Comment by INTPenis

That's the right approach. This is what the article suggests:

>> For most systems, well-structured modular monoliths (for most common applications, including startups) or SOA (enterprises) deliver comparable scalability and resilience as microservices, without the distributed complexity tax. Alternatively, you may also consider well-sized services (macroservices, or what Gartner proposed as miniservices) instead of tons of microservices.

> And instead of saying we need microservices, let's start with just a service oriented architecture.

I think the main reason microservices were called “microservices” and not “service-oriented architecture” is that they were an attempt to revive the original SOA concept when “service-oriented architecture” as a name was still tainted by association to a perceived association with XML and the WS-* series of standard (and, ironically, often systems that supported some subset of those standards for interaction despite not really applying the concepts of the architectural style.)

Service oriented architecture seems like a pretty good idea.

I've seen a few regrettable things at one job where they'd ended up shipping a microservice-y design but without much thought about service interfaces. One small example: team A owns a service that runs as an overnight job making customer specific recommendations that get written to a database, and then team B owns a service that surfaces these recommendations as a customer-facing app feature and directly reads from that database. It probably ended up that way as team A had the data scientists and team B had the app backend engineers for that feature and they had to ship something and no architect or senior engineer put their foot down about interfaces.

That'd be pretty reasonable design if team A and team B were the same team, so they could regard the database as internal with no way to access it without going through a service with a well defined interface. Failing that, it's hard to evolve the schema of the data model in the DB without a well defined interface you can use to decouple implementation changes from consumers and where the consuming team B have their own list of quarterly priorities.

Microservices & alternatives aren't really properties of the technical system in isolation, they also depend on the org chart & which teams owns what parts of the overall system.

SOA: pretty good, microservices: probably not a great idea, microservices without SOA: avoid.

For anyone unfamiliar with SOA, there's a great sub-rant in Steve Yegge's 2011 google platforms rant [1][2] focusing on Amazon's switch to service oriented architecture.

[1] https://courses.cs.washington.edu/courses/cse452/23wi/papers... [2] corresponding HN thread from 2011 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3101876

What characteristics define "legacy hell"?

I'm curious, and the specific list of problems and pain points (if--big if!--everyone there agrees what they are) can help more clearly guide the decisions as to what the next architecture should look like--SoA, monolithic, and so on.