Quick takeaways Start with a monolith - don’t create microservices from day one; the overhead isn’t worth it until you have real pain points Microservices solve human problems, not just technical ones - they help teams work independently, not just scale systems Tight coupling over HTTP is still tight coupling - separating services doesn’t automatically give you isolation Watch for signals - lots of calls between services or frequent changes across multiple services suggest wrong boundaries Sometimes joining services is the answer - merging tightly coupled microservices back together can be the right move Introduction We talk about splitting software: when to do it, how to avoid common pitfalls, and why microservices aren’t always the answer.

ThreeDotsLabs' platform is  dedicated to providing insights and resources for software engineers and technology enthusiasts. Through articles, tutorials, and open-source projects, ThreeDotsLabs offers insights into software development best practices, design patterns, and emerging technologies. Developers can learn about building scalable architectures, microservices, and cloud-native applications to solve real-world problems effectively.

Three Dots Labs

Microservices solve organizational problems more than technical ones. Starting with a well-structured modular monolith is recommended over premature service splitting. Tight coupling persists even when services communicate over HTTP instead of function calls. Key warning signs include excessive inter-service calls and frequent cross-service changes. Event storming helps identify proper boundaries by mapping domain events and behaviors. Sometimes merging tightly coupled microservices back together is the right solution. Team structure should drive architecture decisions (reverse Conway maneuver), not the other way around.

The Distributed Monolith Trap (And How to Escape It)

<p>in my opinion, it depends mainly on scale, microservices works best when scale is big and there are many engineers</p>


<p>They have Conways Law and the Inverse Conway Maneuver (ICM) the wrong way around. Conways law says your technical systems reflect your org structure. <a href="https://www.thoughtworks.com/en-us/insights/blog/customer-experience/inverse-conway-maneuver-product-development-teams" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow">The ICM is to shape your org around the product.</a></p>
