aigroup-workflow 2.1.2 → 2.2.1

package/skills/backend/microservices-architect/references/decomposition.md

@@ -0,0 +1,344 @@
+# Service Decomposition and Boundaries
+
+Guide for identifying service boundaries using domain-driven design principles.
+
+## Domain-Driven Design Foundation
+
+### Bounded Context Identification
+
+**Strategic Patterns:**
+- **Ubiquitous Language** - Each bounded context has its own domain language
+- **Context Mapping** - Define relationships between bounded contexts
+- **Subdomain Classification** - Core, supporting, generic domains
+
+**Bounded Context Indicators:**
+```
+Strong Indicators:
+- Different teams own different parts
+- Different release cadences needed
+- Different scalability requirements
+- Different technology stacks optimal
+- Clear domain model boundaries
+
+Warning Signs:
+- Entities mean different things in different contexts
+- Same term used with different meanings
+- Workflows cross multiple aggregates
+- Teams communicate frequently about shared data
+```
+
+### Service Boundary Patterns
+
+**Database-Driven Decomposition:**
+```
+1. Identify aggregates (entities with invariants)
+2. Each aggregate becomes a service candidate
+3. Group related aggregates by transaction boundaries
+4. Services own their data (no shared databases)
+```
+
+**Business Capability Decomposition:**
+```
+Services organized by:
+- User Management (authentication, profiles, permissions)
+- Order Management (cart, checkout, fulfillment)
+- Inventory Management (stock, warehousing, allocation)
+- Payment Processing (transactions, refunds, reconciliation)
+- Notification Service (email, SMS, push notifications)
+```
+
+**Strangler Fig Pattern:**
+```
+Monolith Decomposition Strategy:
+1. Identify seams in existing codebase
+2. Extract one service at a time
+3. Route traffic through facade/proxy
+4. Gradually migrate functionality
+5. Decommission old code when safe
+
+Order of Extraction:
+1. Start with leaf dependencies (no downstream calls)
+2. Extract supporting services first
+3. Core business logic last
+4. Data migration strategy per service
+```
+
+## Service Sizing Guidelines
+
+### Microservice Characteristics
+
+**Right-Sized Service:**
+```
+Team Metrics:
+- 2-pizza team can own it (5-9 people)
+- Single team has full ownership
+- Can be rewritten in 2-4 weeks if needed
+- Independent deployment pipeline
+
+Technical Metrics:
+- 100-1000 lines of business logic
+- 5-15 API endpoints
+- 1-5 database tables
+- Startup time < 30 seconds
+- Single responsibility focus
+```
+
+**Too Small (Nano-service):**
+```
+Warning Signs:
+- Services with 1-2 endpoints
+- Excessive network overhead
+- More infrastructure than business logic
+- Difficult to trace requests
+- Version coupling between services
+```
+
+**Too Large (Distributed Monolith):**
+```
+Warning Signs:
+- Multiple teams working on same service
+- Conflicting scalability requirements
+- Difficult to understand in one sitting
+- Long deployment times
+- Tight coupling with other services
+```
+
+## Conway's Law Alignment
+
+### Team Structure and Service Design
+
+**Team Topologies:**
+```
+Stream-Aligned Teams:
+- Own end-to-end service lifecycle
+- Aligned to business capabilities
+- Full-stack ownership (frontend to database)
+
+Platform Teams:
+- Provide self-service capabilities
+- Enable stream-aligned teams
+- Kubernetes, CI/CD, observability
+
+Enabling Teams:
+- Help with complex implementations
+- Service mesh setup, security patterns
+- Temporary coaching role
+
+Complicated Subsystem Teams:
+- Specialized domains (ML, search, payments)
+- Heavy technical expertise required
+- Clear interfaces to other teams
+```
+
+## Decomposition Checklist
+
+### Pre-Decomposition Analysis
+
+**Business Justification:**
+```
+Check:
+- Independent scalability needed?
+- Different teams responsible?
+- Isolated failure acceptable?
+- Frequent independent deployments?
+- Technology diversity required?
+
+If mostly "no" → Consider modular monolith first
+```
+
+**Technical Readiness:**
+```
+Prerequisites:
+✓ CI/CD pipelines automated
+✓ Monitoring and alerting in place
+✓ Distributed tracing capability
+✓ Container orchestration ready
+✓ Team has microservices experience
+✓ Clear service ownership model
+```
+
+### Decomposition Steps
+
+**1. Identify Bounded Contexts:**
+```
+Activities:
+- Event storming workshop
+- Identify aggregates and entities
+- Map business workflows
+- Document ubiquitous language
+- Draw context boundaries
+```
+
+**2. Define Service Contracts:**
+```
+For each service:
+- REST/gRPC API specification
+- Event schema definitions
+- Data ownership boundaries
+- SLA commitments (latency, availability)
+- Versioning strategy
+```
+
+**3. Plan Data Migration:**
+```
+Data Strategy:
+- Identify shared data
+- Choose consistency model (eventual vs strong)
+- Design data synchronization mechanism
+- Plan schema evolution
+- Test rollback scenarios
+```
+
+**4. Extract Service:**
+```
+Implementation Order:
+1. Create new service skeleton
+2. Implement business logic
+3. Set up database (if needed)
+4. Add observability (logs, metrics, traces)
+5. Deploy to staging
+6. Dual-write from monolith (if applicable)
+7. Switch reads to new service
+8. Remove from monolith
+9. Production deployment
+```
+
+## Anti-Patterns to Avoid
+
+### Common Mistakes
+
+**Distributed Monolith:**
+```
+Symptoms:
+- Services must deploy together
+- Shared database between services
+- Synchronous coupling everywhere
+- Version lock-step required
+- Cascading failures common
+
+Solution:
+- Enforce database per service
+- Use async communication
+- Version APIs independently
+- Add circuit breakers
+```
+
+**Entity Services:**
+```
+Anti-Pattern:
+UserService (CRUD on User entity)
+OrderService (CRUD on Order entity)
+ProductService (CRUD on Product entity)
+
+Problem: Anemic domain model, no business logic
+
+Better Approach:
+AccountManagement (authentication, authorization, profiles)
+OrderFulfillment (workflow: cart → payment → shipping)
+ProductCatalog (search, recommendations, inventory)
+```
+
+**Shared Libraries with Business Logic:**
+```
+Anti-Pattern:
+common-lib (shared across all services with domain logic)
+
+Problem:
+- Tight coupling via dependency
+- Forces synchronized deployments
+- Violates service autonomy
+
+Better:
+- Shared libraries for technical concerns only
+- Duplicate business logic per service
+- Use events to keep data synchronized
+```
+
+## Service Boundary Validation
+
+### Design Review Checklist
+
+**Service Independence:**
+```
+Questions:
+- Can this service be deployed independently?
+- Does it own its data completely?
+- Can it function if dependencies are down?
+- Is the team autonomous to make changes?
+- Are integration points well-defined?
+```
+
+**Data Ownership:**
+```
+Verify:
+- No shared database tables
+- Clear data ownership boundaries
+- Event-driven synchronization for shared concepts
+- API provides all necessary data
+- No direct database access from other services
+```
+
+**Operational Readiness:**
+```
+Check:
+- Health check endpoint implemented
+- Readiness probe configured
+- Circuit breakers for external calls
+- Distributed tracing instrumented
+- Logs structured with correlation IDs
+- Metrics exposed (Prometheus format)
+- Documentation up to date
+```
+
+## Migration Strategies
+
+### Monolith to Microservices
+
+**Gradual Extraction:**
+```
+Phase 1: Prepare
+- Add seams to monolith
+- Implement API layer
+- Set up monitoring
+
+Phase 2: Extract Leaf Services
+- Start with services that have no dependencies
+- Examples: notification service, reporting
+
+Phase 3: Extract Supporting Services
+- Authentication/authorization
+- User management
+- File storage
+
+Phase 4: Extract Core Services
+- Order processing
+- Payment handling
+- Inventory management
+
+Phase 5: Decompose Remaining Monolith
+- Gradual extraction
+- Eventual retirement
+```
+
+**Parallel Run Pattern:**
+```
+Strategy:
+1. Build new microservice
+2. Run both systems simultaneously
+3. Compare outputs (shadow mode)
+4. Gradually shift traffic
+5. Decommission old system
+
+Use for: High-risk migrations, critical paths
+```
+
+## Summary
+
+Service decomposition is both art and science. Start with domain-driven design to identify natural boundaries, align with team structure, and extract incrementally. Avoid the temptation to over-decompose. A modular monolith is better than a poorly designed distributed system.
+
+**Key Takeaways:**
+- Bounded contexts define service boundaries
+- Database per service is non-negotiable
+- Team autonomy drives service design
+- Extract incrementally, not all at once
+- Observability is prerequisite for microservices