Pedro Spagiari’s Post

Attempting to control costs after an application architecture has been decided, and the application deployed is too late. The architecture of your application largely determines its operational costs. I say this because I often get called in to help reduce the devops and hosting costs after the fact, or fix development issues, and while there is usually a lot I can still do, what I can't easily undo without long and costly effort is architectural choices. E.g. if you've opted for a microservices architecture, you're likely stuck with that for a long time, so make sure you understand the impact. If you've tied yourself into a proprietary serverless runtime? It's going to be a lot of hard work to undo if you want to change. Those architectural choices dictate cost for a long time. And so discussions about cost control and the implied risk of your architecture decisions should happen during the design phase when planning the application's architecture. Document the architectural decisions, explaining what choices were made, the reasons behind them, and the compromises involved, so when you come to revisit them, everyone remembers *why* you made those choices - because some of those expensive choices will be perfectly right.   But this documentation will also help future cost-reduction efforts understand the rationale behind the current design.

Most common issues why MACH architecture projects fail MACH (Microservices, API-first, Cloud-native, and Headless) architecture offers the promise of flexibility, scalability, and rapid deployment for modern digital solutions. However, many MACH-based projects fall short of expectations due to several recurring challenges. Below are four common reasons why MACH architecture projects often fail, particularly focusing on the misalignments between front-end and back-end systems. Front-End and Back-End Misalignment One of the primary challenges in MACH projects is the effective alignment of front-end and back-end systems. MACH architecture emphasizes decoupling these layers, which often evolve independently. Without proper coordination, the front-end team might develop features that the back-end doesn’t support or vice versa. This misalignment can lead to deployment delays, broken functionalities, and a poor user experience, especially when APIs are not fully defined or shared between teams. Poor API Design APIs are the backbone of MACH architecture, facilitating communication between different microservices and systems. Poorly designed or inadequately documented APIs can cause integration issues, making it difficult for front-end applications to access the necessary data. If APIs are not scalable or flexible enough to meet evolving business needs, the entire system can become fragile, hindering the delivery of new features or adaptation to changes. Over-Complex Microservices While microservices aim to break down applications into manageable services, they can become overly complex if not managed properly. Over-segmentation of services can result in unnecessary interdependencies, leading to system failures. Each service needs to communicate with others via APIs, adding layers of complexity that require meticulous orchestration. If these microservices are not aligned with clear business objectives, they can introduce more problems than they solve. Insufficient Testing and Quality Assurance Testing in MACH architecture is inherently more complex due to its decoupled and distributed nature. Both front-end and back-end components need to be tested in isolation and together. A lack of comprehensive testing across these layers can lead to integration issues and broken experiences. #EnterpriseIntegration #Integrations #IssuesWithMACHArchitecture

Software-intensive systems require continuous architecture refactoring in response to the company’s continuously evolving business strategy. Failing to cater to this will cause productivity and quality concerns over time and will require us to address this anyway by a major architecture overhaul or starting a high-risk and draining greenfield initiative. As we will be paying the effort anyway, it’s much better to continuously invest 10-25 percent of resources into refactoring and ensuring the offerings are always up to par technically and in relation to the business strategy.

Culture is often overlooked in managing architectural health. Many companies delay the start of architectural debt resolution to aggressively avoid opportunity costs early on. Involving an architect from the start helps greatly to gauge the financial risks and how far this can be stretched. What I rarely see managed well though, is the pervasive and persistent organizational culture of urgency this tends to establish. The urgency culture frequently frustrates efforts when it becomes time to start repaying the architectural debt, often leading to a dramatic loss in agility when it is needed most as the competitive landscape closes in.

The terms "architecture" and "design" in software often overlap, but there are important differences. Here’s a simpler breakdown: 𝐒𝐨𝐟𝐭𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐀𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞: • Focuses on the overall structure of a system. It’s about big-picture decisions that impact multiple teams and have long-term effects. For example, choosing between a microservices approach, a single large application (monolith), or serverless computing defines how parts of the system interact. • Difficult to change once it’s set up. Switching from microservices to a monolith, for example, can be challenging. • Requires strategic thinking, making sure it aligns with the company's goals and meets business expectations. 𝐒𝐨𝐟𝐭𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧: • Focuses on the organization of code within the system’s architecture. Design is more about how individual features are built, using things like design patterns, naming conventions, and code structure. • Easier to change compared to architecture. Adjusting a design pattern or refactoring a piece of code doesn’t usually disrupt the entire system. Examples include how data is managed or how the app’s state is handled. • More flexible and can be updated gradually without causing major issues. Understanding the difference between architecture and design helps in making better decisions. Spend more time on architectural choices, getting input from different teams, because they’re harder to change. Design choices, on the other hand, can often be adjusted as you go. Next time your engineering team faces a technical decision, figure out if it’s an architecture or a design issue. This can help keep development smooth, lower risks, and improve the overall success of the project. #softwaredesign #architecture #LLD #HLD

🌐 𝗘𝗺𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗘𝘃𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗠𝗶𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲𝘀: 𝗔𝗱𝗮𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗥𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 🌐 In today’s fast-paced tech landscape, the ability to adapt to change isn’t just a luxury—it’s a necessity. This is where Evolutionary Architecture comes into play, especially in microservices. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗘𝘃𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲? Evolutionary Architecture is a software design approach that allows a system to adapt and evolve. It embraces continuous delivery and flexibility, making it possible to accommodate changes in requirements, technology, and the business environment. 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗨𝘀𝗲 𝗘𝘃𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲? 𝟭. 𝗨𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗼𝗿 𝗗𝘆𝗻𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗥𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀: When requirements are likely to change or evolve, an Evolutionary Architecture enables the system to adapt without a complete overhaul. 𝟮. 𝗥𝗮𝗽𝗶𝗱𝗹𝘆 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁: In industries where market conditions shift frequently, this approach allows your software to stay relevant by quickly integrating new features and technologies. 𝟯. 𝗦𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗦𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺𝘀: If your microservices architecture is expected to scale in functionality and volume, an evolutionary approach ensures that scaling is smooth and efficient. 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗖𝗵𝗼𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗘𝘃𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲? 𝟭. 𝗔𝗱𝗮𝗽𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆: Evolutionary Architecture allows your system to adapt to new challenges and requirements, reducing the risk of obsolescence. 𝟮. 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲: It enables your system to evolve with minimal disruption, enhancing overall system resilience and reliability. 𝟯. 𝗖𝗼𝘀𝘁-𝗘𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀: By avoiding massive redesigns, you can reduce long-term costs and ensure continuous delivery of value to your users. 𝗜𝗻 𝗠𝗶𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲𝘀: Microservices inherently support the principles of Evolutionary Architecture. By breaking down monolithic structures into smaller, independent services, you can iterate on and improve each service independently, adapting to new requirements without affecting the entire system. 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 Adopting Evolutionary Architecture in your microservices design isn't just about keeping up—it's about staying ahead. As requirements evolve, so too should your architecture. Embrace the change, and let your system grow with it! 🌱 #Microservices #SoftwareArchitecture #EvolutionaryArchitecture #TechInnovation #SoftwareDevelopment #ContinuousDelivery

🚀 Level Up Your Software Architecture Skills with Domain-Driven Design (DDD), Hexagonal, and Clean Architecture! 🚀 In today’s rapidly evolving tech landscape, building software that’s both scalable and maintainable is more critical than ever. That’s where Domain-Driven Design (DDD), Hexagonal Architecture (Ports and Adapters), and Clean Architecture come into play. These patterns emphasize the importance of separating business logic from infrastructure concerns, allowing teams to: ✅ Create scalable systems ✅ Improve code maintainability ✅ Foster clear communication between developers and business stakeholders ✅ Achieve high testability and flexibility in applications Why does this matter in the job market? As companies increasingly look for software architects and developers who can build resilient systems that can grow with the business, knowing these architectural principles gives you a huge advantage. Mastering DDD and modern architecture patterns helps you tackle complexity head-on and stay competitive in roles that demand high-quality, long-term solutions. 🎯 If you’re serious about building a solid foundation in DDD, I highly recommend the book “Domain-Driven Design: Tackling Complexity in the Heart of Software” by Eric Evans. It’s a must-read for developers and architects who want to build systems with a deep focus on business domains and long-term sustainability. By adopting these architectures, you’ll not only write cleaner, more efficient code but also bridge the gap between technical and business teams, making your skill set invaluable in today’s market. What are you waiting for? Start diving into DDD, Hexagonal, and Clean Architecture today! #SoftwareArchitecture #DomainDrivenDesign #CleanArchitecture #HexagonalArchitecture #DDD #CareerGrowth #EricEvans

🚀 Enhancing Software Architecture Management with Visual Dependency Mapping 🌐 In today's tech landscape, microservices architecture is gaining traction due to its scalability and flexibility. However, understanding the intricate web of dependencies within these systems can be a daunting challenge. Visual Representations of Dependencies offer a powerful solution to this problem by providing clarity and insight into how services interact. Here are some challenges that this concept effectively addresses: - Complexity Overload: As systems grow, mapping out interactions can quickly become overwhelming, leaving teams struggling to visualize dependencies. - Outdated Documentation: Traditional methods often lead to static diagrams that quickly become obsolete, hindering decision-making. - Resource Intensive: Many existing solutions rely on runtime analysis, which can burden system resources and won’t reveal infrequent interactions. Embracing visual dependency mapping allows organizations to reap significant benefits: - Increased Efficiency: Teams can visualize interactions in real time, facilitating quicker updates and more informed decisions. - Scalability: Enhanced understanding of system architecture enables smoother scaling of microservices. - Innovation Support: With clear insights, teams can focus on building new features rather than untangling complex interactions. Now, how does this tie into the broader picture? Platforms like vizOps help realize the potential of visual dependencies. By integrating real-time visualizations of service interactions, teams are empowered to maintain an up-to-date view of their architectures. Curious about how visual dependency mapping can transform your approach to microservices? I invite you to reflect on these insights and explore how vizOps could add value to your organization. Learn more at https://vizops.io. #Microservices #Architecture #VisualDependencies #SoftwareDevelopment #TechInnovation

Screaming Architecture isn’t just about folder organization, it’s about aligning your architecture with business domains, ensuring the system communicates its purpose at a glance. Let’s explore how this impacts scalability, maintainability, and modularity. 1️⃣ Domain-Centric Design vs. Technical Abstraction Traditional, technical-driven approaches group code by implementation details, which often leads to: ⚠️ Fragmented logic: A single feature touches multiple layers (e.g., Controller → Service → Repository). ⚠️ Low cohesion: Feature logic becomes scattered, complicating modifications and debugging. Screaming Architecture solves this by organizing code around features, keeping the focus on business domains and reducing complexity. 2️⃣ Technical Advantages of Feature-Driven Architecture 🔒 Modularity: Each feature encapsulates its controller, service, repository, etc., improving code isolation and maintainability. 🌍 Bounded Contexts: Following Domain-Driven Design (DDD), each feature operates as a bounded context, making communication between features explicit and structured. This prevents accidental coupling between unrelated parts of the system. 📈 Scalability: Features are independent and easy to scale. Developers can work on isolated features without risk of breaking other parts of the system. 3️⃣ Easier Code Navigation & Dependency Management 🔍 Simplified Navigation: Developers know where to find code specific to business use cases, reducing time spent searching through layers of abstraction. 🧩 Dependency Injection (DI): Each feature can manage its dependencies independently using DI frameworks, ensuring decoupling and testability. 🧪 Tests Aligned with Features: Unit and integration tests live with the features they test, making testing more intuitive and the CI pipeline cleaner. 4️⃣ Screaming Architecture in Action For example, in a Payments feature: All related code, controllers, logic, repositories, and tests, resides in one folder. Cross-feature communication happens via domain events or application services, preserving feature isolation. Screaming Architecture helps reduce tech debt, boosts agility, and keeps the system aligned with business goals. It decouples technical concerns from business logic, allowing the system to scream its purpose rather than its tools. 💬 Are you considering adopting feature-driven design? Let’s talk about the technical benefits and challenges below! #ScreamingArchitecture #CleanArchitecture #SoftwareEngineering #FeatureDrivenDevelopment #TechDebt