[jmchuster]

if service B needs some new data from the view that isn't being provided, then you first run the migration on service A to update that view and add a column. Then you are able to update service B to utilize that column.

If you don't need the new column, then you don't need to do anything on service B, because you know that existing columns on the view won't get removed and their type won't change. You only need to make changes on service B when you want to take advantage of those additions to the view.

[mk89]

This only works if you apply backward compatible changes all the time. Sometimes you do want to make incompatible changes in your implementation. Database tables are an implementation detail, not an API which you're trying to expose as a view, etc.

But hey, every team and company has to find their strategy to do things. If this works for you, that's great!

It's just not a microservice by definition.

[jmchuster]

I would never claim that our setup uses microservices. Probably just more plainly named "services".

And yes, that is correct, we agree that once we expose a view, we won't remove columns or change types of columns. Theoretically we could effectively deprecate a column by having it just return an empty value. Our use cases are such that changes to such views happen at an acceptable rate, and backwards incompatible changes also happen at an acceptable rate.

Our views are also often joins across multiple tables, or computed values, so even if it's often quite close to the underlying tables, they are intentionally to be used as an abstraction on top of them. The views are designed first from the perspective of, what form of data do others services need?