Microservices and monolithic architecture: when your project starts to “speak”

Remember that feeling? You immerse yourself in building a system, all the functions are crammed together, and at first it runs smoothly. But as time goes by, every modification is like unraveling a tangled ball of thread - if you move one place, other places will shake accordingly, the testing is endless, and the launch is on tenterhooks.

This is what many teams do every day when faced with a monolithic architecture. On the other hand, the concept of microservices has become more and more popular in recent years. Some people praise it for its flexibility, while others complain about its complexity. Which one should I choose? Today we won’t talk about advanced theory, but let’s talk about how these two architectural styles actually affect the “character” of a project.

Single entity: that familiar “big guy”

Imagine that all your business logic, user interface, and data access layer are packaged in an application, like a carefully assembled but extremely heavy tool box. This is the monolithic architecture.

It has good sides: deployment is simple, initial development is fast, all components are in the same place, and debugging seems intuitive. This is even a natural choice when many projects start out as small applications. But the problem often lies behind - when the business grows and the functions are added, this "big guy" will become more and more difficult to maintain. Updating one module can inadvertently break another, the technology stack is locked in, and team collaboration can easily become crowded.

“It’s a bit like a room that’s constantly stuffed with furniture,” one developer once compared it. “It’s spacious at first, but the more stuff there is, the harder it is to move around, and you have to go all out to change a table.”

Microservices: a group of autonomous “little experts”

Microservices take a different approach. It breaks the application into a series of small, independent services, each service is built around specific business capabilities and can be developed, deployed and scaled independently.

For example, user management is one service, order processing is another, and inventory query is a separate one. They communicate through lightweight mechanisms (usually APIs), and each can be implemented using the most suitable technology stack. Does a service need to be upgraded? No other parts will be affected. Need to expand your order processing capabilities? Just add resources to that service alone.

That sounds more flexible, doesn't it? But the flip side of it is increased complexity. With more services, coordination of communication between them requires design, monitoring becomes dispersed, and data consistency requires new strategies.

How to choose?

This may be the question that is running through your mind. In fact, there is no absolute answer. It depends more on what stage your project is at, the size of your team, and how it will proceed in the future.

Consider a singleton if:

• The project has just started, the functionality is clear and the scope is limited
• The team is small but sophisticated and hopes to quickly launch products to verify the market
• The system complexity is not high and there is no need to expand certain parts frequently or independently.

Consider microservices if:

• The system has developed to the point where multiple functional modules often require independent changes.
• The team size has expanded and we hope that different groups can focus on different areas.
• Need to flexibly adopt different technologies to cope with different scenarios
• Have clear requirements for high availability and elastic expansion

Here’s an interesting thing: many of the success stories weren’t about getting it right from the start. They may start as a single entity and wait until "pain points" really arise - such as a decrease in deployment frequency and team collaboration starting to block each other - before gradually splitting into microservices. On the other hand, there are also teams that over-split into microservices at the beginning, but were overwhelmed by the complexity of operation and maintenance, and then merged appropriately.

A story about "a sense of control"

Let’s talk about the difference in actual experience. In a monolithic architecture, developers can run the entire system locally, and can completely track the entire process during debugging. This feeling of "everything is under control" is very practical. In the world of microservices, you may need to run multiple services or even rely on containers. Tracking a request needs to span multiple logs, which may be a little uncomfortable at first.

But the freedom that comes with the latter is also evident. Are you tired of writing a certain service using the old framework? As long as the interface doesn't change, you can rewrite it in a new language without having to overthrow the entire system. If a certain feature suddenly becomes popular, you can enhance the service behind it alone without expanding the capacity of the entire application.

It's like going from managing a large central kitchen to coordinating multiple specialty kitchens. The former is unified and efficient, while the latter is flexible and diverse.

Beyond Technology: Teams and Communication

Architectural choices are more than just technical decisions, they also shape the way your team works. Monolithic architecture often requires the team to have a consensus on the whole and work closely together; microservices allow the team to be more autonomous, but require clear interface contracts and continuous communication.

Some people joke that the challenge of microservice architecture is half technical and half ensuring that teams are still "talking" among themselves. The challenge of the monolithic architecture is to ensure that no one gets "lost" in the maze of code.

So, back to the starting point

When you stand at the starting point of planning, you might as well ask yourself: How will our project develop in the future? At what cadence does the team want to deliver? What type of complexity can we handle?

Sometimes, the best approach is to start simple and stay sensitive to the pain. When the monolith starts to make you feel constrained, it may be a sign to consider splitting; if the operational burden of microservices outweighs its benefits, it may be wise to merge appropriately.

Along the way, choosing the right tools to support your architectural choices is crucial. Whether it's a small servo unit that requires precision control, or a reliable and long-lasting power component, make sure the underlying hardware is as well thought out as the software architecture you choose.

After all, good architecture is not about theoretical perfection, but about enabling the system—and the people who build it—to work more smoothly and respond to change more readily. And it all often starts with a simple question: What do we need? Then, step by step, build it out.

Established in 2005,kpowerhas been dedicated to a professional compact motion unit manufacturer, headquartered in Dongguan, Guangdong Province, China. Leveraging innovations in modular drive technology,kpowerintegrates high-performance motors, precision reducers, and multi-protocol control systems to provide efficient and customized smart drive system solutions.kpowerhas delivered professional drive system solutions to over 500 enterprise clients globally with products covering various fields such as Smart Home Systems, Automatic Electronics, Robotics, Precision Agriculture, Drones, and Industrial Automation.