Re: Re: BoundedContexts

So I was just looking through the article just above the quote Grey
mentioned is the following

Microservices architecture, being built on the concept of
> share-as-little-as-possible, leverages a concept from domain-driven design
> called a bounded context.     Architecturally, a bounded context refers to
> the coupling of a component (or in this case, a service) and its associated
> data as a single closed unit with minimal dependencies. A service component
> designed this way is essentially self-contained and only exposes a
> well-defined interface and a well-defined contract.


So at least for me, it would seem like he is attempting to refer to the
same concept as DDD's bounded context.

It basically seems like he is conflating dependencies (or the protection
from) as 'the bounded context'.

- Alistair

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 at 20:01 [email protected] [domaindrivendesign] <
[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
> @Udi:
>
>
- The author of the given text uses the term "Bounded Context" in a
> different way than we are used to (eq. Eric defined it in his book).
> - The author represents the thesis that: "microservices architecture
> tries to minimize on sharing, through the
>
> concept of a bounded context. One way to achieve a bounded con‐ text
> and minimize dependencies in extreme cases is to violate the Don’t
> Repeat Yourself (DRY) principle and replicate common func‐ tionality
> across services to achieve total independence."
>
> - The context of the given text is "software development" in general, "SOA
> vs. Microservices" in particular
> - The author has a strong Soa background
>
> To be honest: I`m confused. It seems to me, that he used the term by
> accident.
>
> Thomas
>
>
> 
>