> Calling out networking doesn't preclude me from mentioning IPC.
You made the same point I made as though it was in contradiction to what I said. Adding a network call adds complexity, yes.
> A core tenant of microservices is being able to individually deploy your microservices.
And why would you not want this to be independently deployable?
> You're making my point: If you don't have the engineering chops as a team to make a robust monolith, you definitely don't have the skills and resources to start looking at microservices.
Firstly, you never made that point. Also, I never argued against it, in fact I agree completely.
> Microservices are a pattern for companies where a "microservice" gets the kind of development and devops support that would justify spinning off a new mid-sized enterprise.
Ah sorry, I guess replying to people supporting microservices by calling out the gaps in technical knowledge they're using to justify microservices is not the same as saying ..."you definitely don't have the skills and resources to start looking at microservices"
Ah, wait it is.
> And why would you not want this to be independently deployable?
Because FAANG has more engineers devoted to managing deployment/observability/version skew/DX/scaling/security than you have engineers. Simplifying your needs in those realms helps you greatly.
That says exactly nothing. At Netflix scale their most random "trivial" endpoints are easily doing scale that entire SMEs won't ever deal with.
When FAANG is your case study in any technical discussion in a public forum, you're default wrong. I work at an AV company, I'm not about to start telling people the insane architecture we need to support ingesting petabytes of data is something that anyone else needs.
Any useful technical discussion needs to be grounded in what the 99% need, and microservices are not it.
> Ah sorry, I guess replying to people supporting microservices
Again, at no point did I make an argument for microservices.
> that's just SOA
Absolutely not, from your own reference:
> Each service provides a business capability.
Spinning a high memory task off into it's own process is not a business capability. Microservices are more granluar than SOA services, your describing a microservice.
> That says exactly nothing. At Netflix scale their most random "trivial" endpoints are easily doing scale that entire SMEs won't ever deal with.
You said microservices are for when a microservice would have the support equivelant to a medium enterprise, this is not true even at netflix scale. They absolutely have services owned by very small teams, or else they wouldn't have more than 1000.
> When FAANG is your case study in any technical discussion in a public forum, you're default wrong.
Well who do we use as a case study on microservices then?
> Any useful technical discussion needs...
A technical discussion requires nuance, not turning into a black and white one side versus the other.
Yes, you can have multiple DBs in a monolith, but you tend not to. In microservices you are basically forced to.
It's a crude and expensive way to force modularisation. However, that is still what it often achieves, it gives you infra that you can keep other people away from and lets you be in charge.
You made the same point I made as though it was in contradiction to what I said. Adding a network call adds complexity, yes.
> A core tenant of microservices is being able to individually deploy your microservices.
And why would you not want this to be independently deployable?
> You're making my point: If you don't have the engineering chops as a team to make a robust monolith, you definitely don't have the skills and resources to start looking at microservices.
Firstly, you never made that point. Also, I never argued against it, in fact I agree completely.
> Microservices are a pattern for companies where a "microservice" gets the kind of development and devops support that would justify spinning off a new mid-sized enterprise.
Disagree, netflix has >1000 microservices.