From majestic monoliths to runtime topologies

In the previous post , I used a scene from The Eternaut — Favalli starting an old car after an EMP — as a way to introduce the “humble monolith” and how that differs from the "majestic monolith". Also, why the monolith vs microservices discussion is actually due to a "hidden" problem: rigidity. What if we could have the same business logic, adopting not one but many runtime shapes? I realised that the functional and reactive pipelines underpinning The Pipeline Framework , paired with the TPF's own architecture could actually enable choices for the users: should I go for a monolith? Or deploy steps as microservices? I thought, why have to choose? Introducing: runtime topologies in The Pipeline Framework . The Pipeline Framework treats the business flow as the stable asset, and the runtime topology as something that can change over time, and even co-exist (local environment vs. production). Let's take a look at the currently supported runtime topology shapes. None of these shapes is inhe