, as usual.

They were never meant to be tiny, in the sense of just a few hundred lines of code.

The name was properly chosen poorly and led to many confusions.

Kind of - AFAIK "micro" was never actually throughly defined. In my mind I think of it as mapping to one table (IE, users = user service, balances = balances service) but that might still be a "full service" worth of code if you need anything more than basic CRUD

The original sense was one business domain or business function (which often would include more than one table in a normalized relational db); the broader context was that, given the observation that software architecture tends to reflect software development organization team structure, software development organizations should parallel businesses organizations and that software serving different business functions should be loosely coupled, so that business needs in any area could be addressed with software change with only the unavoidable level of friction from software serving different business functions, which would be directly tied to the business impacts of the change on those connected functions, rather than having unrelated constraints from coupling between unrelated (in business function) software components inhibiting change driven by business needs in a particular area.

I have always understood "micro" to be referring to "scope", not to "size".

Because it's simpler, duh. </sarcasm>

Reply on news.ycombinator.com