Manu's Vault

Pulling-Apart-Monoliths-Decomposition-Framework

6 min readStatus:Seedling

Overview

Monolith decomposition is fundamentally a trade-off analysis exercise. This framework synthesizes Component-Based-Decomposition metrics, Tactical-Forking strategies, and competing force analysis (Granularity-Disintegrators vs. Granularity-Integrators) into a systematic approach. Modularity serves specific quality attributes—independent deployability, team autonomy, targeted scalability—not as an end itself. By combining quantitative metrics with qualitative force analysis, architects make evidence-based decisions.

The key insight: successful decomposition requires understanding when to split (disintegrators), when to keep together (integrators), and how to execute (component metrics and tactical forking).

The Decomposition Decision Model

Step 1: Identify Modularity Drivers

Establish why decomposition matters. Architectural-Modularity-Drivers represent quality attributes you’re optimizing:

  • Maintainability: Independent feature development without merge conflicts
  • Testability: Component isolation for testing
  • Deployability: Independent deployment capability
  • Scalability: Different component scaling requirements
  • Fault tolerance: Failure isolation preventing cascades

Critical insight: Different drivers justify different decomposition levels. Startups prioritize maintainability/testability (modular monolith); enterprises prioritize scalability/fault tolerance (finer-grained services).

Document which drivers matter most—this drives decisions and fitness function validation.

Step 2: Analyze Competing Forces

Granularity Disintegrators (Forces Favoring Separation)

Granularity-Disintegrators pressure toward smaller services:

  • Service scope/function: Different business capabilities (strongest with distinct bounded contexts)
  • Code volatility: Different change rates (isolate high-volatility components)
  • Scalability: Different scaling profiles (CPU-intensive vs. I/O-bound)
  • Fault tolerance: Critical failure isolation (payment vs. browsing)
  • Security posture: Different security requirements (public vs. internal, PII vs. non-sensitive)
  • Team autonomy: Different team ownership (Conway’s Law)

Granularity Integrators (Forces Favoring Consolidation)

Granularity-Integrators pressure toward larger services:

  • ACID transactions: Atomic consistency requirements (financial transactions, inventory)
  • Workflow coordination: Centralized state management needs (order fulfillment, approvals)
  • Shared code: Significant business logic duplication costs (validation rules, algorithms)
  • Data relationships: Tight coupling with foreign keys, joins, referential integrity
  • Performance/latency: Unacceptable network overhead (high-frequency trading, real-time gaming)
  • Operational overhead: Management costs exceeding value (small teams, limited DevOps)

Trade-off: Score disintegrators (benefits) vs. integrators (costs). Strong disintegrators + weak integrators = good decomposition candidates.

Step 3: Apply Component-Based Decomposition Metrics

Component-Based-Decomposition provides objective validation of force analysis boundaries:

Patterns:

  • Low Ce + low Ca = Good extraction (few connections)
  • High Ca + low Ce = Stable component (consider shared library/service)
  • High Ce = Difficult extraction (needs tactical forking)
  • High D = Poor quality (refactor first)

Metrics confirm or challenge force analysis. Force analysis suggests splitting, but 47 efferent dependencies indicate boundary needs refinement.

Step 4: Enable Extraction with Tactical Forking

Tactical-Forking resolves high Efferent-Coupling from shared code by strategic duplication instead of complex pre-extraction refactoring.

Apply tactical forking when:

  • Shared validation logic blocks extraction
  • Utilities create coupling bottlenecks
  • Domain logic will diverge over time
  • Legacy code too risky to refactor pre-migration

Don’t apply when:

  • Capabilities must stay synchronized (authentication, authorization)
  • Operational concerns better handled by Sidecar-Pattern (logging, monitoring)
  • Frequent coordinated changes across services (wrong boundary)

Critical discipline: Bounded scope only. Unbounded duplication creates maintenance nightmares. Fork at bottlenecks; consolidate truly shared capabilities.

Step 5: Validate with Fitness Functions

Fitness functions automate decomposition decision validation:

  • Coupling constraints: ArchUnit rules blocking compilation on monolith dependencies
  • Boundary violations: Tests failing when domain leaks to infrastructure
  • Performance: Load tests ensuring SLA compliance
  • Deployment independence: Verification of independent deployment
  • Data ownership: Blocking direct cross-boundary database access

Fitness functions make decisions durable. Without automation, coupling creeps back under deadline pressure.

Decision Framework

Decision tree for decomposition:

  1. Assess modularity drivers: Which quality attributes improve? If none, don’t decompose.

  2. Analyze force balance:

    • Strong disintegrators + weak integrators → Proceed to metrics
    • Weak disintegrators + strong integrators → Keep together
    • Strong both → Consider hybrid (extract read path, keep write together)

  3. Apply metrics:

    • Low coupling, good metrics → Safe extraction
    • High coupling, poor metrics → Refine boundary or tactical fork
    • Zone of Pain → Refactor first

  4. Execute:

    • Clean dependencies → Standard extraction
    • Shared code → Tactical forking
    • Data coupling → Data ownership patterns

  5. Validate: Define fitness functions, automate in CI/CD, monitor evolution

Common Pitfalls

  • Premature decomposition: Decomposing before understanding domains leads to wrong cuts. Start with modular monolith.
  • Ignoring integrators: Focusing only on benefits (scalability) while ignoring costs (distributed transactions, overhead) creates brittle systems.
  • Metrics without domain: Metrics reveal code structure, not business meaning. Low coupling doesn’t validate splitting cohesive capabilities.
  • Unbounded tactical forking: Duplicating all shared code creates maintenance nightmares. Fork strategically, consolidate truly shared capabilities.
  • Missing fitness functions: Decisions without automated validation degrade as coupling creeps back.
  • One-size-fits-all: Uniform service size ignores context. Right granularity emerges from analyzing your specific forces.

Real-World Considerations

  • Team maturity: Distributed systems need DevOps capability, monitoring, distributed debugging. Without these, start with modular monolith.
  • Conway’s Law: Boundaries mirror team structure. Align boundaries with teams or reorganize teams.
  • Incremental migration: Strangler pattern—extract incrementally, validate, adjust. Big-bang fails.
  • Reversibility: Decomposition expensive to reverse. When uncertain, bias toward larger services (easier to split later).
  • Business context: Startup (feature velocity) vs. enterprise (scale/compliance) have different force weights.

Sources

Note

This content was drafted with assistance from AI tools for research, organization, and initial content generation. All final content has been reviewed, fact-checked, and edited by the author to ensure accuracy and alignment with the author’s intentions and perspective.

Graph View

Backlinks