earlier replies
Replying to @Cairolali @stilkov @trondhjort @ewolff @UdiDahan @scsarchitecture
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
I think you’re missing the point: It’s key that no DB is shared between two SCSs …
1
I understood that, hence 'that DB'. Getting back to my initial understanding of it.
1
Replying to @trondhjort @UdiDahan @jeppec @Cairolali @ewolff
Perhaps better continued over here: scs-architecture.org/discuss…

Nov 30, 2016 · 7:44 PM UTC