Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

"SCS vs. Microservices" should not mix microservices with SCSs #17

Open
magro opened this issue Apr 25, 2016 · 4 comments
Open

"SCS vs. Microservices" should not mix microservices with SCSs #17

magro opened this issue Apr 25, 2016 · 4 comments

Comments

@magro
Copy link

magro commented Apr 25, 2016

The page SCS vs. Microservices says "Of course it is possible to split an SCS even further so it consists of microservices". Because it's often said that microservices have their own database in order to be decoupled from other services (see e.g. Pattern: Microservices Architecture) I'd try to avoid the usage of the term "microservices" and rather prefer "subsystems" or "processes". This is just to start the discussion about terminology, which was also already questioned on the discussions page.

@stilkov
Copy link
Contributor

stilkov commented Apr 25, 2016

I appreciate the discussion and I’m aware of the ambiguity. I still think the way it’s currently phrased is the best compromise – within an SCS, there could essentially be microservices of any kind, including those that have their own database. Of course you are right and an SCS could also be composed of processes or subsystem or components, but I don’t think that changes the point all that much.

I’m open to be letting myself be convinced :-)

@magro
Copy link
Author

magro commented Apr 25, 2016

I'd prefer to have/give more freedom when thinking/talking about the parts of an SCS and not couple it to the meaning/attributes and discussion of/around microservices. If "microservice" is used the common attributes of microservices are somehow present and might lead to misinterpretations, misunderstanding and unnecessary discussions. While in fact an SCS could consist of several microservices that don't share any logic and data I'd assume that this would be more the exception than the rule (the parts of an SCS should be highly cohesive). From a terminology perspective using "subsystem" seems fairly natural when cutting a "system" into smaller parts. The step from "Self-Contained System" to "Microservice" seems not that natural to me.

@stilkov
Copy link
Contributor

stilkov commented Apr 25, 2016

I don’t actually see the coupling to any particular variant of the microservices concept if we say that SCSs can contain them. We’re often in discussions where people are looking for a higher-level structuring mechanism, and we also have projects where people are using finer-grained microservices in addition to the SCS approach.

Maybe if we phrased it slightly weaker to show that it’s not something we recommend, but rather one of many options?

@mechanoid
Copy link
Contributor

I think it is important to give people a hint of how these both concepts are related. I see the point, that the kind of microservice is not defined further, but i don't think that this should be a part of the SCS definition.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants