|
|
|
|
+++
|
|
|
|
|
title = "Reactive Microservices Architecture - Jonas Bonér"
|
|
|
|
|
date = 2020-02-20
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[taxonomies]
|
|
|
|
|
tags = ["books", "reviews", "it", "microservices", "jonas boner", "1 star"]
|
|
|
|
|
+++
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[GoodReads Summary](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29630482-reactive-microservices-architecture):
|
|
|
|
|
Still chugging along with a monolithic enterprise system that’s difficult to
|
|
|
|
|
scale and maintain, and even harder to understand? In this concise report,
|
|
|
|
|
Lightbend CTO Jonas Bonér explains why microservice-based architecture that
|
|
|
|
|
consists of small, independent services is far more flexible than the
|
|
|
|
|
traditional all-in-one systems that continue to dominate today’s enterprise
|
|
|
|
|
landscape.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- more -->
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{ stars(stars=1) }}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not actually a "book" per se, but more like a paper -- the author even
|
|
|
|
|
mentions it is a paper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now, is it a good paper? Well... Thing is, easy-to-explain concepts, like
|
|
|
|
|
"Sagas", take a long discussion about them, but hard-to-explain, like the CAP
|
|
|
|
|
theorem, make just some short explanations. And this is bad; things that
|
|
|
|
|
really need more explanation do not and are just glossed over; things that you
|
|
|
|
|
can get right out of the bad, do not. Also, some parts put a lot of footnotes
|
|
|
|
|
and assume the reader will read the footnote, which is bad, 'cause if you let
|
|
|
|
|
it to read later, you won't totally grasp what it means.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, there is one serious problem: Although it does a good discussion about
|
|
|
|
|
microservices, there is is very little explanation on what the reactive
|
|
|
|
|
microservice differs from normal microservices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's more interesting for the footnotes, which have links to the real content,
|
|
|
|
|
than the content of the paper.
|
