Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The blog post says that they had a microservice architecture, then introduced some common libraries which broke the assumptions of compatibility across versions, forcing mass updates if a common dependency was updated. This is when they realized that they were no longer running a microservice architecture, and fused everything into a proper monolith. I see no contradiction.


See my response to a sibling comment: they did not have "forced" updates and they really ended up with:

  > Eventually, all of them were using different versions of these shared libraries.


Which is sort of fine, in my book. Update to the latest version of dependencies opportunistically, when you introduce other changes and roll your nodes anyway. Because you have well-defined, robust interfaces between the microservices, such they don't break when a dependency far down the stack changes, right?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: