earlier replies
Replying to @stilkov @trondhjort @ewolff @UdiDahan @scsarchitecture
IMO there are UI composition differences, but the rest is very similar
2
I simple love the name: self contained system. What a perfect metaphor!
1
1
it IS a good name. More saying than service
2
Only problem is that "system" implies a unit of deployment, not logic @jeppec @Cairolali @stilkov @trondhjort @ewolff @scsarchitecture
4
1
That’s the main point :) Units of deployment as architecture boundaries
2
But, but... :) Isn't the SCS boundary logical? Not deployment @UdiDahan @jeppec @Cairolali @ewolff
2
Microservices and SCSs don’t treat deployment boundaries as an implementation detail.
2
I though I understood it. How can an SCS be a single deployable unit? Embedded? @UdiDahan @jeppec @Cairolali @ewolff
1
Doesn't have to be a single unit, but an SCS is always deployable separately from others
1
OK. How do you enforce that? That that particular DB is deployed together with that app? @UdiDahan @jeppec @Cairolali @ewolff
3
Replying to @trondhjort @UdiDahan @jeppec @Cairolali @ewolff
For the same reason, an SCS could be composed of a hundred fine-grained microservices

Nov 30, 2016 · 7:40 PM UTC