Microservices should form a polytree

A contract that needs to be maintained at some level of quality even when you're deploying or overloaded.

Load shedding is a pretty advanced topic and it's the one I can think of off the top of my head when considering how Chesterton's Fence can sneak into these designs and paint you into a corner that some people in the argument know is coming and the rest don't believe will ever arrive.

But it's not alone in that regard. The biggest one for me is we discover how we want to write the system as we are writing it. And now we discover we have 45 independent services that are doing it the old way and we have to fix every single one of them to get what we want.

I don’t understand why you would have a logging microservice vs just having a library that provides logging that is used wherever you need logging.

> Like what does your polytree look like if you add a messaging pub/sub type system into it.

A message bus is often considered a clean way to deal with a cycle, and would exist outside the tree. I hear your point about the graph disappearing entirely if you use a message bus for everything, but this would probably either be for an exceptionally rare problem-space, or because of accidental complexity.

Message busses (implemented correctly) work because:

* If the recipient of the message is down the message will still get delivered when it comes back up. If we use REST calls for completion callbacks then the sender might have to do retries and whatnot over protracted periods.

* We can deal with poison messages. If a message is causing a crash or generally exceptional behavior (because of unintentional incompatible changes), we can mark it as poisoned and have a human look at it - instead of the whole system grinding to a halt as one service keeps trashing another.

REST/RPC should be for something that can provide an answer very quickly, or for starting work that will be signaled as complete in another way. Using a message bus for RPC is just as much of a smell as using RPC for eventing.

And, as always, it depends. The line may be somewhere completely different for you. But, and I have seen this multiple times, a directed cycle in a distributed system's architecture turns it into a distributed monolith: eventually you will reach a situation where everything needs to deploy at the same time. Many, many, engineers can talk about their lessons in this - and you are, as always, free to ignore people talking about the consequences of their mistakes.

> I might have a different take. I think microservices should each be independent such that it really doesn't matter how they end up being connected.

The connections you allow or disallow are basically the main interesting thing about microservices. Arbitrarily connected services become mudpits, in my experience.

> Think more actors/processes in a distributed actor/csp concurrent setup.

A lot of actor systems are explicitly designed as trees, especially with regard to lifecycle management and who can call who. E.g. A1 is not considered started until its children A2 and A3 (which are independent of each other and have no knowledge of each other) are also started.

> Also for many system designs, you would explicitly want a different topology, so you really shouldn't restrict yourself mentally with this advice.

Sometimes restrictions like these are useful, as they lead to shared common understanding.

I'd bet an architecture that designed with a restricted topology like this has a better chance of composing with newly introduced functionality over time than an architecture that allows any service to call any other[1]. Especially so if this tree-shaped architecture has some notion of "interface" services that hide all of the subservices in that branch of the tree, only exposing the public interface through one service. Reusing my previous example, this would mean that some hypothetical B branch of the tree has no knowledge of A2 and A3, and would have to access their functionality through A1.

This allows you to swap out A2 and A3, or add A4 and A5, or A2-2, or whatever, and callers won't have to know or care as long as A1's interface is stable. These tree-shaped topologies can be very useful.

1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqmsQeSzMdw

There's no particular reason an Auth system must be designed like counterexample #2. There's many ways to design that system and avoid cycles. You can leverage caching of role information - propagated via messages/bus, JWT's with roles baked-in and IDP's you trust, etc. Hitting an Auth service for every request is chaotic and likely a source of issue.