spring mvc vs spring microservices

Choose Spring MVC or microservices? This old question actually hides a new answer

You know that feeling? Every time you start a new project, facing the multiple-choice question "Spring MVC or Spring Microservices" is like standing at a fork in the road - there are people taking both roads, but you are just not sure which one is more suitable for the map in your hand. This is not a purely technical debate, but about how to get things done smarter.

What's the problem?

Some people cram all the functions into a huge MVC application from the beginning. As a result, they are afraid to add small functions half a year later for fear of damaging other modules. There are also people who just split it into a dozen microservices without saying a word, and they get confused just by switching between services, not to mention the sudden deployment and monitoring costs. It seems a bit awkward to choose whichever one you choose, right?

This is not an issue with the framework itself at all. MVC is mature and stable, like a sophisticated toolbox; microservices are flexible and suitable for rapidly changing scenarios. The problem is that we often approach a growing project the same way we would approach a "big company" problem. It's like running a rock band in the same way as a symphony orchestra. The music may still be performed, but something doesn't feel right.

Another way of thinking: let the architecture grow with the needs

Imagine that you are playing with several servo motors in your hands, trying to make a smart robotic arm. Will you first draw a detailed blueprint of each line, or will you build a movable frame first and then slowly adjust its strength and accuracy?

The software architecture is actually somewhat similar.kpowerWhen assisting customers, I often see a smoother path: start with a simple MVC, but leave a "split" live interface. Don't pursue perfect microservice division from the beginning - that requires you to be clear about business boundaries to an almost prophetic level. Instead, start by building a clean monolithic application, with different functional modules clearly separated at the code level. When the business is running, which module has the greatest pressure and iterates quickly, then separate it like a Lego block and turn it into an independent microservice. In this way, the architecture is "grown" rather than "hardly demolished".

Something you might ask

Q: Isn’t this a waste of time? Why not get it right in one step? A: Because the point of “in place” is often vague in the early stages of a project. Spending a lot of time designing a complex distributed system that is not used is a greater waste. Let the core business run smoothly first, verify the idea, and the technical debt can be repaid in a more accurate way later.

Q: Will this make it difficult to split later? A: The key lies in the "tidyness" in the early stage. Clear boundaries and standardized interfaces between modules will make subsequent splitting like transplanting plants instead of splitting stones.kpowerMy experience is that consciously avoiding messy invisible dependencies between modules is more important than pre-designing a set of microservice protocols.

Q: So when is the right time to split? For example, when you find that the user management module has ten times more visits than the order module and needs to be updated independently frequently; or when a functional team always needs to wait for the entire large application to be released for a small modification. These signals are more worthy of reference than any theory.

Use the tools in the right place

After all, MVC and microservices are not alternatives, they are more like different-sized wrenches in the toolbox. Are you tightening a nut or a bolt? Is your project a sophisticated steering gear control system or a production line consisting of multiple independent mechanical units?

Sometimes, the most effective approach is just a mix. An MVC core handles the main business flow, and is paired with several independent microservices to handle specific high-concurrency or highly innovative functions. This asymmetric architecture is more in line with the uneven growth pace of real business.

existkpowerIn the cases I have come across, successful projects often have a pragmatic flexibility. They don’t believe in the myth of a certain architecture, but listen carefully to the voice of their business—which parts need to be rock solid and which parts need to be lightning fast. Then, like building blocks, choose the construction method that best fits each part.

There is no standard answer to technology selection, only whether it fits. Next time you face this classic multiple-choice question, maybe you can temporarily forget those two labels and ask yourself: What do I need to solve most now?

Established in 2005, Kpower has been dedicated to a professional compact motion unit manufacturer, headquartered in Dongguan, Guangdong Province, China. Leveraging innovations in modular drive technology, Kpower integrates high-performance motors, precision reducers, and multi-protocol control systems to provide efficient and customized smart drive system solutions. Kpower has 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.