Code Repository Types
5/14/25About 4 minCore Conceptsmonolithicmulti-repomono-repo
Introduction to Code Repository Types
In software development, the organization method of code repositories affects code management, collaboration efficiency, and Continuous Integration/Continuous Deployment (CI/CD) processes. Below are three common types of code repositories: Single Application Single Repository, Microservices Single Repository (Mono-repo), and Microservices Multiple Repositories (Multi-repo).
Single Application Single Repository
| Single Application Single Repository | Description |
|---|---|
| Definition | Single Application Single Repository (often referred to as "Monolithic Repo") means that the entire application's code is stored in a single code repository, and all functional modules and components are developed and maintained within this repository. |
| Pros | Easy to Maintain: Code is centrally managed, making it easy to find and modify. Simplified CI/CD Process: Only one build and deployment process needs to be set up. |
| Cons | High Coupling: Coupling may exist between different microservices, causing changes to one microservice to affect others. (Translator's Note: This point describing coupling between microservices seems misplaced under "Single Application Single Repository" in the original Chinese text) Scale Issues: As the number of microservices increases, the repository size will grow, leading to increased management complexity. (Translator's Note: This point about increasing microservices also seems misplaced under "Single Application Single Repository") Complex Build and Deployment: More complex CI/CD processes are needed to handle the build and deployment of different microservices. (Translator's Note: This point about different microservices also seems misplaced under "Single Application Single Repository") |
| Applicable Scenarios | Small projects or projects with small team sizes, where this mode is relatively simple and efficient. |
Microservices Monorepo
| Microservices Monorepo | Description |
|---|---|
| Definition | Microservices Monorepo (mono-repo) refers to placing the code of multiple related microservices in the same code repository. The code is divided according to microservice modules; each module is relatively independent, but they share a single repository. |
| Pros | Code Sharing and Reuse: Code and libraries can be easily shared between different microservices. Consistent Development Environment: All services are developed in the same environment, reducing version conflicts and compatibility issues. Centralized Dependency Management: All services use the same set of dependencies, making management more unified and concise. |
| Cons | Poor Scalability: As the project scale increases, the codebase becomes increasingly large, which is detrimental to scaling and maintenance. High Coupling: There is high coupling between modules, and modifying one module may affect other modules. Low Development Efficiency: Conflicts are easily generated when multiple people develop simultaneously, affecting development efficiency. |
| Applicable Scenarios | Suitable for medium-sized projects and teams wishing to maintain a certain degree of centralized management within a microservices architecture, especially when services have tight dependencies. |
Microservices Multi-repo
(Microservices in Multiple Repositories, also known as multi-repo)
| Microservices Multi-repo | Description |
|---|---|
| Definition | Microservices Multi-repo (multi-repo) means that each microservice has its own independent code repository, with each repository containing code for only one microservice. Coupling between microservices is low. |
| Pros | Independence and Flexibility: Each microservice is managed independently, and development teams can choose different technology stacks and toolchains as needed. Strong Scalability: Microservices can be added or removed flexibly. More Granular Permissions Management: Different access permissions can be set for different services, making code access control easier to manage. Simplified CI/CD Process: Each microservice has an independent build and deployment process, avoiding unnecessary dependencies and builds. |
| Cons | Complex Cross-Service Dependency Management: Dependencies across microservices may require more coordination and management, increasing management costs. Version Control Complexity: Managing multiple repositories can increase the complexity of version control and coordination. Difficulty Ensuring Consistency: Different repositories may use different versions of shared libraries, potentially leading to version inconsistency issues. |
| Applicable Scenarios | Suitable for large, complex systems, allowing each service to evolve independently, and suitable for large organizations with multiple independent teams. |
Summary and Selection
| Feature | Monolithic App Repo | Microservices Monorepo | Microservices Multi-repo |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coupling | High | Medium | Low |
| Management Complexity | Low | Medium | High |
| Code Sharing | Easy | Easy | Difficult |
| Permissions Control | Simple | Complex | Simple |
| CI/CD | Unified | Unified | Decentralized |
The choice of which code repository model to use depends on the specific circumstances of the project.
Influencing Factors
- Project Scale: The larger the project, the more suitable the multi-repo model.
- Team Size: The larger the team, the more suitable the multi-repo model, facilitating division of labor and collaboration.
- Technology Stack: Different technology stacks also influence the choice of repository model.
- Organizational Structure: The organizational structure also affects the choice of repository model.
Recommendations
- In the early stages, a single repository mode can be adopted, gradually transitioning to a multi-repo mode as the project develops.
- Choose the appropriate repository mode based on the team's actual situation and the project's characteristics.
- For large projects, a hybrid mode can be adopted, i.e., some microservices use a single repository, and some microservices use multiple repositories.
Relationship between Services Created by Sponge and Repository Types
Sponge supports creating multiple types of services. When creating a service, you can choose the code repository type. The services created by default are suitable for the Microservices Multi-repo type. If you select the "Large Repository" type, it means the created service is suitable for the Microservices Monorepo type.
The correspondence between the services created by sponge and the repository types is as follows:
| Server Type | Supported Repository Types |
|---|---|
| Create web server based on SQL | Monolithic App Single Repo |
| Create gRPC server based on sql | Microservices Multi-repo, Microservices Monorepo |
| Create gRPC+HTTP servers based on sql | Microservices Multi-repo, Microservices Monorepo |
| Create web server based on Protobuf | Monolithic App Single Repo, Microservices Multi-repo, Microservices Monorepo |
| Create gRPC server based on Protobuf | Microservices Multi-repo, Microservices Monorepo |
| Create gRPC+HTTP servers based on protobuf | Microservices Multi-repo, Microservices Monorepo |
| Create gRPC gateway server based on Protobuf | Microservices Multi-repo, Microservices Monorepo |
The service code directory structure created by sponge is largely consistent. Using the Single Application Single Repository mode in the early stages, it becomes very easy to split the services from the Single Application Single Repository mode into microservices as the project develops later. This is one of the advantages of using sponge.