-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
Copy pathProject Ratings.txt
78 lines (65 loc) · 3.57 KB
/
Project Ratings.txt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
Overall Rating:
Criteria Weight Score Weighted Score
Service Segmentation 20% 15/20 3.0
Service Communication 15% 12/15 1.8
API Gateway Usage 15% 10/15 1.5
Code Organization/Modularity 20% 14/20 2.8
Scalability/Deployment 15% 10/15 1.5
Documentation/Maintenance 15% 10/15 1.5
_________________________________________________________________
Total 100% 12.1/15 = 80.7%
*** Evaluation Criteria
1. Service Segmentation (20%)
Strengths:
Services like ApiGateway, CustomerService, DatabaseService, NotificationService, and PaymentService are well-separated, indicating a microservices approach.
Clear domain-specific responsibilities (e.g., customer management, payment processing, notifications).
Weaknesses:
Some functionality in CustomerService (e.g., ZoomService, Mail) could belong to a FeaturesService or a dedicated service for these functionalities.
Overloaded CustomerService structure, with Controllers and Entities intermingled, reducing modularity.
Score: 15/20
2. Service Communication (15%)
Strengths:
Use of Feign in NotificationService suggests proper inter-service communication is considered.
Weaknesses:
Lack of clarity on whether asynchronous communication (e.g., message brokers like RabbitMQ or Kafka) is used for decoupled services.
Centralization of entities (e.g., sharing Doctor and Patient models across services) could introduce tight coupling.
Score: 12/15
3. API Gateway Usage (15%)
Strengths:
Presence of ApiGateway for routing is good.
Weaknesses:
It’s unclear if the ApiGateway includes centralized authentication and rate-limiting, which are essential for microservices.
The application.properties file suggests limited configuration for a robust gateway (e.g., routing rules, security).
Score: 10/15
4. Code Organization and Modularity (20%)
Strengths:
Each service has a distinct structure with Controllers, Entities, and Service layers.
Separation of DTOs and configurations (e.g., PaymentService).
Weaknesses:
CustomerService appears to be monolithic in its structure, with too many unrelated functionalities bundled together (e.g., ZoomController, Mail).
Lack of boundary enforcement—some services may be directly accessing entities from other services (violating microservice isolation).
Score: 14/20
5. Scalability and Deployment Readiness (15%)
Strengths:
Use of RegisteryService (Eureka) indicates service discovery and scalability are considered.
Weaknesses:
No evidence of containerization (e.g., Dockerfiles) or orchestration tools (e.g., Kubernetes) in the structure, which are essential for deploying microservices at scale.
Score: 10/15
6. Documentation and Maintenance (15%)
Strengths:
Presence of README.md suggests an attempt to document the project.
Weaknesses:
The structure doesn’t indicate detailed API documentation (e.g., Swagger/OpenAPI) or maintenance-friendly practices like CI/CD configuration files.
Score: 10/15
*** Final Remarks:
Strengths:
Good separation of services.
Service discovery (RegisteryService) and an API Gateway are present.
Clear MVC structure within services.
Areas for Improvement:
Refactor CustomerService to separate features like ZoomService, Mail, and Payment.
Introduce containerization (e.g., Docker) for deployment readiness.
Ensure inter-service communication is loosely coupled and consider using message brokers for asynchronous tasks.
Add centralized logging and monitoring for better observability.
Final Rating: 8/10
Your project shows promise but needs refinements in modularity and deployment practices for a fully robust microservices architecture.