What I'm about to write is abstract so you may want to skip this comment.<p>I see many big products releasing open-source frameworks and most of those frameworks are often very similar to other frameworks that already exists.<p>Moreover, the goal of those frameworks are also very similar.<p>But they do it nonetheless. And my understanding for this to happens is that every serious application with enough load is unique in term of architecture and also in terms of culture.<p>And I believe it's a mix of the two that makes it very hard for any company to use something that is already available. You have the workforce to build something that really looks and talks like you, why would you use something that does only 90% of the job.<p>And this makes me wonder a lot about why frameworks like that are open-sourced. Is it really for the Greater Good? Or is it a recruiting tool?<p>I'm ambivalent, and I don't have any answer.
> The general structure of a microservice is that it concurrently processes small requests from potentially many clients and keeps little to no internal state.<p>So what is a microservice exactly? Is it just a piece of code that runs based on a trigger coming from the browser? And what is the main responsibility of the framework? Is it the routing of requests and responses to/from the actual microservices?<p>Further questions that come to mind: (1) Are the results of microservices cached somehow? (2) Also, if a cached item is not longer required, is it automatically freed? (3) If the output of a running service is no longer required, is that service automatically stopped?
Why not just use Finagle, which is almost the same thing, NIH aside?<p>[1] <a href="https://twitter.github.io/finagle/" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.github.io/finagle/</a>
That name is no good. It is reminiscent of “Colossus: The Forbin Project”, a sci-fi apocalypse from 1970 that demonstrates how a single stupid user decision destroys the computing industry for all time. You don't want to remind anyone of that embarrassment.