To be blunt, its news to a lot of people, but it also isn't wrong. Microservices really shouldn't share a database, and if they do then they aren't "microservices".
(a) a prototype
(b) a set of applications that share a database.
You would have to have an oddly disconnected schema if modifications to the program don't result in programs accessing parts of the database that other programs are already accessing. If this isn't a problem it means you're using your database as nature intended and letting it provide a language-neutral, shared repository with transactional and consistency guarantees.
so maybe not microservices, but fine nonetheless.
EDIT: two more comments:
- this is exactly what relational databases were designed for. If people can't do this with their micro-services, maybe their choice of database is the issue.
- "micro-service" as the original post suggests, is not synonymous with good. "monolith" is only synonymous with bad because it got run-over by the hype-train. If you have something that works well, be happy. Most people don't.
I think you are exactly right. Microservice architectures are definitely not automatically good, and there is nothing wrong with a well architected "monolith".
