Another difference in the microservices debate seems to be – as @boicy phrases it –it’s about building for replacement rather than reuse

Mar 16, 2014 · 6:26 PM UTC

7
4
2
Replying to @stilkov
@stilkov @boicy How is an autonomous service not replaceable? That’s part of the goal.
2
Replying to @stilkov
@stilkov @boicy I think its a lot of hand wavy wording which all means the same thing :P
1
1
Replying to @stilkov
@stilkov @boicy I don't know of anyone doing SOA for reuse. More because monolithic architectures could not scale as a development process.
Replying to @stilkov
@stilkov @boicy Separation by business capability and within that perhaps bounded context. A logical boundary with many components within
Replying to @stilkov
@stilkov @boicy Replacement viable by contract nature but also extension without modification, perhaps a greater driver i.e. OCP
Replying to @stilkov
@stilkov @boicy Or perhaps we were just smarter in .NET land, or had less vendors to tempt us off the path...
Replying to @stilkov
@stilkov this isn't a difference. SOA (for me) enables architecture flexibility. Reuse isn't a goal but a potentially happy side effect.