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.

I believe we had that discussion several years ago, Udi :) Yes, that’s a difference, and pulling the deployment view into early architectural discussions is in fact intentional. Great inspiration goes to one of your GOTO (or QCon?) talks from several years ago, BTW

I'm very much in favor of architects considering various views together. My concern is that overlapping terms may confuse people as to which architectural view is being discussed at a given time.

Another problem that concerns me is the attempt to elevate one term (like Service or Microservice) above others in such a way as to frame it as the primary architectural building block.

We had this problem before with Layered Architecture - with people trying to shoe-horn everything into layers. It also happened with Event-Driven Architecture - trying to model everything with events, and the renewed interest in Event-based things is bringing this problem back.

Maybe we could come up with some word to call this practice of using different kinds of building blocks (like services, systems, layers, events, etc) in interconnected ways to achieve business objectives? What do you think about the word "architecture" ?