[ Microservices - Key Design Patterns ] 📌 Pro Tip - Always start with a Monolith. 😊 And as your application grows and specific components become bottlenecks or need independent scaling, gradually break them out into microservices. 📌 Do you know? Netflix was a pioneer in adopting microservices architecture, breaking down its monolithic application into hundreds of smaller services. This enabled them to scale rapidly and achieve high availability. Consider these patterns if you're adopting a microservices architecture - [1.] API Gateway Pattern ◾ Single entry point for clients ◾ handling routing ◾ authentication ◾ other cross-cutting concerns [2.] Circuit Breaker Pattern ◾ Prevents cascading failures by isolating faulty services. [3.] Aggregator Pattern ◾ Combines data from multiple services into a single response. [4.] Chained (Chain of Responsibility) Pattern ◾ Streamlines request processing through a sequence of services. [5.] Database per Service ◾ Each service has its own private database for loose coupling. [6.] Saga Pattern ◾ Manages distributed transactions across services using a series of local transactions. [7.] Sidecar Pattern ◾ Augments service functionality with a separate component deployed alongside. [8.] Backends for Frontends (BFF) ◾ Creates tailored backend services for specific frontends. [9.] CQRS (Command Query Responsibility Segregation) ◾ Separates read and write operations for improved scalability and performance. [10.]Event Sourcing Pattern ◾ Captures all changes to application state as a sequence of events. [11.] Asynchronous Messaging ◾ Enables loose coupling between services using message queues or brokers. [12.] Strangler Fig Pattern ◾ Incrementally migrates a monolithic application to microservices. [13.] Externalized Configuration ◾ Stores configuration settings outside of the application code. [14.] Centralized Logging & Monitoring ◾ Aggregates logs and metrics from all microservices for observability. [15.] Service Discovery Pattern ◾ Enables services to locate each other dynamically. [16.] Anti-Corruption Layer Pattern ◾ Provides a layer of isolation to protect your application from the negative impact of changes in external systems. [17.] Decomposition Patterns ◾ Strategies for breaking down a monolithic application into microservices - 1./ Decompose by Business Capability => Align services with distinct business functions (e.g., order processing, inventory management). 2./ Decompose by Subdomain => Further divide capabilities into smaller, more focused services (e.g., customer management within orders). -------- The 'middle ground' between monolithic and microservices architectures. 👉 Modular Monolith ♻️ Repost ✔️ You can follow Mayank for more tech insights.
Starting with a monolith has saved me more times than I can count—there’s something grounding about building solid before sprawling out. Those patterns are like a playbook for growth, especially the Strangler Fig one—it’s all about evolving without losing your sanity.
Great overview! I love the reminder to start with a monolith too many teams rush into microservices without understanding the trade-offs. Patterns like API Gateway, Circuit Breaker, and Database per Service are lifesavers when scaling, but only make sense once the architecture truly needs them.
I agree with the gradual migration approach; isolating bottlenecks while preserving a cohesive architecture helps teams learn and adapt. It also reduces risk.
Totally agree with starting from a monolith, and just as important, use these patterns to solve real problems. Applying them too early often adds unnecessary complexity without clear benefit.
Love this post! The reminder to start with a monolith hits home — simplicity first, scale later. Many forget that microservices introduce operational overhead. Modular monoliths really are that sweet middle ground.
I have worked with many of these patterns across real-world systems and they absolutely possess serious advantages when used intentionally. But they are not silver bullets. It is very important to understand the why behind each one, otherwise you are just trading simplicity for over engineering.