Skip to main content

Knowing the limitations of an architecture is the key to preventing technical debt

Monolithic applications. Microservices.
There are different types of architectures and they all have their pros and cons. Believing that one type of architecture ONLY has advantages and no disadvantages is not going to help your team and your organization.
For instance, the microservice architecture has a lot of advantages, but if you don’t understand the microservice to microservice dependencies, it can easily get out of control and it becomes a disadvantage.
When pros and cons of a specific approach are summarized at the beginning of a given project, what gets forgotten is noting down the disadvantages and making sure that they don’t turn into technical debt for your tech teams.
It is very acceptable to have limitations in your architecture or a specific part of your system as there is not such thing as perfect architecture. We are always on the path to achieve that architecture elegance and staying on that path without reaching the perfect elegance is a norm in software engineering dynamic environment.
Now it is time to review your architecture and note down these limitations and put checks and balances around them in order to prevent these limitations turning into technical debt and spreading through the healthy components of your architecture. Knowing and controlling your limitations is the key to preventing technical debt.
Thank you for reading.
Almir Mustafic (Solutions Architect & Software Engineering Leader)

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Brand New programming language and one solution OR …

Brand New programming language and one solution OR Two existing programming languages, one solution for EACH? I understand that there is no right or wrong. It all depends on your software architecture, team structure, team skills and other factors, but I still want to explain the scenario as it may look familiar to some. Let me explain. Let’s assume that you have microservices and common libraries in two major programming languages. You have some teams who are experts in one and some teams experts in the other programming language. Now you need to come up with a solution for a scenario that all teams will need to leverage. Let’s assume that your cloud platform has an off-the-shelf approach for this but it is supported by a 3rd programming language that your teams do not have much experience in. What is the right thing for your organization and not just from the technical point of view? A) Do you embrace what your cloud platform gives you off the shelf and implement thi...
Post a Comment
Read more

Programming / Software Engineering  — Think Paper, Paper, then Code

Most of the software engineering problems are solved in what I call the high-level brainstorming sessions. We basically walk into a meeting room and white-board our thoughts and come up with solutions. When things start falling apart, you better believe this happens in the last stretch of projects and it does work.  Now the issue is that we as programmers do NOT do the similar type of exercise before a line of code is written ? I typically see developers get requirements in the form of a document or a user story or in the form of walk-by requirements. The next thing I see on developers’ screens is code editors or IDEs. Is that the right thing to do? You may say that you are advanced enough and that you like to dive into coding right away, but this happens even to the best of us. We fall into this trap and rarely step back and review our habits. We have to go back to fundamentals. What did we do in school?  Professors taught us to write down our thoughts and to show what...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owning and improving what you have is a sign of maturity in software engineering — Is it?

Re-factoring vs. Re-Writing? A lot of times we heard the talks about “Never be satisfied” in the context of innovation and driving your teams forward. In that context, this is totally fine, but when this mindset gets blindly used in the software engineering low level details, then you could be constantly  re-writing  code without taking the effort to truly understand it. Is this the right thing for business? Is it costly? Re-factoring  means that you took time to understand what you have, and you are improving it. On the other hand,  re-writing  does not necessarily mean that you took the time to understand the low-level details; it may mean that you went back to requirements and decided to re-write it without trying to understand the low-level details. There could be something in those details that you need to know so you don’t make the same mistake again in the process of re-writing it. At the end of the day, if you are constantly re-writing code, t...
Post a Comment
Read more