REVIEW 1 cited by
Migration to Microservices: A Comparative Study of Decomposition Strategies and Analysis Metrics
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
The microservices architectural style is widely favored for its scalability, reusability, and easy maintainability, prompting increased adoption by developers. However, transitioning from a monolithic to a microservices-based architecture is intricate and costly. In response, we present a novel method utilizing clustering to identify potential microservices in a given monolithic application. Our approach employs a density-based clustering algorithm considering static analysis, structural, and semantic relationships between classes, ensuring a functionally and contextually coherent partitioning. To assess the reliability of our microservice suggestion approach, we conducted an in-depth analysis of hyperparameter sensitivity and compared it with two established clustering algorithms. A comprehensive comparative analysis involved seven applications, evaluating against six baselines, utilizing a dataset of four open-source Java projects. Metrics assessed the quality of generated microservices. Furthermore, we meticulously compared our suggested microservices with manually identified ones in three microservices-based applications. This comparison provided a nuanced understanding of our approach's efficacy and reliability. Our methodology demonstrated promising outcomes, showcasing remarkable effectiveness and commendable stability.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
From Monolith to Microservices: A Comparative Evaluation of Decomposition Frameworks
Across four benchmark monoliths, hierarchical DBSCAN-based decomposition scores highest under the authors' hand-weighted aggregate metric, but most comparison data comes from prior papers.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.