Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

@duonghuuphuc
Created February 16, 2025 04:25
Show Gist options
  • Select an option

  • Save duonghuuphuc/42338bffcc26ddf37a03765613e2b1ff to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.

Select an option

Save duonghuuphuc/42338bffcc26ddf37a03765613e2b1ff to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Case Study: Transitioning from a Monolith to Microservices - A Retail E-commerce Platform

Case Study: Transitioning from a Monolith to Microservices - A Retail E-commerce Platform

Background

ShopEase, a mid-sized e-commerce company, has been running its online shopping platform for five years. Initially, the company used a monolithic architecture, where all features—including user authentication, product catalog, orders, payments, and customer reviews—were tightly coupled in a single application.

Challenges with the Monolithic Approach

As ShopEase grew, it faced several problems:

  1. Scalability Issues - During peak shopping seasons, the entire application slowed down due to high traffic on just one module (e.g., checkout).
  2. Deployment Bottlenecks - A minor bug fix in the payment module required redeploying the entire application, increasing the risk of downtime.
  3. Limited Technology Choices - Since the monolith was built using Java, developers couldn’t adopt better-suited technologies for different features (e.g., Python for recommendation systems).
  4. Team Bottlenecks - Different teams (checkout, catalog, customer reviews) had to coordinate on a single codebase, leading to slow development cycles.
  5. Difficult Maintenance - As the codebase grew, debugging issues took longer, and onboarding new developers became harder.

The Decision to Move to Microservices

To overcome these issues, ShopEase’s CTO decided to break down the monolith into microservices. However, defining good microservice boundaries was a challenge. If not done correctly, the system could become overly complex, leading to inter-service dependencies, performance bottlenecks, and increased operational costs.

Defining Microservice Boundaries

The team followed Domain-Driven Design (DDD) principles and divided the monolith into independent business capabilities:

Business Capability Microservice Reason for Separation
User Management Auth-Service Authentication and authorization can be handled separately using OAuth.
Product Catalog Catalog-Service Product data is read-heavy and should scale independently.
Shopping Cart Cart-Service A session-based service that should be stateful for quick access.
Order Processing Order-Service Manages order lifecycle and requires integration with payments.
Payment Processing Payment-Service Highly sensitive; should be secured separately and scale based on demand.
Customer Reviews Review-Service Should scale independently and allow better moderation.
Recommendation Engine Recommendation-Service Uses machine learning and should be optimized for AI workloads.

Implementation of Microservices

  • Each microservice had its own database (to avoid tight coupling).
  • Communication between services was done through REST APIs and message queues (Kafka) to handle asynchronous events like order confirmation.
  • Kubernetes was used for auto-scaling different services based on demand.
  • Logging and monitoring were handled using ELK Stack (Elasticsearch, Logstash, Kibana).

Benefits Observed After Migration

Scalability: Only the required microservices scaled, reducing infrastructure costs.
Faster Deployments: New features were deployed independently without affecting the entire system.
Improved Reliability: A failure in the Review Service did not affect order processing or payments.
Technology Flexibility: Different technologies were used where appropriate (e.g., Python for recommendations, Java for core services).
Better Team Autonomy: Each development team owned a microservice, improving productivity.

Key Learnings - What Makes a Good Microservice Boundary?

  1. Encapsulate Business Capabilities - Each service should represent a well-defined domain.
  2. Minimize Inter-Service Dependencies - Avoid excessive cross-service calls to prevent performance bottlenecks.
  3. Use Asynchronous Communication Where Possible - Message queues help decouple services.
  4. Keep Data Ownership Clear - Each microservice should own and manage its data to prevent database coupling.
  5. Balance the Number of Microservices - Too many services lead to operational overhead.

Conclusion

This case study demonstrates how ShopEase successfully transitioned from a monolith to microservices by carefully defining boundaries. By following Domain-Driven Design (DDD) principles, they ensured services were independent, scalable, and easy to manage.

Discussion Questions

  1. What are the primary challenges of a monolithic architecture, as seen in the ShopEase case study?
  2. If you were tasked with designing a microservices system for a banking application, what services would you separate?
  3. How would you decide whether a new feature should be added as a new microservice or integrated into an existing one?
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment