A well-defined business model to me sounds like a Bounded Context. Splitting that into 25-50 very small parts is the opposite of well defined.
Heath @cant_unlearn
12 Apr 2020
Replying to @VaughnVernon
One thing to consider is if they have a well defined business model that they understand and can see the property boundaries. Sometimes these things just make sense from the start. But you are right, for most cases it is not where you start
1
9
1
32
I was referring to the context, it is very early where I am :). I agree with you, I have never built a microservice > 4 services. The business never modeled itself that way. I can't imagine trying to manage or do change control on 20+, crazy.
1
Hey, Heath! I am in Arizona so on the same wall clock as you. Thanks for your comments. I didn't mean to step on your toes. This whole bbom-monolith-micro-now-macro thing has and will cause so many problems. Someone at BigCo launches a new really bad name and everyone jumps.
3
2
Please take the lead and name this as "bounded services / bounded apps" :) .
1
There is an existing name/pattern that describes this fairly well: Self-Contained Systems. I have issues with the name and a few definitions, but it is definitely a great place to start. /cc @stilkov @bitboss - "System" - too broad - "core domain" - nope scs-architecture.org/
3
4
13
Replying to @VaughnVernon @polarbit29 @bitboss
Thanks, & would love to hear your feedback in more detail, Vaughn

Apr 12, 2020 · 2:36 PM UTC

2
7
Replying to @stilkov @polarbit29 @bitboss
Briefly - System (also) has too many meanings. I've concluded that N deployed independent Bounded Contexts are together a System. However, I am pretty sure that Donella H. Meadows would agree that an SCS is indeed a System.
1
1
2
- In the SCS infodeck is a statement that within a SCS there are potentially multiple domains and a core domain. I assume it means "models." Although this ok with DDD, I think that it is spelled "Core Domain" and means differentiating value. I think of Core Domain == SCS.
2
2
more replies
Replying to @stilkov @VaughnVernon @polarbit29
Same here
1
2