Compare commits
No commits in common. "forge/SPRING-ARC-RUN-1783834407-attempt-2-run-3684da5b842c" and "main" have entirely different histories.
forge/SPRI
...
main
2 changed files with 0 additions and 17 deletions
|
|
@ -1,3 +0,0 @@
|
|||
# SPRING-ARC-RUN-1783834407-attempt-2-run-3684da5b842c
|
||||
|
||||
Forge 이슈 작업 브랜치 `forge/SPRING-ARC-RUN-1783834407-attempt-2-run-3684da5b842c`.
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,14 +0,0 @@
|
|||
# ADR for Payment Boundary
|
||||
|
||||
## Context
|
||||
This document provides the Architectural Decision Record (ADR) for defining the payment boundary within the project's architecture. The objective is to create a clear demarcation of responsibilities related to payment processing, ensuring that all payment-related functionalities are encapsulated and modular.
|
||||
|
||||
## Decision
|
||||
We have decided to adopt a microservices architecture for the payment processing functionality. The payment service will handle all interactions related to payment transactions, including validation, processing, and integration with third-party payment providers.
|
||||
|
||||
## Alternatives
|
||||
1. **Monolithic Architecture**: We could have developed the payment processing functionality as a part of the existing monolithic application. However, this would lead to tight coupling and reduced scalability.
|
||||
2. **Serverless Architecture**: Another alternative was to implement the payment service using serverless functions. This would provide ease of scaling but at the cost of increased complexity in managing state and transactions.
|
||||
|
||||
## Consequences
|
||||
By selecting a microservices architecture, we ensure scalability and flexibility in deploying updates to the payment service independently. However, this approach may introduce challenges related to inter-service communication and require robust monitoring and logging mechanisms to track payment transaction flows.
|
||||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue