A Map of Cloud-Native Practices and Tools to Achieve Desirable System Qualities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cloud-native technologies have been widely adopted, enabling organizations to build scalable, observable, resilient, and secure software systems within cloud environments. However, the rapid evolution of these technologies and the multitude of available tools present challenges to architects and developers in staying informed and making optimal choices for achieving the described qualities. While scientific literature summarizes quality attributes (QAs) and their corresponding cloud-native architectural patterns and tactics, it does not generally describe how qualities are achieved through the adoption of specific implementation practices and tools. To address this gap, we conducted a multivocal review of scientific papers, books, standards, and related grey literature. Through thematic analysis, we identified and organized cloud-native practices, tools, and related QAs. Our findings resulted in a map that comprises 15 high-level cloud-native practices that link to 87 specific sub-practices and 171 associated tools for addressing 8 desirable system qualities.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".