Are you early in your microservices journey? Maybe you’ve decided you need to start deploying applications outside your monolith but you haven’t cut any code yet. Or maybe you’ve put your first few services into production and addressed some of the first pains that happen when you start on that path.
A common question that comes up for teams at around this time is:
“What should we split out into a microservice first?
Why are distributed transactions icebergs? It’s not because they’re cool and beautiful and you have to look under the surface to comprehend them.
Distributed transactions are icebergs because (1) it’s easy to not see them, even when they’re right in front of you, and (2) if you run into one, it’s got a great potential to sink your ship. Continue reading →
As a Team Lead, the two main goals I keep in mind for each person are: keep them happy and keep them growing. One of the ways I try to ensure this happens is by meeting with each person regularly so we can chat about how to make sure these things are true or at least heading in the right direction.
A topic that’s come up with a few people lately is software design and architecture. Specifically, I’ve had a couple of comments along the lines of: “When we’re designing things, I want to contribute more, but I’m not really sure where to start.” Continue reading →
I covered a lot of ground in that talk, but something I didn’t get around to talking about was security. However, I believe that’s a really important topic to think about in microservice environments. It’s even more important than with a monolith, because in a service-oriented architecture you’re making a lot more of your system’s functionality directly exposed to the network, and that puts it in closer reach of would-be attackers, or “increases the attack surface” as a security pro would say.
So last week I presented another talk entitled “Microservices Security: All the Questions You Should Be Asking”.
Microservices Security: Let’s Share What We Know!
I want to tell people all about what we’ve been doing about security at Tyro lately. Security is incredibly important to the IT community and I think it’s imperative that we help each other improve. I want to share with the world some of the problems we’ve dealt with and some of the great solutions our team has built. Continue reading →
I attended YOW! Sydney 2014 and thought some people might get something useful out of my notes. These aren’t my complete reinterpretations of every slide, but just things I jotted down that I thought were interesting enough to remember or look into further.
The benefits of going functional are to get to code that is: Modular, Abstract, Composable.
Modularity is about being able to fit entire sections of code in your head without having to consider things going on outside that code, and also about being able to replace small parts without affecting the whole.
To write a total function (a function that returns a result for all possible input values), you need to elevate all possibilities into the type system. For example, you can’t throw an exception, you have to encode that possibility of an error into the return value somehow.
Abstraction should reduce changes to code, because unnecessary detail is not all across the code.
Whole systems can be composed from functional components.
Functional programming is not about picking up a hipster language. It’s about producing better software. Continue reading →
You know Murphy’s Law, right? Or at least you know the way most people remember it: “Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.” It’s a fairly depressing way of summarising life, but we all recognise a large portion of truth within it. Things go wrong. All the time.
There’s actually contention over whether this is the original form of the law, which is named after aerospace engineer Capt. Edward A. Murphy, and there are several differing accounts of how the saying came about. My preferred account is that relayed by Australia’s Dr Karl Kruszelnicki, whose record of Captain Murphy’s original exclamation is:
If there are two or more ways to do something, and one of those results in a catastrophe, then someone will do it that way.
I like this version because it’s easier to see the qualified optimism that Murphy juxtaposed with his frustration. As Dr Karl explains, there is a hope embedded in this form of the law because it starts with a proposition: “IF there are two or more ways to do something…” Continue reading →