Yesterday I gave a talk about basics of CQS and CQRS. It was a part of Code Mastery meetup I’m co-organising.
Here are my slides. Video should come up soon as well.
We all know and we all worked with monolithic application. One big codebase which, in time, is looking more like hairball than real application. Usually at this time we want to rewrite it to microservice architecture. But I think first thing we can take a look is how to write better monoliths.
There is few reasons why monoliths are so common. One is that they are easy to manage and deploy. They are easy to reason about as well. There is one project, one place where things happen. When change is happening you know exactly where it will happen and how to test it. At the beginning of the project, especially in the startup environment, it’s faster to develop when you don’t need to think about issues related with distributed systems.
Usually monoliths are written in a hurry. Features are done quickly and without proper planning. Everything is created in one application as it is one big bounded context.
Dependency tree, as well, is all over the place because of that. If you want to use some model you are just using it. Because it’s in the same codebase, right?
I think this is the sole reason why monoliths are going wrong.
Alright. So we have microservices and monolith. Let’s think how to get advantage of the best parts of both architectures and keep ourselves in single codebase.
One of the best parts of distributed systems is that every service has only one responsibility and it’s doing it right. Similar to Single Responsibility Principle from SOLID. What it means on service level is that every service has it’s own data, contracts and encapsulates bounded context of what needs to be done.
We can use this in our monolith with ease. All we need to do is to separate each module/component/bound context into separate package of code. It has it’s own models, it’s own data and contracts in the same way microservice have.
Same way we can do with interface modules representing departments or group of users using our application with adapters for specific modules they need to use and nothing more.
As we have our modules nicely separates we need to let them talk to each other as usually there is a lot of cases where more than one is involved.
As it comes to straight forward calls we can use anti corruption layer (adapter interface) to deal with it. All we know is some method in some service and we don’t really care about implementation. We’re safe when it changes as all we need to do is change the class implementing mentioned interface or create new one.
As it comes to sharing data (what we touch next) we can simply use events, as Event Sourcing do, just on code level. You can even implement or find event bus which will take care of event propagation in your system. It will be synchronous but in monolith everything is.
In micro services architecture every service holds it’s own data. Having monolith we have one database to deal with. Even if it may look interesting to split database it’s adding unnecessary complexity to our simple modular application.
Better thing to do is to prefix tables with module name and keep prefixed tables to depend only on each other. What it means is that joins, for example, can be done only inside specific prefix namespace. When there is need for data from different part of the system we need to make in code call to it.
If we really want to join, as we do this pretty often, we can use Event Sourcing pattern of materialised views, where module is reacting to public event of other one. Just like microservice reacting to event from global event bus.
Some may say it’s data duplication. I’d say data depend on context. For authorisation system you need user’s email and password where for billing you need way more. Keeping only one User representation is holding you back when it comes to change in one module or other.
Keeping microservices architecture inside monolith may give you best of both worlds. One codebase, one server, one database from monolith and ease of change and domain relevance from distributed systems. Simply use patterns used by microservices replacing tools and network calls with in-code communication.
It should get you through the mono part of the project and get you simple way to migrate to separate codebases where you can simply extract package after package and change implementation of adapter interfaces from method calls to network.