Someone says Microservices is just another name of Oracle Fusion SOA. Someone else says Microservices is so yesterday, Nanoservices is the cool kid right now.
Dean Budd - 2014-09-10 08:19:51+1000 - Updated: 2014-09-10 08:47:46+1000
Microservices are really just SOA in my opinion. But I think it was necessary to get distance from that term. One big difference though is that there are no heavyweight specifications (WS-*, etc, etc) and you're not using these monolithic stacks to manage them all (like <shudder> Fusion). I think most Microservice Architectures are following the Code is the Container model i.e in the JVM world meaning every service is just a POJF (Plain Old Jar File) There is a fine balance between too big and too small. Too small and there's too much overhead. Too big and you're edging back into monolithic applications territory again.
Dean Budd - 2014-09-10 08:20:50+1000 - Updated: 2014-09-10 08:21:47+1000
PS. Our Ops guys love the fact there's no containers to manage. In our Clojure-based Microservices we're just using http-kit.org
+Dean Budd I'm completely sold out now to the "12 Factor App" model now. App Servers are dead (although parts can be cannibalised for reuse; do you really want to rewrite DataSource connection pooling?)
It's a shame that SOA's had to be rebranded as MS in order to escape the WS-* and App Stacks baggage. Just wait for Vendors to ruin Microservices.
There is a fine balance between too big and too small. Too small and there's too much overhead. Too big and you're edging back into monolithic applications territory again.
It's a shame that SOA's had to be rebranded as MS in order to escape the WS-* and App Stacks baggage. Just wait for Vendors to ruin Microservices.