See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/318425527

A Systematic Literature Review on Microservices

Conference Paper in Lecture Notes in Computer Science · July 2017

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-62407-5_14

CITATIONS READS

70 12,003

3 authors:

Hulya Vural Murat Koyuncu

Atilim University Atilim University
3 PUBLICATIONS 92 CITATIONS 57 PUBLICATIONS 616 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sinem Guney
Atilim University
2 PUBLICATIONS 89 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Murat Koyuncu on 03 February 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A Systematic Literature Review
on Microservices

Hulya Vural, Murat Koyuncu(&), and Sinem Guney

Atilim University, Ankara, Turkey

[email protected],[email protected],
[email protected]

Abstract. The cloud is an emerging paradigm which leads the way for different
approaches and standards. The architectural styles are evolving based on the
requirements of the cloud as well. In recent years microservices is seen as the
architecture style for scalable, fast evolving cloud applications. As part of this
paper, a systematic mapping study was carried out around microservices. It is
aiming to find out the current trends around microservices, the motivation
behind microservices research, emerging standards and the possible research
gaps. The obtained results can help researchers and practitioner in software
engineering domain who want to be aware of new trends about SOA and cloud
computing.

Keywords: Cloud
SOA
Web services
Microservices
Systematic

mapping

1 Introduction Context

Service-oriented architecture (SOA) has emerged as a means of developing distributed

systems where the components are stand-alone services [37]. Services are basic units
which are developed independently and made accessible over the Internet. Standard
internet protocols are used for service communication among different computers. SOA
provides many advantages to develop easy and economic distributed software systems
and, therefore, it is the leading technology for interoperability on today’s internet
world. Service-oriented software engineering defines evolution of existing software
engineering approaches to develop dependable and reusable services considering the
requirements and characteristics of this technology [37]. Service-oriented computing
(SOC) is the paradigm that utilizes services as the fundamental elements for developing
applications. Therefore, service-oriented software engineering aims at designing and
developing service-based applications consonant with SOC paradigm and SOA prin-
ciples using software engineering methodologies.
After the popularity of cloud computing in recent years, new trends in the software
engineering have emerged, such as going to market with minimal viable product and
making small development teams autonomous. The architectural styles have also
evolved based on the cloud environment needs [36]. One of those new architectural
styles is microservices. The aim of the microservices is to divide the business behavior
into small services which can run independent of each other. As mentioned by Martin

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

O. Gervasi et al. (Eds.): ICCSA 2017, Part VI, LNCS 10409, pp. 203–217, 2017.
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-62407-5_14
204 H. Vural et al.

Fowler, “While there is no precise definition of this architectural style, there are certain
common characteristics around organization around business capability, automated
deployment, intelligence in the endpoints, and decentralized control of languages and
data” [1]. Another definition for microservices is “Microservices are small, autonomous
services that work together” [2].
The characteristics of the microservices are listed as follows [1]:
• Componentization via Services
• Organized around Business Capabilities
• Products not Projects
• Smart endpoints and dumb pipes
• Decentralized Governance
• Decentralized Data Management
• Infrastructure Automation
• Design for failure
• Evolutionary Design
The microservices are developed, deployed and maintained separately. This allows
the teams to be autonomous where they can decide on the technology to use which best
addresses the current needs of the business behavior. The language and the database
might be different from one microservice to another. They do not share data between
each other, instead they use Representational State Transfer (REST) protocol to
communicate to each other. The most important benefits of using microservices are
agility, autonomy, scalability, resilience and easy continuous deployment.
Even though microservices were first mentioned at [60] in 2010, the definition of
the microservice mentioned in that study does not totally map to the current
microservice definition in literature. The study carried out in 2010 [60] defines
microservices as light services using REST. It does not mention most of the charac-
teristics listed at [1]. Problem
There has been another systematic mapping carried out on microservices in 2016
[40]. In that study, the research questions are around the architectural diagrams used for
microservices’ representation, the quality attributes and the challenges. However, the
emerging standards and de facto tools are not mentioned.
In this paper, the aim is to not only analyze the emerging standards but also the
types of research conducted and the practical motivations around carrying out the
microservices architecture. Aim

2 Method

This study is conducted a systematic mapping as defined in [3] with one modification
(see Fig. 1). The modification is that, we carry out the keywording according to the
whole paper instead of keywording according to the abstract. The reason for the
modification to the original process is to enhance the classification criteria through
adding new areas.
 A Systematic Literature Review on Microservices 205

Fig. 1. Process steps and outcomes

2.1 Research Questions

Three research questions are determined as follows:
RQ1: What type of research is conducted on microservices?
RQ2: What are the main practical motivations behind microservices related research?
RQ3: What are the emerging standards and de facto tools on microservices solutions?

2.2 Search Sampling

The search is conducted using Web of Science (Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge),
which includes the following online databases:
• ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) Digital Library [4]
• CiteSeer [5]
• Computer Source [6]
• ebrary [7]
• Human-Computer Interaction Bibliography [8]
• IEEE Xplore [9]
• INSPEC [10]
• INSPEC Archive [11]
• Nature [12]
• Science [13]
• Science & Technology Collection [14]
• SciTech Connect [15]
• Springer LINK [16]

2.3 Search Iteration

The search is carried on with the following criteria:
• Keywords: microservice OR micro-service
• Research Area: Computer Science
The search iteration has returned 39 results [17–32, 38–60].
206 H. Vural et al.

3 Screening the Papers

The papers are evaluated according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The ones
which do not meet the criteria are excluded.
The inclusion criteria:
• All papers returned from the search criteria
Exclusion criteria:
• If the microservices is just mentioned in the research but the focus of the research is
not directly on microservices.
Out of 39, 2 papers were excluded based on the exclusion criteria [30, 41]. As a
result, 37 papers are included into the mapping process.

4 Keywording

As part of keywording four different categorization schemes are identified:

• Service models in cloud computing
• Operational areas
• Research types
• Emerging standards and tools.

4.1 Service Models in Cloud Computing

The service models in cloud computing are classified in three different types [33]:
• Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS): the infrastructure is supplied as a service (e.g.
virtual machine, hard disk, load balancer etc.).
• Platform as a Service (PaaS): The platform is supplied as a service (e.g. Azure SQL,
Tomcat etc.).
• Software as a Service (SaaS): The software itself is supplied as a service (e.g. Office
365, Gmail etc.).
Even though the microservice architecture style is shaped considering cloud needs,
the research papers returned as part of the search criteria do not necessarily use cloud.
As a result, on premise installations (OnPrem) are also included in the service models.

4.2 Operational Areas

In [34] several different operational areas are called out for cloud:
• Accounting and billing
• SLA management (Service Level Agreement)
• Service/resource provisioning
 A Systematic Literature Review on Microservices 207

• Capacity planning
• Configuration management
• Security and privacy assurance
• Fault management
Some of the research papers included in the current study are focusing on cloud
whereas some are not. As a result, the operational areas were modified to fit the needs
as follows:
• Cost comparison
• Availability/Resiliency
• Performance
• Security
• Test technique
• Functionality/Design
• Analytics/Monitoring
• Scalability
• Deployment
The answer for the second research question (RQ2) will be based on the modified
operational areas.

4.3 Research Types

In [35], 6 different research types are called out (See Table 1). The answer to the first
research question (RQ1) will be based on these 6 research types.

4.4 Emerging Standards and Tools

The papers included in this systematic mapping study can be seen as a representation of
the common tools used for microservices. Given that microservices is a new concept,
the standards are not yet well formed. The current systematic study aims also to give an
answer on emerging standards for microservices.

5 Data Extraction and Mapping

The results obtained from mapping are converted into different graphs and they are
given below in a way to answer the defined research questions.
RQ1: What type of research is conducted on microservices?
The papers are mapped to the research types as seen in Fig. 2. The most widely
used research type is Solution Proposal which is followed by Validation Research and
Evaluation Research.
The papers are classified according to the service types as seen in Fig. 3. Almost
half of the papers did not explicitly mention the service type they were targeting
208 H. Vural et al.

Table 1. Research types

Class Description
Validation Techniques investigated are novel and have not yet been implemented in
research practice. Techniques used are for example experiments, i.e., work done in
the lab
Evaluation Techniques are implemented in practice and an evaluation of the technique
research is conducted. That means, it is shown how the technique is implemented in
practice (solution implementation) and what are the consequences of the
implementation in terms of benefits and drawbacks (implementation
evaluation). This also includes identification of problems in industry
Solution A solution for a problem is proposed, the solution can be either novel or a
proposal significant extension of an existing technique. The potential benefits and
the applicability of the solution is shown by a small example or a good line
of argumentation
Philosophical These papers sketch a new way of looking at existing things by structuring
papers the field inform of a taxonomy or conceptual framework
Opinion papers These papers express the personal opinion of somebody whether a certain
technique is good or bad, or how things should have been done. They do
not rely on related work and research methodologies
Experience Experience papers explain what and how something has been done in
papers practice. It has to be the personal experience of the author

Fig. 2. Research types

(represented as NA in the figure). SaaS by far the most common service type being
investigated. Also, some papers refer to more than one service type.
The bubble chart in Fig. 4 illustrates an analysis based on research types versus
service types. The figure shows that there are only two studies on IaaS investigation
regarding microservices. This is an expected outcome given that the microservices is a
high level architectural style. On the other hand, there is only one official philosophical
research papers on microservices. Most probably the reason is that the philosophical
 A Systematic Literature Review on Microservices 209

Fig. 3. Count of papers per service type

statement of microservices was laid out by Lewis and Fowler [1] on 2014. Mostly, the
research is around Solution Proposal which do not explicitly call out the possible
service types applicable for that solution.

Research Type vs Service Type

ValidaƟon Research

EvaluaƟon Research

Proposal of SoluƟon

Personal Experience

Opinion Paper

Philosophical Paper

OnPremise IaaS PaaS SaaS NA

Fig. 4. Service types versus research types

RQ2: What are the main practical motivations behind microservices related research?
The papers are mapped to the operational areas and obtained results are shown in
Fig. 5. The main motives are around functionality followed by performance and test
techniques. Given that the microservices paradigm was first mentioned around 2014
and official research papers started to show up in 2015, it is natural to expect the
functionality be main concerns of research.
210 H. Vural et al.

Fig. 5. Operational areas

Figure 6 aims to answer if the study has empirical results or not. Our analysis
shows that the empirical studies are currently small in amount. Figure 7 illustrates an
analysis based on operational areas versus service types. The most remarkable point is
that most of the studies focus on the functionality/design issues. Figure 8 shows if there
is a new solution proposed and/or implemented. As seen in the figure, most of the

Fig. 6. Empirical results in research

 A Systematic Literature Review on Microservices 211

OperaƟonal Area vs Service Type

Test Technique
Security
Scalability
Performance
FuncƟonality/Design
Deployment
Cost Comparison
Availability/Resiliency
AnalyƟcs/Monitoring

OnPremise IaaS PaaS SaaS NA

Fig. 7. Operational area vs service type.

Fig. 8. Implementation of solutions.

research propose new solutions. Another noticeable point is that the implementation
ratio of new solutions is higher than the implementation ratio of existing solutions.
RQ3: What are the emerging standards and de facto tools on microservices solutions?
The occurrence of standards proposed or implemented in the research papers
included into the systematic mapping can be seen in Fig. 9. The figure includes all the
standards either implemented or proposed in systematic mapping papers. As clearly
seen in the figure, REST can be called out as the standard for Microservices, even
though there is one outlier paper which used non-REST protocol in their study [28].
212 H. Vural et al.

Fig. 9. Emerging standards

Fig. 10. Common tools used for implementing microservices

Only Swagger is used for microservice markup language. It is interesting to see that
WADL or API Blueprint is not mentioned.
The occurrence of tools used in proposed or implemented solutions can be found in
Fig. 10. Docker is seen as the most frequently used tool in studies.
The microservices topic is new and the official research started to show up in
research papers in 2015. As a result, it is expected for the number of research on
microservices to increase over time. Figure 11 shows publication numbers over time.
The last search was carried out on the Web of Science in January 2017. On the figure,
 A Systematic Literature Review on Microservices 213

Fig. 11. Number of microservices papers over time without applying exclusion criteria
(searched on January 20, 2017)

the line shows the trend. It is seen that the amount of papers increases radically and the
trend line is going up.

6 Conclusions and Future Work

The term microservices was first appeared in 2014. All academic papers about
microservices belong to 2015 and 2016. From that, we conclude that it is completely a
new topic.
Considering the mapping results, we can conclude that microservices is a trending
topic and our prediction is that we will see increasing trend in the near future.
Another important conclusion that we draw from the systematic mapping is that
there are not enough empirical studies to clarify many issues under discussion related to
microservices. Also, there is no research specifically targeting the fragile points of
microservices such as distributed transactions.

References
1. Lewis, J., Fowler, M.: “Microservices” martinfowler.com. http://martinfowler.com/articles/
microservices.html. Accessed 20 Dec 2016
2. Newman, S.: Building Microservices. O’Reilly Media, Inc., Sebastopol (2015)
3. Petersen, K., Feldt, R., Mujtaba, S., Mattsson, M.: Systematic mapping studies in software
engineering. In: 12th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software
Engineering, vol. 17, p. 1 (2008)
4. Dl.acm.org: ACM Digital Library (2016). http://dl.acm.org/dl.cfm. Accessed 05 Jan 2016
5. Citeseerx.ist.psu.edu: CiteSeerX (2016). http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/. Accessed 05 Jan 2016
6. Search.ebscohost.com: Computer Source (2016). http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
authtype=ip,uid&profile=ehost&defaultdb=cph. Accessed 05 Jan 2016
214 H. Vural et al.

7. Site.ebrary.com: ebrary: Server Message (2016). http://site.ebrary.com/lib/utexas. Accessed

05 Jan 2016
8. Hcibib.org: HCI Bibliography: Human-Computer Interaction Resources (2016). http://www.
hcibib.org/. Accessed 05 Jan 2016
9. Ieeexplore.ieee.org: IEEE Xplore Digital Library (2016). http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/. Acces-
sed 05 Jan 2016
10. Search.ebscohost.com: INSPEC (2016). http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?authtype=
ip,uid&profile=ehost&defaultdb=inh. Accessed 05 Jan 2016
11. Search.ebscohost.com: INSPEC Archive (2016). http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
authtype=ip,uid&profile=ehost&defaultdb=ieh. Accessed 05 Jan 2016
12. Nature.com: Journal home: Nature (2015). http://www.nature.com/nature. Accessed 05 Jan
2016
13. Sciencemag.org: Science (2016). http://www.sciencemag.org/. Accessed 05 Jan 2016
14. Search.ebscohost.com: Science and Technology Collection (2016). http://search.ebscohost.
com/login.aspx?authtype=ip,uid&profile=ehost&defaultdb=syh. Accessed 05 Jan 2016
15. Osti.gov: SciTech Connect: Your connection to science, technology, and engineering
research information from the U.S. Department of Energy (2016). http://www.osti.gov/
scitech/. Accessed 05 Jan 2016
16. Springerlink.com: Home - Springer (2016). http://www.springerlink.com. Accessed 05 Jan
2016
17. Lysne, O., Hole, K., Otterstad, C., Ytrehus, O., Aarseth, R., Tellnes, J.: Vendor malware:
detection limits and mitigation. Computer 49(8), 62–69 (2016)
18. Heorhiadi, V., Rajagopalan, S., Jamjoom, H., Reiter, M., Sekar, V.: Gremlin: systematic
resilience testing of microservices. In: 2016 IEEE 36th International Conference on
Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS) (2016)
19. Villamizar, M., Garces, O., Ochoa, L., Castro, H., Salamanca, L., Verano, M., Casallas, R.,
Gil, S., Valencia, C., Zambrano, A., Lang, M.: Infrastructure cost comparison of running
web applications in the cloud using AWS lambda and monolithic and microservice
architectures. In: 2016 16th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Cluster, Cloud and
Grid Computing (CCGrid) (2016)
20. Villamizar, M., Garces, O., Castro, H., Verano, M., Salamanca, L., Casallas, R., Gil, S.:
Evaluating the monolithic and the microservice architecture pattern to deploy web
applications in the cloud. In: 2015 10th Computing Colombian Conference (10CCC) (2015)
21. Sun, Y., Nanda, S., Jaeger, T.: Security-as-a-service for microservices-based cloud
applications. In: 2015 IEEE 7th International Conference on Cloud Computing Technology
and Science (CloudCom) (2015)
22. Rahman, M., Gao, J.: A reusable automated acceptance testing architecture for microservices
in behavior-driven development. In: 2015 IEEE Symposium on Service-Oriented System
Engineering (2015)
23. Le, V., Neff, M., Stewart, R., Kelley, R., Fritzinger, E., Dascalu, S., Harris, F.:
Microservice-based architecture for the NRDC. In: 2015 IEEE 13th International Conference
on Industrial Informatics (INDIN) (2015)
24. Alpers, S., Becker, C., Oberweis, A., Schuster, T.: Microservice based tool support for
business process modelling. In: 2015 IEEE 19th International Enterprise Distributed Object
Computing Workshop (2015)
25. Bak, P., Melamed, R., Moshkovich, D., Nardi, Y., Ship, H., Yaeli, A.: Location and
context-based microservices for mobile and internet of things workloads. In: 2015 IEEE
International Conference on Mobile Services (2015)
 A Systematic Literature Review on Microservices 215

26. Malavalli, D., Sathappan, S.: Scalable microservice based architecture for enabling DMTF
profiles. In: 2015 11th International Conference on Network and Service Management
(CNSM) (2015)
27. Krylovskiy, A., Jahn, M., Patti, E.: Designing a smart city internet of things platform with
microservice architecture. In: 2015 3rd International Conference on Future Internet of
Things and Cloud (2015)
28. Ciuffoletti, A.: Automated deployment of a microservice-based monitoring infrastructure.
Procedia Comput. Sci. 68, 163–172 (2015)
29. Meinke, K., Nycander, P.: Learning-based testing of distributed microservice architectures:
correctness and fault injection. In: Bianculli, D., Calinescu, R., Rumpe, B. (eds.) SEFM
2015. LNCS, vol. 9509, pp. 3–10. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-662-
49224-6_1
30. Pahl, C., Jamshidi, P.: Software architecture for the cloud – a roadmap towards
control-theoretic, model-based cloud architecture. In: Weyns, D., Mirandola, R., Crnkovic,
I. (eds.) ECSA 2015. LNCS, vol. 9278, pp. 212–220. Springer, Cham (2015). doi:10.1007/
978-3-319-23727-5_17
31. Nicolaescu, P., Klamma, R.: A methodology and tool support for widget-based web
application development. In: Cimiano, P., Frasincar, F., Houben, G.-J., Schwabe, D. (eds.)
ICWE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9114, pp. 515–532. Springer, Cham (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-
319-19890-3_33
32. Koren, I., Nicolaescu, P., Klamma, R.: Collaborative drawing annotations on web videos. In:
Cimiano, P., Frasincar, F., Houben, G.-J., Schwabe, D. (eds.) ICWE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9114,
pp. 671–674. Springer, Cham (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19890-3_54
33. Wikipedia: Cloud computing (2016). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing.
Accessed 05 Jan 2016
34. Fatema, K., Emeakaroha, V., Healy, P., Morrison, J., Lynn, T.: A survey of cloud
monitoring tools: taxonomy, capabilities and objectives. J. Parallel Distrib. Comput. 74(10),
2918–2933 (2014)
35. Wieringa, R., Maiden, N., Mead, N., Rolland, C.: Requirements engineering paper
classification and evaluation criteria: a proposal and a discussion. Requirements Eng. 11(1),
102–107 (2005)
36. Are Gartner’s Predictions on Track - Gartner’s Top 10 Strategic Technology Trends for
2016: At a Glance from October 6, 2015 (2016). https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-well-
did-gartner-do-prediction-gartners-top-10-strategic?trk=pulse-det-nav_art. Accessed 20 Dec
2016
37. Sommerville, I.: Software Engineering, 10th edn. Pearson, London (2016). (Chap. 18)
38. Braun, E., Düpmeier, C., Kimmig, D., Schillinger, W., Weissenbach, K.: Generic web
framework for environmental data visualization. In: Wohlgemuth, V., Fuchs-Kittowski, F.,
Wittmann, J. (eds.) Advances and New Trends in Environmental Informatics. PI, pp. 289–
299. Springer, Cham (2017). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-44711-7_23
39. Linthicum, D.: Practical use of microservices in moving workloads to the cloud. IEEE Cloud
Comput. 3(5), 6–9 (2016)
40. Alshuqayran, N., Ali, N., Evans, R.: A systematic mapping study in microservice
architecture. In: 2016 IEEE 9th International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing
and Applications (SOCA) (2016)
41. Inagaki, T., Ueda, Y., Ohara, M.: Container management as emerging workload for
operating systems. In: 2016 IEEE International Symposium on Workload Characterization
(IISWC) (2016)
42. Ueda, T., Nakaike, T., Ohara, M.: Workload characterization for microservices. In: 2016
IEEE International Symposium on Workload Characterization (IISWC) (2016)
216 H. Vural et al.

43. Florio, L., Nitto, E.: Gru: an approach to introduce decentralized autonomic behavior in
microservices architectures. In: 2016 IEEE International Conference on Autonomic
Computing (ICAC) (2016)
44. Gadea, C., Trifan, M., Ionescu, D., Ionescu, B.: A reference architecture for real-time
microservice API consumption. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on CrossCloud
Infrastructures & Platforms - CrossCloud 2016 (2016)
45. Renz, J., Hoffmann, D., Staubitz, T., Meinel, C.: Using A/B testing in MOOC environments.
In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge -
LAK 2016 (2016)
46. Hasselbring, W.: Microservices for scalability. In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM/SPEC on
International Conference on Performance Engineering - ICPE 2016 (2016)
47. Scarborough, W., Arnold, C., Dahan, M.: Case study. In: Proceedings of the XSEDE16 on
Diversity, Big Data, and Science at Scale – XSEDE 2016 (2016)
48. Kecskemeti, G., Marosi, A., Kertesz, A.: The ENTICE approach to decompose monolithic
services into microservices. In: 2016 International Conference on High Performance
Computing and Simulation (HPCS) (2016)
49. Barais, O., Bourcier, J., Bromberg, Y., Dion, C.: Towards microservices architecture to
transcode videos in the large at low costs. In: 2016 International Conference on
Telecommunications and Multimedia (TEMU) (2016)
50. Kang, H., Le, M., Tao, S.: Container and microservice driven design for cloud infrastructure
DevOps. In: 2016 IEEE International Conference on Cloud Engineering (IC2E) (2016)
51. Messina, A., Rizzo, R., Storniolo, P., Tripiciano, M., Urso, A.: The database-is-the-service
pattern for microservice architectures. In: Renda, M.E., Bursa, M., Holzinger, A., Khuri, S.
(eds.) ITBAM 2016. LNCS, vol. 9832, pp. 223–233. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.1007/
978-3-319-43949-5_18
52. Hassan, S., Bahsoon, R.: Microservices and their design trade-offs: a self-adaptive
roadmap. In: 2016 IEEE International Conference on Services Computing (SCC) (2016)
53. Bogner, J., Zimmermann, A.: Towards integrating microservices with adaptable enterprise
architecture. In: 2016 IEEE 20th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing
Workshop (EDOCW) (2016)
54. Kratzke, N., Peinl, R.: ClouNS - a cloud-native application reference model for enterprise
architects. In: 2016 IEEE 20th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing
Workshop (EDOCW) (2016)
55. Thiele, T., Sommer, T., Stiehm, S., Jeschke, S., Richert, A.: Exploring research networks
with data science: a data-driven microservice architecture for synergy detection. In: 2016
IEEE 4th International Conference on Future Internet of Things and Cloud Workshops
(FiCloudW) (2016)
56. Qanbari, S., Pezeshki, S., Raisi, R., Mahdizadeh, S., Rahimzadeh, R., Behinaein, N.,
Mahmoudi, F., Ayoubzadeh, S., Fazlali, P., Roshani, K., Yaghini, A., Amiri, M.,
Farivarmoheb, A., Zamani, A., Dustdar, S.: IoT design patterns: computational constructs
to design, build and engineer edge applications. In: 2016 IEEE First International
Conference on Internet-of-Things Design and Implementation (IoTDI) (2016)
57. Guo, D., Wang, W., Zeng, G., Wei, Z.: Microservices architecture based cloudware
deployment platform for service computing. In: 2016 IEEE Symposium on Service-Oriented
System Engineering (SOSE) (2016)
58. Safina, L., Mazzara, M., Montesi, F., Rivera, V.: Data-driven workflows for microservices:
genericity in jolie. In: 2016 IEEE 30th International Conference on Advanced Information
Networking and Applications (AINA) (2016)
 A Systematic Literature Review on Microservices 217

59. Kratzke, N.: About microservices, containers and their underestimated impact on network
performance. In: 6th International Conference on Cloud Computing, GRIDs, and
Virtualization (CLOUD COMPUTING) (2015)
60. Fernandez-Villamor, J.I., Iglesias, C., Garijo, M.: MICROSERVICES lightweight service
descriptions for rest architectural style. In: 2nd International Conference on Agents and
Artificial Intelligence (ICAART 2010) (2010)

View publication stats