Architecture patterns

Architecture Patterns

Overview

Architecture patterns provide proven solutions for structuring software systems. Choosing the right architecture is crucial for scalability, maintainability, and team productivity.

Patterns

Monolithic Architecture

Description: Single deployable unit containing all application functionality.

Key Features:

• Simple deployment and development
• Shared database and memory
• Straightforward debugging

Use Cases:

• MVPs and startups
• Small teams (< 10 developers)
• Simple domain logic

Best Practices:

src/
├── modules/          # Feature-based organization
│   ├── users/
│   ├── orders/
│   └── products/
├── shared/           # Cross-cutting concerns
└── infrastructure/   # External services

---

Microservices Architecture

Description: Distributed system of independently deployable services.

Key Features:

• Independent deployment and scaling
• Technology diversity per service
• Fault isolation

Use Cases:

• Large teams needing autonomy
• Complex domains with clear boundaries
• High scalability requirements

Key Components:

Component	Purpose	Tools
API Gateway	Entry point, routing	Kong, AWS API Gateway
Service Discovery	Service registration	Consul, Kubernetes DNS
Config Management	Centralized config	Spring Cloud Config, Consul
Circuit Breaker	Fault tolerance	Resilience4j, Hystrix

Best Practices:

1. Design around business capabilities
2. Decentralize data management
3. Design for failure
4. Automate deployment

---

Event-Driven Architecture

Description: Systems communicating through events.

Key Patterns:

Pattern	Description	Use Case
Event Sourcing	Store state as events	Audit trails, temporal queries
CQRS	Separate read/write models	High-read workloads
Saga	Distributed transactions	Cross-service workflows

Event Sourcing Example:

// Events are the source of truth
interface OrderEvent {
  id: string;
  type: 'OrderCreated' | 'ItemAdded' | 'OrderShipped';
  timestamp: Date;
  payload: unknown;
}

// Rebuild state from events
function rebuildOrder(events: OrderEvent[]): Order {
  return events.reduce((order, event) => {
    switch (event.type) {
      case 'OrderCreated': return { ...event.payload };
      case 'ItemAdded': return { ...order, items: [...order.items, event.payload] };
      case 'OrderShipped': return { ...order, status: 'shipped' };
    }
  }, {} as Order);
}

---

Serverless Architecture

Description: Cloud-managed execution without server management.

Key Features:

• Pay-per-execution pricing
• Auto-scaling to zero
• Reduced operational overhead

Considerations:

Aspect	Impact
Cold Start	100ms-2s latency on first invocation
Timeout	Usually 15-30 min max execution
State	Must use external storage
Vendor Lock-in	Platform-specific features

Best Practices:

1. Keep functions small and focused
2. Minimize dependencies
3. Use connection pooling for databases
4. Implement proper error handling

---

Clean Architecture

Description: Dependency-inverted architecture with domain at center.

Layer Structure:

┌──────────────────────────────────────┐
│           Frameworks & Drivers       │  ← External (DB, Web, UI)
├──────────────────────────────────────┤
│           Interface Adapters         │  ← Controllers, Gateways
├──────────────────────────────────────┤
│           Application Business       │  ← Use Cases
├──────────────────────────────────────┤
│           Enterprise Business        │  ← Entities, Domain Rules
└──────────────────────────────────────┘

Dependency Rule: Dependencies point inward. Inner layers know nothing about outer layers.

---

Domain-Driven Design (DDD)

Description: Architecture aligned with business domain.

Strategic Patterns:

Pattern	Purpose
Bounded Context	Clear domain boundaries
Context Map	Relationships between contexts
Ubiquitous Language	Shared vocabulary

Tactical Patterns:

Pattern	Purpose
Entity	Objects with identity
Value Object	Immutable descriptors
Aggregate	Consistency boundary
Repository	Collection-like persistence
Domain Event	Something that happened

---

Decision Guide

START
  │
  ├─ Team size < 10? ──────────────────→ Monolith
  │
  ├─ Need independent deployments? ────→ Microservices
  │
  ├─ Audit trail required? ────────────→ Event Sourcing
  │
  ├─ Variable/unpredictable load? ─────→ Serverless
  │
  ├─ Complex business logic? ──────────→ Clean Architecture + DDD
  │
  └─ Default ──────────────────────────→ Modular Monolith

Common Pitfalls

1. Premature Microservices

Problem: Starting with microservices for a simple application Solution: Start monolithic, extract services when boundaries are clear

2. Distributed Monolith

Problem: Microservices that must deploy together Solution: Ensure services are truly independent with clear API contracts

3. Ignoring Data Boundaries

Problem: Shared database across services Solution: Each service owns its data, use events for synchronization

---

Hexagonal Architecture (Ports & Adapters)

Description: Application core isolated from external concerns through ports (interfaces) and adapters (implementations).

Structure:

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                      Driving Adapters                       │
│    (REST API, CLI, GraphQL, Message Consumer)               │
└──────────────────────────┬──────────────────────────────────┘
                           │
┌──────────────────────────▼──────────────────────────────────┐
│                    Input Ports                              │
│              (Use Case Interfaces)                          │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                                                             │
│                   APPLICATION CORE                          │
│              (Domain Logic, Entities)                       │
│                                                             │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                   Output Ports                              │
│           (Repository, Gateway Interfaces)                  │
└──────────────────────────┬──────────────────────────────────┘
                           │
┌──────────────────────────▼──────────────────────────────────┐
│                     Driven Adapters                         │
│    (Database, External APIs, Message Publisher)             │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

TypeScript Example:

// Port (Interface)
interface OrderRepository {
  save(order: Order): Promise<void>;
  findById(id: string): Promise<Order | null>;
}

// Adapter (Implementation)
class PostgresOrderRepository implements OrderRepository {
  constructor(private db: Database) {}

  async save(order: Order): Promise<void> {
    await this.db.query('INSERT INTO orders...', [order]);
  }

  async findById(id: string): Promise<Order | null> {
    const row = await this.db.query('SELECT * FROM orders WHERE id = $1', [id]);
    return row ? this.toDomain(row) : null;
  }
}

// Use Case (Application Core)
class CreateOrderUseCase {
  constructor(private orderRepo: OrderRepository) {} // Depends on Port, not Adapter

  async execute(input: CreateOrderInput): Promise<Order> {
    const order = new Order(input);
    await this.orderRepo.save(order);
    return order;
  }
}

Benefits:

• Easy to swap implementations (DB, external services)
• Highly testable (mock ports)
• Framework-agnostic domain logic

---

Modular Monolith

Description: Monolith with strict module boundaries, preparing for potential microservices extraction.

Key Features:

• Modules communicate via defined interfaces
• Each module owns its data
• Can be deployed as single unit or extracted

Structure:

src/
├── modules/
│   ├── users/
│   │   ├── api/           # Public API of module
│   │   │   └── UserService.ts
│   │   ├── internal/      # Private implementation
│   │   │   ├── UserRepository.ts
│   │   │   └── UserEntity.ts
│   │   └── index.ts       # Only exports public API
│   ├── orders/
│   │   ├── api/
│   │   │   └── OrderService.ts
│   │   ├── internal/
│   │   └── index.ts
│   └── shared/            # Cross-cutting utilities
├── infrastructure/
│   ├── database/
│   ├── messaging/
│   └── http/
└── main.ts

Module Communication Rules:

// ✅ Good: Use public API
import { UserService } from '@modules/users';
const user = await userService.getById(id);

// ❌ Bad: Direct access to internal
import { UserRepository } from '@modules/users/internal/UserRepository';

Enforcement:

// eslint rules or ts-paths to prevent internal imports
{
  "rules": {
    "no-restricted-imports": ["error", {
      "patterns": ["@modules/*/internal/*"]
    }]
  }
}

---

Strangler Fig Pattern

Description: Gradually replace legacy system by routing traffic to new implementation.

Migration Process:

Phase 1: Facade
┌─────────┐     ┌─────────┐     ┌─────────────┐
│ Client  │────→│ Facade  │────→│ Legacy      │
└─────────┘     └─────────┘     │ System      │
                                └─────────────┘

Phase 2: Partial Migration
┌─────────┐     ┌─────────┐     ┌─────────────┐
│ Client  │────→│ Facade  │──┬─→│ Legacy      │
└─────────┘     └─────────┘  │  └─────────────┘
                             │  ┌─────────────┐
                             └─→│ New System  │
                                └─────────────┘

Phase 3: Complete Migration
┌─────────┐     ┌─────────┐     ┌─────────────┐
│ Client  │────→│ Facade  │────→│ New System  │
└─────────┘     └─────────┘     └─────────────┘

Implementation:

class PaymentFacade {
  constructor(
    private legacyPayment: LegacyPaymentService,
    private newPayment: NewPaymentService,
    private featureFlags: FeatureFlags
  ) {}

  async processPayment(payment: Payment): Promise<Result> {
    // Gradually migrate traffic
    if (this.featureFlags.isEnabled('new-payment-system', payment.userId)) {
      return this.newPayment.process(payment);
    }
    return this.legacyPayment.process(payment);
  }
}

---

Backend for Frontend (BFF)

Description: Dedicated backend for each frontend type (web, mobile, etc.).

Structure:

                    ┌─────────────┐
                    │ Web Client  │
                    └──────┬──────┘
                           │
                    ┌──────▼──────┐
                    │  Web BFF    │
                    └──────┬──────┘
                           │
       ┌───────────────────┼───────────────────┐
       │                   │                   │
┌──────▼──────┐    ┌──────▼──────┐    ┌──────▼──────┐
│ User Service│    │Order Service│    │Product Svc  │
└─────────────┘    └─────────────┘    └─────────────┘
       │                   │                   │
       └───────────────────┼───────────────────┘
                           │
                    ┌──────▼──────┐
                    │ Mobile BFF  │
                    └──────┬──────┘
                           │
                    ┌──────▼──────┐
                    │Mobile Client│
                    └─────────────┘

Benefits:

• Optimized payload for each client
• Client-specific authentication
• Independent deployment per frontend
• Reduces over-fetching

When to Use:

Scenario	Recommendation
Single client type	Skip BFF
Web + Mobile with same needs	Single API Gateway
Different UX per platform	Separate BFFs
Multiple teams per frontend	Dedicated BFFs

---

Architecture Patterns Comparison

Pattern	Complexity	Scalability	Team Size	Best For
Monolith	Low	Vertical	Small (2-10)	MVPs, Simple apps
Modular Monolith	Medium	Vertical	Medium (5-20)	Growing apps
Microservices	High	Horizontal	Large (20+)	Complex domains
Serverless	Medium	Auto	Any	Event-driven, Variable load
Event-Driven	High	Horizontal	Medium-Large	Async workflows

---

Architecture Decision Record (ADR) Template

When choosing an architecture, document decisions:

# ADR-001: Choose Modular Monolith

## Status
Accepted

## Context
- Team of 8 developers
- MVP deadline in 3 months
- Uncertain about domain boundaries
- Limited DevOps resources

## Decision
Adopt Modular Monolith with strict boundaries

## Consequences
### Positive
- Faster initial development
- Simpler deployment
- Can extract services later

### Negative
- Single point of failure
- Scaling limited to vertical
- Need discipline for module boundaries

## Alternatives Considered
1. Microservices - Too complex for team size
2. Traditional Monolith - No path to scale

---

Evolution Path

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                    Architecture Evolution                        │
│                                                                 │
│   Monolith ──→ Modular Monolith ──→ Microservices              │
│      │              │                     │                     │
│      │              │                     ▼                     │
│      │              │            Event-Driven / CQRS            │
│      │              │                     │                     │
│      ▼              ▼                     ▼                     │
│  [Simple]     [Growing]            [Complex/Scale]              │
│                                                                 │
│   Tip: Don't skip steps. Each stage teaches domain boundaries. │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

---

Anti-Patterns to Avoid

1. Big Ball of Mud

Symptom: No clear structure, everything depends on everything Fix: Introduce module boundaries, apply Clean Architecture principles

2. Golden Hammer

Symptom: Using same architecture for every project Fix: Evaluate requirements, use decision guide

3. Accidental Complexity

Symptom: Architecture more complex than domain requires Fix: Start simple, add complexity only when needed

4. Resume-Driven Development

Symptom: Choosing tech for learning, not solving problems Fix: Align architecture with team skills and project needs

5. Vendor Lock-In

Symptom: Core logic tightly coupled to cloud provider Fix: Use Hexagonal Architecture, abstract vendor-specific code

---

Performance Considerations by Pattern

Pattern	Latency	Throughput	Cold Start
Monolith	Low	High	N/A
Microservices	Medium (network)	High (distributed)	N/A
Serverless	Variable	Auto-scale	100ms-2s
Event-Driven	Higher (async)	Very High	Depends

---

Testing Strategies by Pattern

Monolith

Unit Tests → Integration Tests → E2E Tests
    70%           20%              10%

Microservices

Unit Tests → Contract Tests → Integration → E2E
    60%           20%           15%         5%

// Contract Test Example (Pact)
const provider = new Pact({ consumer: 'OrderService', provider: 'UserService' });
await provider.addInteraction({
  state: 'user exists',
  uponReceiving: 'get user request',
  withRequest: { method: 'GET', path: '/users/123' },
  willRespondWith: { status: 200, body: { id: '123', name: 'John' } }
});

Event-Driven

• Test event producers and consumers independently
• Use event schema validation
• Test saga/workflow orchestration

---

Related Skills

• [[api-design]] - API design for service communication
• [[system-design]] - Large-scale system considerations
• [[devops-cicd]] - Deployment strategies for each pattern
• [[data-design]] - Database patterns for each architecture