When working with development teams transitioning from a monolithic applications to microservices I sometimes face their anxiety of breaking the ๐๐ฅ๐ฌ (๐ฑ๐ผ๐ป’๐ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ ๐๐ผ๐๐ฟ๐๐ฒ๐น๐ณ) ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ป๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฝ๐น๐ฒ.
๐ช๐ต๐ฒ๐ป ๐๐ฎ๐บ๐ฒ ๐๐ฒ๐ฎ๐บ ๐ถ๐ ๐๐ผ๐ฟ๐ธ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ผ๐ป ๐บ๐๐น๐๐ถ๐ฝ๐น๐ฒ ๐บ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ถ๐ป๐ฐ๐น๐ถ๐ป๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐๐ผ ๐ฒ๐ ๐๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐บ๐บ๐ผ๐ป ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ฑ๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐๐๐ฒ ๐ถ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ ๐บ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐.
If you are inclined to do the same then think about the ideas bellow.
1. Having classed named the same in multiple microservices (for example Customer in both Checkout and OrderManagement microservices) is not a violation of the DRY principles. It is a consequence of ๐ด๐ฆ๐ฑ๐ข๐ณ๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ค๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฏ๐ด between two different ๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ต๐ฆ๐น๐ต๐ด .
2. Duplicating functionality in multiple microservices is usually a sign of bad design. A microservice should have only one responsibility – ๐ด๐ช๐ฏ๐จ๐ญ๐ฆ ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ด๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด๐ช๐ฃ๐ช๐ญ๐ช๐ต๐บ ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ช๐ฏ๐ค๐ช๐ฑ๐ญ๐ฆ .
3. Data repetition – multiple microservices owning same data – is generally a bad practice and should be avoided.
And don’t forget to apply principles pragmatically!