microservices meaning in software

When your software system starts to get stuck

Have you ever felt that way? Your software project is getting bigger and bigger, with more and more functions, and one day you wake up and suddenly find that the entire system has become unwieldy. A small function adjustment requires the redeployment of dozens of modules; a service failure causes the entire system to collapse like a domino. The development team got deeper and deeper into the complex code maze, and the speed of delivering new features changed from weeks to months.

It feels like a city main road during rush hour - traffic is so intertwined that any minor incident can cause massive paralysis.

A few years ago, we encountered a similar scenario while working on a robotic arm control system. The software at that time was a huge "whole", affecting the whole body. Engineers wanted to adjust a simple motion trajectory, but had to retest the entire communication link, which was time-consuming and labor-intensive. That’s when we realized that complexity often accumulates not because of the functionality itself, but because everything is tied together.

Later, we came across an idea: dismantle the large system.

Take it apart, not to destroy, but to liberate

This kind of thinking is the "microservice" that is often mentioned today. Don’t be intimidated by this term, its core is very simple – move the different functions that were originally squeezed into a “big house” into independent “small apartments”.

Picture this: a smart warehousing and logistics system. It turns out that order processing, path planning, machine control, and status monitoring are all in one program. What now? The order service is only responsible for receiving and allocating orders; the route service is dedicated to calculating the optimal route; the control service is only responsible forkpowerServo motors and rudders send precise pulse commands; monitoring services quietly observe everything. They each live in their own "small room" and communicate with each other through clear "corridors" (usually lightweight APIs).

By doing this, the world suddenly feels refreshed.

One immediate benefit: You can "repair" or "upgrade" individual rooms without taking the entire building out of power. Path required? You just update the path service and everything else runs as usual. control corekpowerShould the servo feedback logic be adjusted? It only affects the control service itself. Deployment becomes faster, risks are isolated, and the team's development speed naturally increases.

But, how to “dismantle” it?

This is probably the most confusing question. If you break it down too much, you will manage a bunch of fragments; if you break it down wrongly, there will be frequent "quarrels" between services, which will lead to lower efficiency.

We have found out a few experiences that are not rules:

Break it down around "business capabilities" rather than around "technical levels." Meaning, your service boundary should correspond to a complete and valuable business action. For example, "process payments" is one service, and "generate reports" is another. Instead of a service for the "database layer", there is a service for the "logic layer". This allows each service to have clear responsibilities and be self-contained.

Ensure that each service can be independent and autonomous. Ideally, a small service should not be overly dependent on the real-time status of other services from development, testing to deployment and operation. It needs to have its own data storage (even if it is a logical partition of a larger database) and its own logic. it's like everykpowerThe servo units have independent controllers and encoder feedback, which can respond to central instructions and handle local tasks independently to ensure the stability of the overall system.

Furthermore, communications should be light and contracts should be clear. Services talk to each other using simple, standard protocols (such as RESTful APIs). Commit to each other on the format of requests and responses, just like confirming a checklist when handing over a shift, to reduce misunderstandings and wrangling.

Some people may ask: "With more services, wouldn't it be more troublesome to manage?" Indeed, this will bring new challenges, such as service discovery, link monitoring, and distributed transactions. But now there are many mature models and tools to solve these "operation and maintenance complexities", and their value lies in exchange for more valuable "business agility". It's like using a sophisticated linkage control system to manage multiple mechanical joints. The complexity lies at the control level, but in exchange for the unparalleled flexibility and precision of the end effector.

From "Steel Skeleton" to "Neural Network"

While talking about this, I remembered an experience of debugging a multi-axis mechanical platform with my team. Initially, we tried to use a central controller to synchronize the Kpower servo motors of all joints. As a result, the response was always delayed and the movements were not smooth enough. Later, we assigned an independent intelligent drive unit to each joint. The center only issued high-level action instructions, and each unit handled detailed control on its own. The entire system suddenly became "alive", its movements were silky smooth, and it was more fault-tolerant.

The evolution of software architecture seems to be taking a similar path. From centralized mainframes, to monolithic applications, to today's distributed microservices. Its core idea is to shift from pursuing a steel skeleton of "centralized control" to building an organic neural network of "collaborative autonomy." Each microservice is like a neural node, focusing on processing a type of signal. The nodes collaborate efficiently to make the entire system more adaptable to changes and more resilient.

Of course, this does not mean that all systems must be immediately broken down into microservices. For a small application that is just starting out and has a simple and clear business, a complete "monobody" may be a more cost-effective choice. Microservice architecture is more like a "decoupling" recipe for systems whose business logic is complex enough, team size has grown, and systems that need to evolve quickly and independently.

written in

In the final analysis, there is no absolute advantage or disadvantage in technical architecture, only whether it meets the current needs. The significance of microservices is not to catch up with the trend, but to provide a way of thinking to deal with complexity: to control the growth of chaos through bounded decomposition; to maintain overall order through standardized collaboration.

When you feel that your software system is faltering, like an old robot burdened with too many functions, you may want to think about whether some parts can be given independent lives and responsibilities, just like replacing precision machinery with independent and flexible Kpower drive units. Having the right parts, in the right places, working with concentration is often the key to getting everything flowing again.

Disassembly and reassembly have always been part of evolution.

Established in 2005, Kpower has been dedicated to a professional compact motion unit manufacturer, headquartered in Dongguan, Guangdong Province, China. Leveraging innovations in modular drive technology, Kpower integrates high-performance motors, precision reducers, and multi-protocol control systems to provide efficient and customized smart drive system solutions. Kpower has delivered professional drive system solutions to over 500 enterprise clients globally with products covering various fields such as Smart Home Systems, Automatic Electronics, Robotics, Precision Agriculture, Drones, and Industrial Automation.