The tech industry is a landscape of constant progress, adaptation, and change to fit an evolving market. Within the last 20 years, we’ve made leaps and bounds for technological innovations, and that’s including the coding that’s required to keep pace with it.
What’s important here, however, is not the code itself in particular, but rather how the code is structured. Every application, from the game on your phone to the banking app you use, is comprised of a swathe of code that ensures that everything works as intended.
Traditionally, there’s been a structure in particular that was widely used: monolithic architecture. Essentially, everything needed to keep the app running was included in one massive unit. We’ll talk more on that later, but the important part is that that style of architecture is not longer viable enough to keep using. It’s inefficient and messy.
But before you can effectively move on from using an older type of architecture, there must be something to replace it. Granted, there are plenty of options you can choose from, but there’s one in particular that has been making waves for the past ten years.
So let me ask you a question: have you heard of microservices before?
Microservices, otherwise known as microservice architecture, is a distinctive software design that uses a collection of smaller services to form the architecture of an application. In layman’s terms, microservice architecture is like building an app out of lots of bricks, each providing an essential function to the overall design.
Monolithic architecture, by comparison, is the polar opposite of a microservice design, wherein the entire app is one entire piece of code. The entire unit must be deployed as a self-contained whole, otherwise it won’t function. This also makes it more difficult to change, debug, and maintain the code among other functions since you’ll need to pull the entire unit to perform even the most minor of chores. Any changes affect the entire structure.
Monolithic architecture may be the traditional design structure, but once the concept of microservices came around, organizations like Google, Amazon, and Netflix made the transition with more following their example. So why microservices? What do they provide that make them such a desirable commodity?
In a nutshell, you could call it versatility, convenience, or - better yet - modular. Since a microservice architecture is comprised of numerous small services, they’re highly testable and easily maintained. You’re not taking apart one massive block of code, after all. Not only that, these “bricks” of code can be deployed independently, and they tend to be organized around business capabilities.
Microservices focus on building single-function modules with defined interfaces and operations. Delegating individual focuses and responsibilities through a loosely-connected network of modules means that with each module having their own responsibility, a functional process can be formed without cross-purpose interactions in the code. If A, then B, then C, then D, essentially.
Now, in more recent accountability, organizations have become more focused on leveraging microservices as much as possible as they shift to become more Agile and implement a DevOps approach to their business. Agile and DevOps are other methods of software development.
SOAs, otherwise known as service-oriented architecture, need to be distinguished from microservices. That’s become more and more challenging, since the rising popularity that microservice architecture has experienced has made distinguishing between the two architecture designs a bit more muddled.
The easiest distinction to make that separates these two styles of architecture is that which makes microservices unique: modularization. Microservices are comprised of modules, SOAs are not. SOAs function by having distinct components of the applications provide services to other components via a communications protocol over a network. These components are not nearly as specialized as the modules in a microservice architecture, and linking them over a network means they’re not independent processes from each other.
Simply put, an SOA focuses on building up an application by integrating software components that are maintained and deployed separately. Similar in respects to microservices, sure, but nonetheless a separate entity with a separate purpose.
Let’s look at microservices again, shall we? As we’ve said before, it’s an architectural structure meant to develop software, web, or mobile apps as suites of services. As opposed to integrated software components, these services are specialized to perform a single function while maintaining autonomy from each other.
Since each module is decentralized, there’s an amount of levity that is provided in their coding. Each module can be written with a different programming language, if so needed. Additionally, where SOAs share a single database, each module in a microservices architecture has their own, creating redundancy and error protection. Communication is provided between each module via HTTP, REST, or Thrift APIs.
There’s a larger point that we want to make is highlighted: microservices are not inherently better than SOAs. Like any sort of architectural design, each have their own strengths and weaknesses that mesh with different types of environments and systems.
SOAs, for example are better fit for larger, more complex enterprise application environments. Microservices, by comparison, are more suited for smaller web-based systems.
We mentioned earlier that large-scale corporations have been steadily moving toward microservice architecture. While in the grand scheme of things microservices haven’t been around for terribly long, they’re rapidly becoming mainstream as some of the biggest tech companies like Netflix, Amazon, and eBay have begun leveraging them.
Just because some big dogs have been taking advantage of microservice architecture doesn’t mean they’re without their shortcomings. As practical as microservices can be for developing software, it’s not the golden egg that’ll cover every issue. When it comes down to making an informed decision on whether microservices are the best solution for an organization, it’s good to know the advantages and disadvantages for this type of application structure.
We’ve gotten to the point in technological innovation where mobile devices have become a personal necessity, like wallets, purses, or keys. The transfer of attention in the tech sector to mobile devices is a means of keeping up with demand. Now, with organizations moving toward optimizing for the rise in mobile device use and the increased use of the cloud, back-end data must always be available for a wide range of devices.
The world’s speeding up, and technological innovations become obsolete with more frequency. That’s what happened with monolithic architecture, it simply couldn’t keep up. Microservice architecture presents companies with an opportunity to keep up with a rapidly shifting mobile landscape. Microservices, through their modular design, provide a means for companies to have faster rollouts, more frequent updates, and independent application releases.
These are a handful of the advantages that microservices bring to the development process. The question remains: what are the other advantages that microservice architecture affords?
The case for adopting microservice architecture is compelling, but not every organization will be able to effectively use it for their success. There’s no such thing as a perfect product. As great as the advantages may be, we can’t leave without addressing some of the shortcomings that microservices have.
The time when monolithic architectures ruled the technological landscape has become obsolete at this point. The challenges they presented, wherein the majority of applications ended up as a Big Ball of Mud, a mess of a system. Microservices have become a standout answer to replacing an antiquated system.
Building an application out of several specialized modules of code is a huge step in the right direction for a better, more efficient program. Microservices have improved scalability, faster security patches updates, easier debugging and maintenance, and secured functionality among other advantages. However, as good as microservice architecture may be, they also tend to have reliability issues, increased complexity, and higher cost associated with their use.
But there’s never going to be a perfect code or program, certainly not in the tech industry. However, progress can’t be stopped either, and microservice architecture has earned a name for itself by virtue of its usability. That, and by endorsement of several big tech companies on the market, should be enough for at least serious consideration.