TECHNICAL SUPPORT
Published 2026-01-19
Remember that feeling? When you are designing a control core for a servo motor system, or debugging the feedback loop of a steering gear, you suddenly realize: Has the entire software architecture become an invisible chain that slows down progress? The code is like a tangled thread. Every time you want to add a new function - such as adding a fine movement to the robotic arm - you have to be careful, for fear of pulling other places. The system has become heavy, modifications are frightening, and innovation seems to have stepped into the quagmire.
Many people will hear two hot words at this time: microservices and modular monoliths. Which one to choose? It's a bit like choosing a power core for your precision machinery project. Should we build a bunch of small, independent micro motors that perform their own duties to drive them together, or should we build a highly integrated power unit with a clear internal structure and clear functional divisions?
Think about it. Your app may start out as a clear idea with well-defined functionality. But as time goes by, customer needs come, the market changes, and you keep adding and tinkering. Gradually, the boundaries between various functional modules blurred, they began to share database tables, and the calling relationships were intricate. This is like tying together power lines, signal lines and mechanical linkages in a sophisticated mechanical device. Move any wire and the entire device may vibrate or even malfunction.
A deployment becomes like a celebration - too long and too risky. The team's development of new features slowed down, and everyone spent more time communicating, coordinating, and troubleshooting unintended impacts than writing new code. This wasn’t just a technical issue, it started to drain the team’s passion and creativity.
At this time, there are roughly two roads in front of you.
One is the path of microservices. The idea is very intuitive: split that huge single application into a series of small, autonomous services based on business functions. Each service is built around a specific business capability (for example, a "motion control service" that specifically handles servo angle calculations, an "access service" that specifically manages user permissions), has its own independent database, and communicates with other services through clear APIs. It's like equipping each individual module of a mechanical system (power, sensing, control) with a dedicated, independently replaceable and upgradeable microprocessor. A problem with one service will not cause the entire system to shut down; if a certain function needs to be upgraded, that service can be deployed separately.
The other is the modular approach. It does not advocate physical splitting, but emphasizes strict logical modularization within a single application. Through clear code boundaries, well-defined internal interfaces and dependency management, the application is structured like a neatly divided integrated circuit board. Each functional module is highly independent at the code level, but in the end they are compiled, packaged, and deployed together. This is similar to designing a highly modular mechanical assembly: the transmission module, control module, and execution module are physically closely integrated, but the internal interfaces are standardized. In theory, they can be independently designed and tested, and maintenance and replacement can also be reduced.
Which one is better? The answer is probably the clichéd one: it depends. It depends on the "topography" of your project.
What is the size and structure of your team? Microservices often require more operational infrastructure and cross-service coordination experience, which can be overwhelming for small teams. How fast and elastic does your system need to be? If business functions change frequently and independent scaling is urgent, microservices have obvious advantages. How strong are your requirements for data consistency and transactions? Monolithic architectures are usually simpler and more straightforward in ensuring strong consistency.
Sometimes, the most pragmatic option is to start with a well-designed modular monolith. It allows you to enjoy the convenience of development and maintenance brought by a clear structure, and avoids the complex infrastructure overhead of microservices in the early stage. As the business becomes clearer and the team grows, it is easier to spin off certain modules into independent services. This is like building a solid fuselage with clearly divided internal modules, and then replacing some modules with more powerful independent engines as needed in the future.
Suppose you are developing a complex automated test platform that integrates multiple brands and models of servo motors, servos, and vision sensors.
If you choose a microservice architecture, you may have a "motor drive service" that is only responsible for communicating with the physical motor controller and sending pulse instructions; a "path planning service" that specializes in calculating optimal motion trajectories; and a "data collection service" that obtains feedback from sensors in real time. They are deployed independently and collaborate through network messages. In this way, when you need to add a new laser ranging sensor to the platform, you can only create a new "ranging service" without changing other parts that are running stably.
If a modular monolith is used, all these functions will be within one application, but will be organized into clearly defined "driver modules", "planning modules" and "acquisition modules". They are called through the interface class defined within the project and share the same process memory. During development, each module team can work in parallel as long as the interface contract is followed; when deployed, you still package a complete application. To upgrade the sensor driver, you need to release a new version of the entire application, but because the module isolation is done well, the scope of regression testing can be focused.
See the difference? One is separation at the physical and runtime levels, and the other is separation at the code and logic levels. Both are pursuing the same goal: high cohesion, low coupling. Let the impact of changes be limited to local areas, making innovation and repair more agile and safer.
No matter which path you choose, the core pursuit is not to catch up with technology trends, but to inject a long-term "health" into the system you are building. Clear boundaries mean faster onboarding (new members onboarding), fewer unexpected failures, and a greater ability to respond to changes.
When your codebase is clearly structured, like a neatly sorted and labeled tool cabinet, engineers (old and new) can quickly find the "tool" they need and know who will be affected by putting it back. This maintainability translates directly into business agility. You can respond faster to customers' new requirements for control accuracy of a certain mechanical component, you can try to integrate with new hardware devices more safely, and you can technically rewrite a certain performance bottleneck module without dragging down the entire system.
What this ultimately frees up is people's time and attention, allowing the team to withdraw from tedious coupling troubleshooting and risk fear, and refocus on creating truly valuable business functions - functions that make your mechanical equipment smarter, more accurate, and more reliable.
So, next time you’re faced with an architecture choice, maybe forget about those complicated terminology comparison charts. Go back to your project and think about it like designing a mechanical system:
After thinking about this clearly, the answer to "microservice or modular monolith" may naturally emerge. There are no silver bullets, just pragmatic options that best fit your current context and route for the next few steps. And a good choice often starts with clear thinking that puts aside the noise.
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.
Update Time：2026-01-19
Contact Kpower's product specialist to recommend suitable motor or gearbox for your product.
