Re:My Startup Failed, So We Open-Sourced the Tech
by DelightOne on Sunday February 23, 2020 @07:17AM
(#22396495)
My condolences!
> no direct communication between services
How does indirect communication work?
Re:My Startup Failed, So We Open-Sourced the Tech
by williamdclt on Sunday February 23, 2020 @07:53AM
(#22396610)
I suppose they mean asynchronous communication through a message broker/queue?
Re:My Startup Failed, So We Open-Sourced the Tech
by EpicEng on Sunday February 23, 2020 @11:08AM
(#22397524)
Yep, exactly.
Re:My Startup Failed, So We Open-Sourced the Tech
by oulu2006 on Sunday February 23, 2020 @06:22PM
(#22400293)
Is no direct communication between microservices necessarily a bad thing?
I've made a few similar design decisions in our tech stack, we have no "direct communication" between microservices, discounting the shared database. Microservices communicate through the use of RabbitMQ.
We build our system around the premise of eventual consistency, thus reducing the need of blocking computations.
So-far this has served us rather well.
Re:My Startup Failed, So We Open-Sourced the Tech
by DelightOne on Tuesday February 25, 2020 @12:49AM
(#22411200)
All has pros and cons. Here it is (async) central simple central communication vs central point of failure I guess.
So instead of figuring that out as quickly as possible and building something of value... we're building a 'platform'. No one knows exactly what the platform needs to do, but management seems pretty sure that it needs to use gRPC for APis, table storage instead of SQL, an 'onion' architecture, a multi-stage data ingestion pipeline with more visio lines than I can count, docker, CQRS, a service bus for eventing, a micro-service architecture, no direct communication between services, and a SPA front end.
While it does seem enticing to get paid (well) to play around with new tech, it strikes me as a massive waste of resources and a huge risk. I just want to build something that solves a real problem before we run out of money.