That opens the door for addressing the underlining problem or goal instead. Big win!!

yes for sure! i'll be next 2 weeks onsite with devs, we'll workout the actual pipeline and i'll reach out then, there's much potential

amazing!! would it be possible to configure the knowledge base for these ai interactions? I made a library + a AI cli to help devs build domain layers, it eventual feeds to EC. Would be nice if devs could continue using the same guidelines when exploring within EC, if it makes sense...

thought that to, then i read Surveillance Capitalism by Shoshana Zuboff...

be sure we'll campaign for you, in case....

"This is why i think technology is this incredible alternative to politics." - Peter Thiel

But the question is, Peter: why wouldn't those people agree with you?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ95...

It seems very obvious to me: if Conway law holds water, hence for a service-based architecture we allocate different teams to each service, then if we want an Hexagonal/Onion architecture we should do the same for service layers.

One team will provide nicely done and tested domain layers, processing commands, emitting events, managing the state. Another team will spin up the DAPR apps and connect the api and message brokers to it. Same reason we divide stream aligned teams to different contexts. Same architectural benefits.

an example: a new project would require my team to figure out the business side, bounded-contexts, business logic, design, etc. Some devs are lost in that world. I know we also want to use DAPR and we should spend time to familiarize. We can't do it all.

primarily a great cognitive load reduction. It's difficult to properly figure out business needs (modelling and facilitation skills), and writing good DDD code (OOP or FP skills), while implementing infra interfaces and API endpoints, and liaising with DevSecOps. They're different concerns.

or...