feat: microservice architecture

This commit is contained in:
2025-11-05 09:12:34 +01:00
parent 54a047f5dc
commit 65a428534c
354 changed files with 5544 additions and 13141 deletions

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
# ADR-0029: Microservices Architecture
## Status
Accepted
## Context
The platform needs to scale independently, support team autonomy, and enable flexible deployment. A microservices architecture provides these benefits from day one, and the complexity of supporting both monolith and microservices modes is unnecessary.
## Decision
Design the platform as **microservices architecture from day one**:
1. **Service-Based Architecture**: All modules are independent services:
- Each module is a separate service with its own process
- Services communicate via gRPC (primary) or HTTP (fallback)
- Service client interfaces for all inter-service communication
- No direct in-process calls between services
2. **Service Registry**: Central registry for service discovery:
- All services register on startup
- Service discovery via registry
- Health checking and automatic deregistration
- Support for Consul, etcd, or Kubernetes service discovery
3. **Communication Patterns**:
- **Synchronous**: gRPC service calls (primary), HTTP/REST (fallback)
- **Asynchronous**: Event bus via Kafka
- **Shared State**: Cache (Redis) and Database (PostgreSQL)
4. **Service Boundaries**: Each module is an independent service:
- Independent Go modules (`go.mod`)
- Own database schema (via Ent)
- Own API routes
- Own process and deployment
- Can be scaled independently
5. **Development Simplification**: For local development, multiple services can run in the same process, but they still communicate via service clients (no direct calls)
## Consequences
### Positive
- **Simplified Architecture**: Single architecture pattern, no dual-mode complexity
- **Independent Scaling**: Scale individual services based on load
- **Team Autonomy**: Teams can own and deploy their services independently
- **Technology Diversity**: Different services can use different tech stacks (future)
- **Fault Isolation**: Failure in one service doesn't bring down entire platform
- **Deployment Flexibility**: Deploy services independently
- **Clear Boundaries**: Service boundaries are explicit from the start
### Negative
- **Network Latency**: Inter-service calls have network overhead
- **Distributed System Challenges**: Need to handle network failures, retries, timeouts
- **Service Discovery Overhead**: Additional infrastructure needed
- **Debugging Complexity**: Distributed tracing becomes essential
- **Data Consistency**: Cross-service transactions become challenging
- **Development Setup**: More complex local development (multiple services)
### Mitigations
- **Service Mesh**: Use service mesh (Istio, Linkerd) for advanced microservices features
- **API Gateway**: Central gateway for routing and cross-cutting concerns
- **Event Sourcing**: Use events for eventual consistency
- **Circuit Breakers**: Implement circuit breakers for resilience
- **Comprehensive Observability**: OpenTelemetry, metrics, logging essential
- **Docker Compose**: Simplify local development with docker-compose
- **Development Mode**: Run multiple services in same process for local dev (still use service clients)
## Implementation Strategy
### Phase 1: Service Client Interfaces (Phase 1)
- Define service client interfaces for all core services
- All inter-service communication goes through interfaces
### Phase 2: Service Registry (Phase 3)
- Create service registry interface
- Implement service discovery
- Support for Consul, Kubernetes service discovery
### Phase 3: gRPC Services (Phase 5)
- Implement gRPC service definitions
- Create gRPC servers for all services
- Create gRPC clients for service communication
- HTTP clients as fallback option
## References
- [Service Abstraction Pattern](https://microservices.io/patterns/data/service-per-database.html)
- [Service Discovery Patterns](https://microservices.io/patterns/service-registry.html)
- [gRPC Documentation](https://grpc.io/docs/)