Anti-Pattern: The Perfect Software Architecture

As a young developer, I was naive and ambitious. I searched for the perfect software architecture, an approach that I could impose on any problem, regardless of industry, scaling requirements, security measures, or users. If you could solve this one problem abstractly, then surely this architecture could be applied everywhere. Right?

This article explains why the pursuit of the perfect software architecture is an illusion. Current trends and fads often dictate universal solutions that, however, lack the necessary flexibility to survive in the market. This is especially relevant for technical leaders and decision-makers in SMBs. But how can you design an architecture that is flexible enough to adapt to changing requirements?

Many developers chase the dream of the perfect software architecture. Today I know: It doesn’t exist. Every organization is different. The structures are different. The customers are different. The rules for the company are different. The people are different. No architecture can cover this diversity.

Small and medium-sized businesses must remain flexible and adaptable to stay competitive. An architecture should not only meet current requirements but also consider future changes. It must evolve and grow along with the company.

Trends in Software Architecture

Software architecture refers to the fundamental structure of a software system. It encompasses the components, their relationships, and the principles that guide the system’s design and evolution. The choice of architecture significantly influences the development, maintenance, and scalability of the software.

In recent years, certain architectural styles have proven particularly popular. These include microservices and serverless computing. Microservices break applications into small, independent services, each fulfilling a specific task. This allows for better scalability and easier maintenance of individual components.

Serverless computing takes it a step further by offering an architecture where developers do not need to manage a fixed server. Instead, the code runs in a cloud environment and automatically scales as needed.

These trends are often presented as the optimal solutions for many problems in software development. However, these approaches have their own challenges. Without going into detail in this article – they require careful planning and can lead to more complex systems that are harder to manage .

The Renaissance of the Modulith

Many companies have had these experiences. In the past two to three years, the monolith, with the idea of the modulith, has seen a renaissance. The modulith combines the advantages of modularization with the simplicity of maintaining a monolith.

A look at the history of software development shows that these cycles from service-oriented architecture to monolith and back have occurred multiple times. In the 1980s, the idea of monoliths, where applications were developed as unified, inseparable units, dominated. These were often difficult to maintain and scale.

In the 1990s, the concept of service-oriented architecture (SOA) gained traction. SOA broke down large applications into independent services that communicated with each other through defined interfaces. This approach offered many advantages in terms of flexibility and code reusability. However, SOA also had its challenges, particularly regarding the complexity and overhead in managing many services.

Around the turn of the millennium, some companies, due to the difficulties with SOA, took a step back to more monolithic approaches. An example of this is the introduction of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems, which were developed as integrated, monolithic solutions for enterprise software.

ERP systems from providers like SAP offered comprehensive functionalities in a single, large system. These monolithic systems were easier to manage than complex SOA implementations, but they suffered from the same scalability and flexibility issues as the monoliths of the 1980s.

In the mid-2000s, SOA saw a resurgence through the popularity of the Enterprise Service Bus as an integration broker. With the rise of microservices in the 2010s, the idea of service orientation was again present in every company. Companies like Netflix and Amazon used microservices to make their applications more scalable and maintainable. They demonstrated that fine-grained modularity at the infrastructure level could offer significant benefits.

However, it also became apparent that without careful planning and effective management strategies, systems could quickly become confusing and difficult to handle. Smaller companies, in particular, without the large number of available developers and comparable revenue as FAANG companies, struggled with the complexity of microservices .

Software Architecture Changes, But the Problems Remain the Same

These historical cycles show that while the dominant software architecture changes repeatedly, the underlying problems often remain the same. Whether a company uses a monolithic, SOA, or microservices architecture, scalability, maintainability, and flexibility are often at the center of challenges.

This perspective is intended to encourage a more neutral consideration of one’s own architecture and not to be blindly guided by current trends. Instead, the choice of architecture should always be based on the specific requirements and conditions of the respective company.

Lessons from Amazon: Adaptability Instead of Perfection in Software Development

A company goes through natural phases during its lifetime, each with different demands on the software architecture. In the initial phase as a startup, speed is paramount. A young company needs to achieve results quickly and prove itself in the market. The number of users is often still small, and the focus is primarily on collecting feedback and responding quickly to market changes.

For this phase, a microservices architecture is generally not suitable. It is too complex and rigid to keep up with the fast development cycles of a startup. Startups often need to change and adapt their applications because they are continually learning how the market works and need to incorporate these insights quickly into their products.

A monolithic architecture or a modulith, which combines the simplicity of a monolith with modularity, is often the better choice in this phase. It enables fast development cycles and easier changes.

Amazon is an example of this. In its early years, Amazon relied on a monolithic architecture to quickly develop new features and respond to market demands. This architecture allowed Amazon to iterate rapidly and establish itself as a leading online retailer.

Later, as Amazon began to scale and the number of users and transactions increased significantly, the requirements changed. The company entered the scale-up phase, where scalability and performance became crucial.

In this phase, Amazon invested in fundamentally restructuring its existing application into a microservices architecture. This transition allowed the various parts of the platform to be scaled and maintained independently, which was crucial for managing massive growth.

Early Commitment Can Be a Hindrance

Amazon’s story is just one example of how important it is to adapt architecture to the company’s phase. A premature commitment to a supposedly perfect architecture like microservices can be a hindrance in the early stages and lead to unnecessary complexity.

Instead, companies should remain flexible and evolve their architecture in line with their growth and changing requirements.

Practical Recommendations for Software Architecture

It is neither possible nor advisable to try to build the perfect software architecture. Instead, the architecture must adapt to the circumstances and context of the company. It must and will change over time.

A good architecture supports this. But what concrete recommendations can be implemented in the team? The following recommendations are based on proven practices and successful examples from the industry.

1. Start Simple and Iterate

Start with a simple, monolithic architecture. This allows for fast development cycles and easy changes that are crucial in the early phase of a company.

2. Implement Moduliths

To combine the advantages of modularization with the simplicity of maintaining a monolith, moduliths should be used. Moduliths allow individual modules to be developed and tested independently, while the application continues to operate as a unified system. This foundation makes it easier to migrate to a service-oriented architecture at a later stage.

3. Refactor and Reduce Technical Debt

Developers should be given time and encouraged to refactor regularly. This prevents short-term solutions from leading to major problems in the long term.

4. Iterative Development and Deployment

Agile methodologies and Continuous Integration/Continuous Deployment (CI/CD) pipelines should be used to bring small, incremental changes into production quickly. This promotes adaptability and allows for quick responses to market changes.

5. Focus on Core Competencies

The value of software lies in the domain. The software architecture should be designed and developed around this domain. Other functionalities should be addressed by relying on external services and libraries. For example, authentication can be handled by an identity provider like Keycloak as a service or the Spring Authorization Server as an embedded module.

6. Foster a Strong Team Culture

A strong team culture and effective collaboration are crucial for successfully implementing a flexible architecture. This means promoting knowledge exchange and collaboration between different teams. A company that offers regular training and workshops can ensure that all team members understand and apply the principles of flexible architecture.

7. Cross-Functional Teams

Cross-functional teams include developers, operations specialists, and business analysts. This fosters a better understanding of business requirements and allows the architecture to be adjusted accordingly.

Conclusion

The search for the perfect software architecture is an illusion. A company’s needs are constantly changing, and the architecture must be able to adapt to these changes. Instead of relying on a supposedly perfect solution, technical leaders, CTOs, and other decision-makers should focus on flexibility and adaptability.

As the examples and recommendations show, it is crucial to take a pragmatic and iterative approach. Start with a simple architecture and continuously develop it.

The advantages of moduliths should be leveraged, and a strong team culture should be fostered to avoid technical debt and ensure sustainable development.

Successful companies like Amazon have shown that the ability to adapt the architecture in line with company growth is a key factor for long-term success. By focusing on flexible and adaptable architectures, companies can ensure that the software not only meets current requirements but is also prepared for future challenges.

A good software architecture is not static. It lives, grows, and evolves with the company. It is important to remain flexible, promote continuous improvement, and focus on collaboration. This creates a solid foundation for sustainable success.