Well, the first step has already been taken. Where it is not yet entirely clear, but where, it is known for certain - from the point of rest and balance. It's time to figure out why it is somehow slippery and sticky. And who are all these buzzing creatures that flock to the skeleton of the Mandelbrot fish, which we called the plowed architecture.
Some of the noise comes from potential customers. They rustle RFP, , . ? , , , . – . . 20, 40 . , . . 3 . 40 -. .
, ? . . - . - , - , - . , . – . – . , . – . . , , . – .
. . 2 ? . . ? - . « »? 20 . , , 5 – . , – . – . . - – .
. . . , , . , . , , . DR. - . . , . , IDE - , - . context switch. .
, . . , , – . , , . . «» , . , ITn . ? , , , - . VP - : «» «» (, , ) IT. , IT « 256». , IT , - . , – – . – , . . , , . , 443, . - . , .
Enterprise :
, . . . . .
– . – . , . , . . – , .
. , , . , Windows XP/CE - . . TLS 1.3 termination proxy.
. . , realtime, , . : . «» , SLA . - . . . no commitment fine tunning. 2 – , 2, …
Vendor lock – . . .
Vendor lock – . , , . . , - , - . , on-prem – . . . stateless .
Vendor lock – . . Google. - .
, – . . , , , . . ! , , , . . . , , . , ! , . . , ( «», «» «», ). , , , , 9 , . presale - .
, . . . , - « » , . , . – , . . -, . , . . . : « , …»
, – , . , , . , , . , . , , – . ! , , , . – - . . - , . - , – . . – , ! - . , . , , 5 3 -, . , . , . PM . , , . - - -. Dev , . , . , , , , , . – , – , . -. , . , , , . , , .
, ? , , . , . , . , , . , , . . , , . . . – . , – . , , , :
. .
. . , . , enrichment, event drive, , no-code.
, , . . . . , . – .
, . , . . . Distribution tax .
, . , . - . «» , , ( ). .
, . . , , . -, - , . , , , , . . 2-3 , , . .
, , . , . . . . – forward compatibility. decoupling, decoupling, decoupling.
Vendor lock? , . on-prem, . , « », . . , , (warnings) healthcheck. . , – production readiness, .
. : . . – . , . «» . , , ( ). :
a.
i.
ii.
iii. – !
iv. – .
b.
i.
ii. , , …
iii. Environment shapes architecture