"Oh it's not running locally, you need to also run service_18_v2.js, and include the right env variables"
I think nobody really talks about this, but unless you have a docker-compose.yml that includes everything you need for local development, it's increasingly more likely that you'll end up coupling things to Kubernetes to such a degree that running without it (and its abstractions) will become more effort than a person can muster.
So while people try to create services that are decoupled from one another, they end up instead coupling them to Kubernetes concepts and a service mesh, service discovery, configuration and secret management mechanisms, persistent storage abstractions and so on.
Which you can obviously do if you want to, but which might make running things locally in a minimalistic fashion that much more complex.
It's the same as with for example using a web server as a reverse proxy for my applications and ending up putting some logic in there (e.g. route rewrites, headers etc.) and then realizing that I must also run a similar web server locally for 1:1 compatibility because something like Vue dev server proxy to the locally running API won't be able to give me all that.
Is this a problem?
I mean, in this scenario docker compose serves two main purposes: launch a few mock services, and configure those services according to your needs. This means configuring them to consume services already deployed to a cloud environment of your choice. This is something you control.
Then all that's left is the service (or set if services) you need to modify. You run those locally and configure them to consume a mix of the mocked services and the services deployed to a cloud environment.
> (...) it's increasingly more likely that you'll end up coupling things to Kubernetes to such a degree that running without it (and its abstractions) will become more effort than a person can muster.
That coupling can only happen if you intentionally add it yourself.
If you need to run your services in isolation, you will be more mindful of the need to not introduce that sort of coupling.
Running the dev environments remotely (or rewriting in Go) were the options being considered before the whole project was canned and people redistributed to other things.
> Largely due to java VMs wanting ram pre-assigned for each
Do you mean the JVM min heap size was rather later? Otherwise, there is no need for a very large min heap size on a modern JVM (11+).Not really. It all depends on what are your needs.
> It defeats a major feature of the jvm.
You're confusing things. Just because Java addressed the deployability problem for Java applications before containerization was even a word, this does not mean that deploying a JVM per service is a bad idea. Just think about it for a second. Why do you need to deploy and scale services independently? Do you mention the JVM in your response? No.
I did mention the jvm in my response. You quoted me doing so, in fact.
Ouch. Where they using macOS at the time with laptops having not-enough-ram?
I've seen that go poorly on macOS with java based microservices. Largely due to java VMs wanting ram pre-assigned for each, which really chews though ram that mostly sits around unused.
This was a few years ago though, at the tail end of Intel based mac's where 32GB ram in a mac laptop wasn't really an option.