The Practical Shift: Why Teams Are Rethinking Microservices for Macroservices & Modular Monoliths

For a decade, “microservices” wasn’t just an architecture—it was a mantra. Break everything down! Decouple! Scale independently! And honestly, for massive, hyper-scale platforms, it was and remains a brilliant fit. But for a lot of us? The reality has been… complicated.

You know the drill. The sprawling distributed system. The debugging nightmares that feel like archeology. The overhead that eats engineering time for breakfast. That’s why a quiet, pragmatic shift is happening. Teams aren’t abandoning distributed systems wholesale, but they are soberly asking: what if we grouped things just a bit more logically?

Enter the rise of macroservices and the renaissance of the modular monolith. This isn’t about fashion. It’s a practical correction, a move towards architectures that match organizational reality and delivery speed. Let’s dive in.

What Went Wrong? The Microservices Hangover

First, a quick reality check. Microservices solve specific, large-scale problems. But applied dogmatically, they introduce a suite of new ones. The pain points are now well-documented, almost a shared trauma in our industry.

Think about data consistency. In a monolith, it’s a transaction. In a distributed microservices landscape, it’s a saga, an event stream, a potential inconsistency waiting to happen. Then there’s the operational tax. Service discovery, API gateways, inter-service communication, logging across a dozen containers—it’s a ton of plumbing.

And perhaps the biggest issue: they often mirror organizational dysfunction. Conway’s Law in reverse—you design a system of a hundred microservices, and you’ll need a hundred teams to manage them. For many companies, that’s just not the reality.

Macroservices: The “Goldilocks” Grouping

So, what’s a macroservice? Well, it’s exactly what it sounds like. Instead of splitting “User Service” into “User-Profile Service,” “User-Preferences Service,” and “User-Authentication Service,” you keep them together in a single, cohesive User Macroservice.

The principle is domain-driven design, but with a wider lens. You group by bounded context and team boundaries. If a small team owns the entire “Order Fulfillment” context—inventory, picking, packing, shipping logic—that becomes one macroservice. It’s larger than a microservice, but it’s still a discrete, independently deployable unit with a clear API.

The benefits are strikingly practical:

• Fewer network hops: Related communication stays within a single process. Faster, simpler, fewer failure points.
• Simpler data management: You can often use a single database for that context, avoiding complex distributed data patterns.
• Aligns with team structure: One team, one or two macroservices. The cognitive load plummets.

It’s a classic case of finding the sweet spot. You keep the benefits of independent deployment and technology choice per domain, but you ditch the insane fragmentation.

The Modular Monolith: Back to Basics, But Smarter

Now, let’s take it a step further. If macroservices group related functions, a modular monolith goes all the way—it’s a single deployable unit, but built with the discipline of a distributed system.

Imagine a well-organized workshop. Everything is in one building (the monolith), but tools are in clearly labeled, separate cabinets (the modules). You can’t just throw a wrench into the screwdriver drawer. That’s the modular monolith.

Technically, it means:

• Strict separation of concerns via internal modules or packages.
• Module-to-module communication happens through well-defined internal interfaces, not direct calls to private code.
• Each module owns its domain logic and data schema, even if they share a physical database.

The huge win? You get fantastic developer ergonomics. Single codebase to run and debug. Simplified testing. No serialization overhead for cross-domain calls. And when the time comes—if the time comes—a well-structured modular monolith is famously easier to split into macro- or microservices later. It’s the ultimate in deferred decision-making.

Choosing Your Path: A Practical Decision Framework

This isn’t a one-size-fits-all. So how do you choose? Forget dogma; think about your actual constraints.

Architecture Style	Best For…	Think Twice If…
Modular Monolith	Startups, small teams, new products. When you need maximum speed and simplicity. Teams of 1-2 pizzas.	You have truly independent, large teams needing different tech stacks or deployment cycles.
Macroservices	Mid-sized companies, clear domain contexts. When microservices overhead hurts, but you need some scale & team autonomy.	Your domains are still fuzzy and constantly changing. Or if you have a tiny DevOps team.
Microservices	Large, scaled engineering orgs (100+ developers). Where different services have genuinely different load, scaling, or tech requirements.	You’re doing it because it’s “the standard.” Your team spends more time on infrastructure than features.

Here’s a rule of thumb, straight from the trenches: Start modular, extract when it hurts. Begin with a well-architected monolith. When a specific module needs a different scale, a different release cadence, or is owned by a completely separate team—then you peel it off into a macroservice. It’s evolution, not revolution.

The Human Factor: It’s About Cognitive Load

We sometimes forget that architecture is for people, not just machines. A system that takes 30 minutes to spin up locally, or that requires a PhD in distributed tracing to debug a simple flow, kills productivity and morale.

Macroservices and modular monoliths directly address this. They reduce the cognitive load on developers. You can hold the entire “Order” context in your head. You can run the system on your laptop. That’s a massive, often overlooked, competitive advantage.

Making the Shift: Where to Begin

Okay, convinced? If you’re in a microservices maze and feeling the pain, a shift is possible. But don’t boil the ocean.

Start by identifying a cohesive domain cluster in your existing services—ones that chat constantly, have tight data dependencies, and are owned by the same team. Merge them into a single macroservice. Treat it as a pilot. Measure the impact on deployment frequency, bug resolution time, and team happiness.

For new projects? Honestly, strongly consider the modular monolith. Use tools like Java modules, .NET assemblies, or simple package structures in Node.js/Python to enforce boundaries. The key is the discipline, not the technology.

Conclusion: The Pendulum Swings to Sense

The trend towards macroservices and modular monoliths isn’t a rejection of good ideas from the microservices era. It’s a refinement. We’re keeping the core principles—loose coupling, clear boundaries, domain-driven design—but applying them with a dose of pragmatism.

It turns out, the goal was never “as small as possible.” The goal was manageable, understandable, and efficient. Sometimes, that means a bit more code in one deployable. And that’s perfectly okay. In fact, it might just be the most productive decision your team makes this year.