How do microservices evolve? An empirical analysis of changes in open-source microservice repositories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microservice architectures are an emergent service-oriented paradigm widely used in industry to develop and deploy scalable software systems. The underlying idea is to design highly independent services that implement small units of functionality and can interact with each other through lightweight interfaces. Even though microservices are often used with success, their design and maintenance pose novel challenges to software engineers. In particular, it is questionable whether the intended independence of microservices can actually be achieved in practice. So, it is important to understand how and why microservices evolve during a system’s life-cycle, for instance, to scope refactorings and improvements of a system’s architecture or to develop supporting tools. To provide insights into how microservices evolve, we report a large-scale empirical study on the (co-)evolution of microservices in 11 open-source systems, involving quantitative and qualitative analyses of 7,319 commits. Our quantitative results show that there are recurring patterns of (co-)evolution across all systems, for instance, “shotgun surgery” commits and microservices that are largely independent, evolve in tuples, or are evolved in almost all changes. We refine our results by analyzing service-evolving commits qualitatively to explore the (in-)dependence of microservices and the causes for their specific evolution. The contributions in this article provide an understanding for practitioners and researchers on how microservices evolve in what way, and how microservice-based systems may be improved.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.170 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".