But the thing is: Twitter is extremely easy to use and the barrier to tweeting is extremely low, more so than email. People are more inclined to tweet than to send an email, even for complex subjects. As much as I dislike it, this is how things are, so better accept it and use it to your advantage than trying to fight it or complain about it.
According to the article, the point of microservices is scaling development, not scaling as in req/sec. But development scaling can already be done without microservices. You can already split source code in multiple files. You can already refactor classes into multiple smaller classes. So then why are microservices "awesome"? Why does it make more sense to have 300 microservices, each 500 lines, compared to 6 medium-size SOA apps, each consisting of 25.000 lines spread over 50 files/classes?
Now, if you have 200 developers then I understand why splitting your app into 50+ independent microservices makes sense. But I get the feeling that lots of developers, even those in 3-man teams, are jumping on the several-hundred-microservices bandwagon.
It's important to realize that you are wrong when you use the word "continuum". In a true continuum you can move in both directions with equal ease, whereas there is an important asymmetry in the tension between micro-services and monolithic apps. Read this part:
"There is an important asymmetry between an architecture of small apps and an architecture of The Monolithic CMS. If you have small apps, and decide you want to move to a monolithic CMS, then you must do The Big Rewrite: the exhausting effort of reproducing all of your funtionality so that it is handled by your one, all-consuming CMS. But when you move from the monolithic CMS to an architecture of small apps, there is no need for The Big Rewrite. Instead you take some small part of your CMS, rewrite it as an independent app, set the app on its own port, use your webserver to proxy the app-on-a-port to whatever URL the CMS was previously using for that functionality, and thus you’ve taken a step towards a new architecture without having to rewrite anything but the functionality covered by your new, small app."
I did not hear the phrase "micro-services" until Martin Fowler wrote his essay in March 2014, but clearly, what I talked about in that essay, 14 months ago, is what we would now call micro-services.
Uh, what? Maybe if your app is written The Right Way, but in cases where encapsulation and cohesion are poor, where do you begin splitting? Services, on the other hand, force encapsulation from the get-go. Why wouldn't it be easier to connect them -- it's what they designed to do.
1. turn your current monolith into one service (e.g. "cms-legacy");
2. fork the monolith codebase and remove everything not needed for that one particular component;
3. rewrite your integration tests for that component to use gateways, such that they either can be talking to the componentized service or the legacy service implementation without caring;
4. refactor the component into your favored beautiful new SOA design;
3. ensure the integration tests continue to pass;
4. remove the equivalent component implementation from the legacy codebase, and reimplement the shell of its consumer-facing API with calls to the componentized service (think LibreSSL here);
5. ensure the integration tests continue to pass;
Basically, this is the Big Ball Of Mud (http://www.laputan.org/mud/) strategy, applied to cohesion between services rather than cohesion between modules.
Java on the other hand takes time to warm up. It just isn't practical to redeploy the whole app when you are just updated one aspect.
And this folks, is why IT is still a joke in most quarters.