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.

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.

Please take the lead and name this as "bounded services / bounded apps" :) .

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/

Thanks, & would love to hear your feedback in more detail, Vaughn

Same here

Many would call this a service, BTW. I do. Have discussed this before with @stilkov and I would rather we stuck with the old name, but also see the point of using a new one to change any wrongdoings with the old.

Actually, the discussion @stilkov and @VaughnVernon just had reminded me of the ones @UdiDahan and @ericevans0 use to have on services and BCs. Conclusion back then was also ideally BC = service.

I have some reservations about the use of the term "system" in SCS. The way I think about it is that Systems are the result of deploying Components from different Services. Systems are the Deployment view. Services are the Logical view.