Hello and welcome to my channel! 👋 I'm Gus, a Software Developer who loves sharing the learnings throughout the journey. At the moment, I work as a Software Engineer at Bosch, with experience in Web Development & Machine Learning (a weird mix, I know), and love pushing the limits. I share purely tech topics, career growth, lifehacks, and some fun content - so join me!
Please consider SUBSCRIBING to the channel, if you like the content. If not, please, leave a comment on how I can improve it. All ideas and suggestions are warmly welcomed! :)
DISCLAIMER: I’m lucky enough to occasionally have sponsored/affiliated products to review and feature on my channel. I would not recommend anything that I don't like or believe in as a customer myself, so you can be sure that all views are honest and 100% mine. All the videos, songs, images, and graphics used in the video belong to their respective owners and I or this channel do not claim any right over them.
Shared db shouldn't be called an anti-pattern. Becasue if you have a split payments and users dbs, you'll still have some dependencies between them, and you're complicating your life drastically by rolling out a multi-db transaction, it's super error prone. So multi-db schema hard to get right and hard to maintain.Deadlocks doesn't seem to be a relevant argument, because if you're updating tables that aren't related there cannot be a deadlock. And if you're updating user and a payment simultaneously, you can run into a deadlock condition either with a shared db, or during your multi-db transaction. 3:00 "If you're trying to scale in the future" - valid point, but "in the future" is the key here. If you'll have to scale it in the future, you'll be dealing with more problems of multi-db transactions in the future, rather than from the beginning. And watching further only assured how error-prone distributed transactions are. "1 phase: we begin and do inserts, 2 phase we do the commit" - no, this is wrong, it will be screwed up if your "commit" query fails in the second phase, this is not what 2 phase is. And this is the exact reason why everybody should avoid designing multi-db microservices at all costs without necessity, and do a thorough research if there is a necessity. "And a second pattern is Saga, but rollback here is too complicated for explanation, so let's move further, but remember that the simple way is an anti-pattern"
I think he made at least two mistakes in REST and gRPC talks: 1. In REST you do not need to under/over fetch. You can use query params. 2. In gRPC you do not need to use HTTP2. It's also mostly not supposed by reverse proxies, app gateways and so on. Correct me if I'm wrong please.
Honestly I just find the async await pattern so much cleaner anyway, stringing together .then().catch().error() etc... always looked super ugly to me, whereas having a function you can just await and then deal with however you want to after is clean.
Would have loved to be able to see this repository and investigate the routes, services, controllers etc in more detail. Thank you for the great video nonetheless!
Yes you can... Indeed use package managers such as pm2 which does most of the work regarding clustering. For threading use in built worker thread module which is really easy to use.
Call me crazy but when a content provider is referring to another video (whether it happens in the first 10 seconds, at the video title itself, neither of those, or BOTH!), I can respect the fact that s/he also put a minimum effort into the kind gesture of sharing a link to this video.
@@SoftwareDeveloperDiaries that is what I thought of as your motivation. I didn't think it was made out of evil. Yet, giving your viewers the credit that they will search the video on their own but not giving them the credit to simply appreciate the small things like linking to another video is questionable. Time is the most valuable source in this existence. Now try to understand how annoying it feels to search for "part1" when I'm not even sure it was included in the title of the first video, which considering your response, if it's true - it is almost rude, expecting your viewers to invest their time, looking for a first part without titling it as such And I think that it is already clear by now, but if it wasn't: take me as an example for a viewer, and ask yourself what you really achieved: I came here to watch your video, I immediately stopped and looked for the first part along with the feeling that this is not so kind of you "enforcing" me to do so, I gave up when couldn't track down a title with "p.1" or anything similar, I came back here to invest the most value resource in this existence by sharing you how frustrating was this experience, and in the end I didn't even get to see any of those videos. So... Your approach might work. It might even make you new subscribers. But due to the fact that the description of the video already contains links, it doesn't seem so kind preferring people to go through what I have been through only because you're not giving them enough credit that if they will appreciate your content - they will find the way to consume more of it by nature... Just because it's good... And just because it's you. In conclusion, you had 2 options: 1. Making a kind gesture of adding a link to another video, and respecting people's time by providing them the optimal conditions to watch both videos. 2. Intentionally skipping the gesture of providing a link, letting people invest their time by looking for the 1st part, and ignore the fact that they are having a frustrating experience by doing so while they end up watching neither of those videos. Here's a tip to life: If you have 2 options and one of those options "requires" from you to be kind, always prefer this option. Good luck.
@@SoftwareDeveloperDiariesthat is what I thought of as your motivation. I didn't think it was made out of evil. Yet, giving your viewers the credit that they will search the video on their own but not giving them the credit to simply appreciate the small things like linking to another video is questionable. Time is the most valuable resource in this existence. Now try to understand how annoying it feels to search for "part1" when I'm not even sure it was included in the title of the first video, which considering your response, if it's true - it is almost rude, expecting your viewers to invest their time, looking for a first part without titling it as such And I think that it is already clear by now, but if it wasn't: take me as an example for a viewer, and ask yourself what you really achieved: I came here to watch your video, I immediately stopped and looked for the first part along with the feeling that this is not so kind of you "enforcing" me to do so, I gave up when couldn't track down a title with "p.1" or anything similar, I came back here to invest the most value resource in this existence by sharing you how frustrating was this experience, and in the end I didn't even get to see any of those videos. So... Your approach might work. It might even make you new subscribers. But due to the fact that the description of the video already contains links, it doesn't seem so kind preferring people to go through what I have been through only because you're not giving them enough credit that if they will appreciate your content - they will find the way to consume more of it by nature... Just because it's good... And just because it's you. In conclusion, you had 2 options: 1. Making a kind gesture of adding a link to another video, and respecting people's time by providing them the optimal conditions to watch both videos. 2. Intentionally skipping the gesture of providing a link, letting people invest their time by looking for the 1st part, and ignore the fact that they are having a frustrating experience by doing so while they end up watching neither of those videos. Here's a tip to life: If you have 2 options and one of those options "requires" from you to be kind, always prefer this option. Good luck.
That is what I thought of as your motivation. I didn't think it was made out of evil. Yet, giving your viewers the credit that they will search the video on their own but not giving them the credit to simply appreciate the small things like linking to another video is questionable. Time is the most valuable resource in life. Now try to understand how annoying it feels to search for "part1" when I'm not even sure it was included in the title of the first video, which considering your response, if it's true - it is almost rude, expecting your viewers to invest their time, looking for a first part without titling it as such And I think that it is already clear by now, but if it wasn't: take me as an example for a viewer, and ask yourself what you really achieved: I came here to watch your video, I immediately stopped and looked for the first part along with the feeling that this is not so kind of you "enforcing" me to do so, I gave up when couldn't track down a title with "p.1" or anything similar, I came back here to invest the most value resource in this existence by sharing you how frustrating was this experience, and in the end I didn't even get to see any of those videos. So... Your approach might work. It might even make you new subscribers. But due to the fact that the description of the video already contains links, it doesn't seem so kind preferring people to go through what I have been through only because you're not giving them enough credit that if they will appreciate your content - they will find the way to consume more of it by nature... Just because it's good... And just because it's you. In conclusion, you had 2 options: 1. Making a kind gesture of adding a link to another video, and respecting people's time by providing them the optimal conditions to watch both videos. 2. Intentionally skipping the gesture of providing a link, letting people invest their time by looking for the 1st part, and ignore the fact that they are having a frustrating experience by doing so while they end up watching neither of those videos. Here's a tip to life: If you have 2 options and one of those options "requires" from you to be kind, always prefer this option. Good luck.
@@wishmeheaven Dude. Righting this comment probably took you 10x more time than searching for the video 😄I think you took it waaay to seriously than you should've. Nevertheless, I agree with all your points and appreciate your input. I might reconsider the current approach.
Would love a future Kubernetes video as you mentioned. Not only learning it, but also comparing how the same scenario would be if you _didn't_ user Kubernetes, but only did everything in AWS or DigitalOcean etc. Would also love a Terraform-video!
The more you learn about system design the more you'll learn about architectures in my opinion. Here are some useful links for you: github.com/karanpratapsingh/system-design learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/architecture/guide/ microservices.io/
You know, you're kind of right and it makes me sad. Cloud architecture is actually pretty fun, but you're bottle necked by the amount you have to spend. (Like most things in life lol) Although there is some fun to be had in trying to squeeze out as much as possible from free tiers.
Don't know why micro frontend is even a thing. What problem it is solving and at what cost? It looked like it adds more problems rather than solving it
