Skip to main content

Do you really need a Microservice?

Lately there has been two sets of advice around the use of Microservices. Some advise that Microservices should be built after the fact. Others advise the opposite solution. In conjunction there is a third option that deserves more attention. Do you even need a Microservice at all? A recent tweet sparked off the exact thought I have found myself conveying.

Creating a Microservice is no easy feat. Despite the limited code or functionality that is involved. There is a whole host of things that need consideration; source control, project setup, databases, project conventions, monitoring, logging, deployment, hosting and security to name a few.

The so called monolith or "application" as it was known before is a tried and tested way of structuring applications. One of the big criticisms levelled against monolithic applications is coupling. Having worked with some terribly coupled applications I agree fully with this complaint, but there are steps you can take to prevent this.

A whole application does not need to live inside one logical project, but instead can be split appropriately. In DDD a Bounded Context makes sense. Using this model you would end up with a Customer and Products project rather than a single project containing both.

An easy step is the correct use of namespaces that are structured by features rather than technology choices.

Education is also important, simply put in agreements across teams such as "nothing from the customer project will directly reference the products functionality". This can be taken a step further by introducing assertions into the build process that will fail if "project A references project B".

There is no correct answer on whether you should or should not start with a Microservice architecture. Each team will need to judge and base their answer on their needs which will most likely vary over time. As it has been said before - if you can't structure a monolith what makes you think you can structure Microservices any better?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Constant Object Anti Pattern

Most constants are used to remove magic numbers or variables that lack context. A classic example would be code littered with the number 7. What does this refer to exactly? If this was replaced with DaysInWeek or similar, much clarity is provided. You can determine that code performing offsets would be adding days, rather than a mysterious number seven.Sadly a common pattern which uses constants is the use of a single constant file or object. The beauty of constants is clarity, and the obvious fact such variables are fixed. When a constant container is used, constants are simply lumped together. These can grow in size and often become a dumping ground for all values within the application.A disadvantage of this pattern is the actual value is hidden. While a friendly variable name is great, there will come a time where you will want to know the actual value. This forces you to navigate, if only to peek at the value within the constant object. A solution is to simple perform a refactor …

Three Steps to Code Quality via TDD

Common complaints and problems that I've both encountered and hear other developers raise when it comes to the practice of Test Driven Development are: Impossible to refactor without all the tests breakingMinor changes require hours of changes to test codeTest setup is huge, slow to write and difficult to understandThe use of test doubles (mocks, stubs and fakes is confusing)Over the next three posts I will demonstrate three easy steps that can resolve the problems above. In turn this will allow developers to gain one of the benefits that TDD promises - the ability to refactor your code mercifully in order to improve code quality.StepsStop Making Everything PublicLimit the Amount of Dependencies you Use A Unit is Not Always a Method or ClassCode quality is a tricky subject and highly subjective, however if you follow the three guidelines above you should have the ability to radically change implementation details and therefore improve code quality when needed.

DRY vs DAMP in Tests

In the previous post I mentioned that duplication in tests is not always bad. Sometimes duplication becomes a problem. Tests can become large or virtually identically excluding a few lines. Changes to these tests can take a while and increase the maintenance overhead. At this point, DRY violations need to be resolved.SolutionsTest HelpersA common solution is to extract common functionality into setup methods or other helper utilities. While this will remove and reduce duplication this can make tests a bit harder to read as the test is now split amongst unrelated components. There is a limit to how useful such extractions can help as each test may need to do something slightly differently.DAMP - Descriptive and Meaningful PhrasesDescriptive and Meaningful Phrases is the alter ego of DRY. DAMP tests often use the builder pattern to construct the System Under Test. This allows calls to be chained in a fluent API style, similar to the Page Object Pattern. Internally the implementation wil…