What Are Microservices?
Microservices are a software architectural approach that structures applications as a collection of small, autonomous, and loosely coupled services. Each microservice is responsible for a specific functionality, communicates with others via well-defined APIs, and can be developed, deployed, and scaled independently.
This approach facilitates agile practices, continuous delivery, and adaptability to changing requirements. By improving maintainability, scalability, and resilience, microservices enable faster time-to-market, better resource utilization, and easier management of complex applications.
What Is Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA)?
Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) is a software design approach that structures applications as a collection of modular, interoperable services that communicate using standard protocols. Each service encapsulates a set of related functionalities, provides well-defined interfaces, and can be reused across different applications. SOA emphasizes loose coupling, reusability, and abstraction, aiming to promote flexibility, maintainability, and scalability.
By enabling the composition of complex applications from simpler building blocks, SOA simplifies development, facilitates integration, and supports the evolution of business processes in response to changing requirements. SOA serves as a foundation for the more granular microservices architecture.
This is part of a series on microservices architecture.
Microservices vs. SOA: 10 Key Differences
While microservices and SOA share some similar characteristics, there are several important differences, making each architecture better suited to different use cases.
SOA focuses on building reusable services based on business capabilities, often organized into an enterprise service bus (ESB) to facilitate service orchestration and communication. Microservices emphasize building smaller, single-purpose services that can evolve and scale independently. While both promote modular design, microservices favor decentralized architectures and are less reliant on a centralized ESB, reducing the risk of becoming a single point of failure or bottleneck.
2. Size and Scope
SOA services tend to be larger and more generic, aimed at serving multiple applications across an organization. Microservices are smaller in size, with each service focused on a specific functionality or domain. This granularity allows microservices to be more agile and easier to maintain, while SOA services are often better suited for enterprise-wide integration, providing a unified view and promoting reusability.
Microservices are more granular, with each service responsible for a single, narrowly-defined capability. SOA services can be more coarse-grained, encompassing broader business functionalities. The increased granularity in microservices promotes autonomy, allowing individual services to be developed, deployed, and scaled independently, while SOA's coarser granularity supports the reuse of services in different contexts and encourages interoperability.
4. Resource Sharing
SOA emphasizes sharing components and resources across the organization, with the goal of maximizing reusability and reducing duplication. Microservices prioritize autonomy and avoid sharing components to minimize coupling between services. While resource sharing can lead to cost savings in SOA, it can also introduce dependencies, increasing the complexity of managing services. In microservices, component isolation helps maintain loose coupling and simplifies service management.
In SOA, services often share a common data storage, leading to potential coupling and data consistency issues. Microservices follow the Database per Service pattern, where each service manages its own data storage, ensuring data autonomy and reducing the risk of service coupling. This separation of storage enhances the resilience and scalability of microservices, but also introduces challenges in managing distributed data and transactions.
SOA governance focuses on establishing centralized policies, standards, and guidelines for service development, operation, and lifecycle management. Microservices favor decentralized governance, empowering individual teams to make decisions based on their specific needs and requirements.
While centralized SOA governance can help maintain consistency and control across the organization, it can also slow down decision-making and limit agility. Decentralized governance in microservices encourages autonomy and innovation, but requires strong collaboration and communication between teams.
SOA typically relies on standard communication protocols like SOAP or XML for interoperability, with a focus on synchronous communication. Microservices often use lightweight RESTful APIs or message-based protocols (e.g., AMQP, MQTT), and emphasize asynchronous communication to improve performance and fault tolerance. While both approaches promote standardized communication, microservices' flexibility allows for more efficient and scalable communication patterns.
8. Degree of Coupling
SOA aims for loose coupling between services but can suffer from increased coupling due to shared components, resources, or data models. Microservices prioritize autonomy and minimize dependencies, ensuring loose coupling through well-defined APIs and avoiding shared components. This reduced coupling in microservices enhances maintainability and enables independent evolution of services, while SOA's focus on reusability can sometimes result in tighter coupling and reduced flexibility.
SOA services are typically deployed as part of a monolithic application or on an ESB, where multiple services share a single runtime environment. Microservices can be independently deployed and scaled, often using containers and orchestration platforms like Kubernetes to manage their lifecycle. Independent deployment in microservices enables faster time-to-market and more efficient resource usage, while SOA's shared deployment model can simplify management but may limit agility and scalability.
10. Remote Services
SOA often relies on remote services, including those provided by third-party vendors, to access specific functionalities or data. This can introduce additional complexity and potential points of failure. Microservices can also incorporate remote services, but their emphasis on autonomy, loose coupling, and fault tolerance can make them better equipped to handle the challenges associated with remote services.
Microservices vs. SOA: How to Choose?
When choosing between SOA and microservices, businesses should consider factors such as application complexity, scalability requirements, team structure, and existing infrastructure. Each architecture has its advantages, and the choice largely depends on the specific needs and goals of the organization.
SOA is a better option when the following elements are the priority:
- Reusability and interoperability: SOA focuses on creating reusable services that can be consumed by multiple applications across the organization. If the goal is to build a unified set of services that can support various business processes and promote interoperability, SOA might be the better choice.
- Centralized governance: SOA relies on a centralized governance model, which can help maintain consistency and control across the organization. This is useful for large enterprises that need to manage a diverse set of applications and services while adhering to regulatory and compliance requirements.
- Integration with legacy systems: SOA is often a better fit for organizations with existing legacy systems that require integration, as it provides a more flexible, loosely-coupled approach to building new applications and services that can interact with older systems.
Microservices are a better option when these elements are the priority:
- Agility and scalability: Microservices enable faster development and deployment cycles, allowing organizations to respond more quickly to market changes and customer demands. If agility and scalability are critical, microservices may be the better choice.
- Decentralized teams and autonomy: Microservices support small, cross-functional teams that can work autonomously on specific service domains. This fosters innovation, accelerates decision-making, and allows teams to quickly adapt to evolving requirements.
- Fault tolerance and resilience: Microservices can be designed for fault tolerance and resilience, reducing the impact of failures on the overall system. If maintaining high availability and minimizing downtime are priorities, microservices may be more suitable.
Ultimately, businesses should carefully assess their specific needs, goals, and constraints to determine which architecture best aligns with their objectives.
Related Content: Read more in our guides to microservices design patterns & microservices vs. monolith