20 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown
20 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown
# Architecture Decision Record: Payment Boundary
|
|
|
|
## Context
|
|
In order to define our payment processing system, we need to establish clear boundaries between different components that handle payments. This includes services responsible for payment requests, notifications, and reconciliation.
|
|
|
|
## Decision
|
|
We will implement a microservices architecture where each payment-related functionality is managed by a separate service. This allows for better scalability and maintainability. The main services will include:
|
|
- Payment Service: Handles payment transactions.
|
|
- Notification Service: Sends notifications upon payment success or failure.
|
|
- Reconciliation Service: Ensures the integrity of payments across systems.
|
|
|
|
Additionally, we will enforce communication through a RESTful API approach and use message queues for asynchronous operations between services.
|
|
|
|
## Alternatives
|
|
1. **Monolithic Architecture**: This was considered but rejected due to scaling limitations.
|
|
2. **Serverless Functions**: While appealing, the complexity of maintaining state and handling different payment types favored a microservices approach.
|
|
|
|
## Consequences
|
|
Choosing a microservices architecture will introduce operational overhead but it enables us to scale individual components as needed. It accommodates future integrations with third-party payment providers and allows teams to work independently on their respective services without impacting others.
|
|
|