Headless vs. Microservices Architecture in Insurance
At first glance, headless architecture and microservices architecture seem similar. Both rely heavily on APIs to disconnect the front-end website experience from the back-end software that runs that experience.
Where headless architecture differs from microservices architecture is in how the two approaches build and manage the final front end experience. Understanding these differences is key to choosing the best approach for any organization.
How Do Headless and Microservices Architecture Differ?
Both headless and microservices architectures focus on building an online presence on both the front end (what Web users see) and back end (what programs run and data is stored to make the user experience possible). Both forms of architecture seek to make the user experience better by moving away from traditional or monolithic builds.
Where headless architecture and microservices architecture differ is in how they change traditional builds in order to meet their goals.
Headless architecture decouples the front end from the back end. Traditionally, front end experience and back end processes were built together; if the back end could not handle a particular task, the front end could not offer that option to users.
Headless architecture ends the dependence of the front end on the back end by connecting the two via APIs and related tools, rather than building them into one another. Now, the front end can offer a range of options because it isn’t limited to communicating only with the original back end. Instead, APIs can be used to connect the front end to a range of services.
Microservices architecture also relies on APIs to connect the front end user experience to the back end tasks of gathering data, processing it and completing tasks. By doing so, it offers some of the same flexibility and speed as headless architecture.
With microservices, however, there is no discrete or identifiable back end. Rather, the front end connects to a range of microservices hosted on the cloud to allow for a more flexible, customizable front end experience. “It’s a means of deploying applications via containers, which are small, scalable packages of software images, components and dependencies that help cloud applications run,” writes online business builder Adam Bertram.
Both headless architecture and microservices architecture offer technical and business benefits. To determine which is the right fit, it’s important to consider each within the context of the goals to be reached.
Choosing Between a Headless and a Microservices Approach
Enthusiasm about both headless architecture and microservices architecture has waxed and waned in recent years, as companies put each to the test and discover which problems they can and cannot solve.
When making an architecture switch, it’s important to do so for the right reasons. Choosing headless architecture, for example, might be the right choice if the current website struggles to scale with increased traffic or when parts of a digital application cannot be updated or changed easily to reflect changing needs, writes Jasvent Singh, a technical architect at Salesforce.
Introducing microservices architecture poses two big challenges for software engineering teams: Added complexity and cultural disruption. Microservices add complexity “because microservices must be rigorously independent to attain the architectural benefits,” says Gartner Enterprise Software team VP and Distinguished Analyst Anne Thomas. Keeping microservices independent poses a challenge for software engineers. Meanwhile, putting microservices architecture to its best uses often requires a culture change for teams using the tools.
The key to success in choosing the right architecture is to consider its purpose and goal. “It’s not about just the technology, it’s about the cultural shift and truly understanding the root of the problem that you’re trying to solve,” says Katie Gamanji, senior Kubernetes field engineer at Apple.
Both headless and microservices architecture offer greater flexibility for insurers. Each approach has its own strengths and weaknesses. To choose between them, consider the organization’s goals, and fit the tools to the team’s vision of success.
Images by: puhhha/©123RF.com, rawpixel/©123RF.com
Further Reading
Featured
18 June 2024
15 August 2024
1 July 2024