Evaluación de flexibilidad para microservicios basado en atributos de calidad
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32870/recibe.v15i1.492Palabras clave:
Microservicios, Atributos de calidad, Métricas de calidad, Desarrollo, Flexibilidad, Medición, Modelo de calidad, MétricasResumen
En los últimos años, la Arquitectura de Microservicios (MSA) se ha consolidado como un enfoque clave para el desarrollo de sistemas distribuidos, ofreciendo ventajas como flexibilidad, escalabilidad y agilidad. No obstante, la literatura evidencia una carencia de un esquema de calidad específico que permita evaluar atributos críticos en este contexto, particularmente la flexibilidad, ya que las métricas heredadas de otras arquitecturas no siempre resultan aplicables o carecen de validación empírica. Ante esta limitación, se presenta un esquema de evaluación de la flexibilidad, organizada en tres características principales: adaptabilidad, escalabilidad y portabilidad, cada una con subatributos específicos derivados de la ISO/IEC 25010, la ISO/IEC 9126, la ISO/IEC 2382, entre otras fuentes. Los resultados preliminares, obtenidos a partir del análisis de catorce microservicios en Java asociados a tres repositorios: Zull (47.37%), ACME Air Microservice (43.47%) y E-Commerce (33.7%) sugieren que la adopción de microservicios no garantiza por sí sola una alta flexibilidad, sino que depende del cumplimiento de prácticas de diseño adecuadas. El esquema permitió identificar debilidades recurrentes en documentación, instalabilidad y mecanismos de seguridad, lo que confirma su utilidad como herramienta para visibilizar áreas de mejora y orientar el diseño de sistemas más robustos y adaptables.Citas
Fowler, J. L. (2014). Microservices. Obtenido de MartinFawler.com: https://martinfowler.com/articles/microservices.html
ISO/IEC 25000. (n.d.). ISO/IEC 25010: Características de calidad del producto. Retrieved October 18, 2024, from https://iso25000.com.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2001). *ISO/IEC 9126: Software engineering — Product quality* (Partes 1-4). ISO.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2015). *ISO/IEC 2382: Information technology — Vocabulary* (Partes 1-36). ISO. (Greg Boss et al. 2007)
ISO/IEC 11179-1:2015 - Information technology — Metadata registries (MDR) — Part 1: Framework. n.d. https://www.iso.org/standard/61932.html.
ISO/IEC 27001:2022 - Information security management systems. n.d. https://www.iso.org/standard/27001. (Tanenbaum and Bos 2014)
IEEE SA - IEEE 1063-2001. n.d. Retrieved August 21, 2025. https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/1063/1554/.
Al-Debagy, O. and Martinek, P. (2020a). A metrics framework for evaluating microservices architecture designs. Journal of Web Engineering, 19, 341–370. https://doi.org/10.13,052/jwe1540-9589.19341.
Berander, P. et al. (2005). Software quality attributes and trade-offs.
Li, S. et al. (2021). Understanding and addressing quality attributes of microservices architecture: A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, 131, 106449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2020.106449.
Lima, S. et al. (2021). Improving observability in event sourcing systems. Journal of Systems and Software, 181, 111015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2021.111015.
Dragoni, N. et al. (2017). Microservices: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow
Newman, Sam. 2015. “Building Microservices - Chapter 1, 4 and 11.” Building Microservices 102.
Raj, Vinay & Sadam, Ravichandra. (2021). Evaluation of SOA-Based Web Services and Microservices Architecture Using Complexity Metrics. SN Computer Science. 2. 10.1007/s42979-021-00767-6.
Vera-Rivera, F. H. et al. (2021). Defining and measuring microservice granularity. PeerJ Computer Science, 7, e695. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.695.
Vera-Rivera, F. H. (2021). Modelo inteligente de especificación de la granularidad de microservicios (unpublished doctoral thesis, Univ. del Valle).
Engel, T. et al. (2018). Evaluation microservice architectures: A metric-based approach. CAiSE 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92901-9_8.
Li, Y. et al. (2020). Granularity decision in microservice splitting. Multi-Goal Decision Making, 1057902. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/1057902.
Perepletchikov, M., Ryan, C. and Frampton, K. (2007). Cohesion metrics for predicting maintainability of SOA. QSIC 2007, 328–335. https://doi.org/10.1109/QSIC.2007.4385516.
Netflix. (2025). Zuul [Repositorio de código]. GitHub. https://github.com/Netflix/zuul
anitagoel. (2022). AcmeAir_Microservice [Repositorio de código]. GitHub. https://github.com/anitagoel/AcmeAir_Microservice
RainbowForest. (2025). E-commerce Microservices [Repositorio de código]. GitHub. https://github.com/RainbowForest/e-commerce-microservices/
Booklet, D., Al-Debagy, O., & Martinek, P. (2021). Microservices Identification Methods and Quality Metrics.
Ulander, D. (2017). Software Architectural Metrics for the Scania Internet of Things Platform From a Microservice Perspective. http://www.teknat.uu.se/student
Kitchenham, B., & Lawrence Pfleeger, S. (1996). Software Quality: The Elusive Target. https://doi.org/10.1109/52.476281
Taibi, D., & Lenarduzzi, V. (2018). On the Definition of Microservice Bad Smells. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2018.2141031
Soldani, J., Tamburri, D. A., & van den Heuvel, W. J. (2018). The pains and gains of microservices: A Systematic grey literature review. Journal of Systems and Software, 146, 215–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2018.09.082
Newman, S. (2015). Building Microservices. http://safaribooksonline.com
Al-Qutaish, R. E., & Ain, A. (2010). uality Models in Software Engineering Literature: An Analytical and Comparative Study. In Journal of American Science (Vol. 6, Issue 3). http://www.americanscience.orgeditor@americanscience.org166
Bucchiarone, A., Kessler, B., Dragoni, N., Dustdar, S., Wien, T. U., Larsen, S. T., & Bank, D. (2018). From Monolithic to Microservices An Experience Report from the Banking Domain. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2018.2141026
Nadareishvili, I., Miitra, R., McLarty, M., & Amundsen, M. (2016). Microservice Architecture: Aligning Principles, Practices and Culture. 146.
Minella, M. (2024, June 3). State of Spring Survey 2024 Results. https://spring.io/blog/2024/06/03/state-of-spring-survey-2024-results?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Sõnajalg, S. (2019, August 8). Microservices in Java: Survey Highlights | JRebel. https://www.jrebel.com/blog/microservices-in-java-survey?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Taibi, D., Lenarduzzi, V., & Pahl, C. (2017). Processes, Motivations, and Issues for Migrating to Microservices Architectures: An Empirical Investigation. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCC.2017.4250931
Pulnil, S., & Senivongse, T. (2022). A Microservices Quality Model Based on Microservices Anti-patterns. 2022 19th International Joint Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering, JCSSE 2022. https://doi.org/10.1109/JCSSE54890.2022.9836297
Yu, J., Ge, J., & Sun, J. (2021). Research on Quality Model and Measurement for Microservices.
Apolinário, D. R. F., & de França, B. B. N. (2021). A method for monitoring the coupling evolution of microservice-based architectures. Journal of the Brazilian Computer Society, 27(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13173-021-00120-y
Bogner, J., Wagner, S., & Zimmermann, A. (2017). Automatically measuring the maintainability of service- and microservice-based systems - a literature review. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, Part F131936, 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1145/3143434.3143443
Vinay Babu, D., & Darsi, M. P. (2013). A Survey on Service Oriented Architecture and Metrics to Measure Coupling.3
Driessen Supervisors, F., Ferreira Pires, L., Luiz Rebelo Moreira, J., Sperotto, A., van den Bosch, S., & Verhoeven June, P. (2023). A quantitative assessment method for microservices granularity to improve maintainability.
Panichella, S., Rahman, M. I., & Taibi, D. (2021). Structural Coupling for Microservices. https://doi.org/10.5220/0010481902800287
Chidamber, S. R., & Kemerer, C. F. (1994). A Metrics Suite for Object Oriented Design. In IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SOFTWARE ENGINEERING (Vol. 20, Issue 6).
Chen, Y. H., Chen, N. J., Xu, W. X., Lian, L. M., & Tu, H. (2021). MFRL-CA: Microservice Fault Root Cause Location based on Correlation Analysis. Proceedings - 2021 8th International Conference on Dependable Systems and Their Applications, DSA 2021, 90–101. https://doi.org/10.1109/DSA52907.2021.00018
DeepWiki | AI documentation you can talk to, for every repo. (n.d.). Retrieved November 3, 2025, from https://deepwiki.com/
