When Twill's 'Modular Architecture' Became a House of Cards
The Lego Block Dream
Twill's modular architecture was exactly what we'd been waiting for. Instead of building monolithic, inflexible CMSs, we could create elegant, composable systems where each module handled one thing well.
Our client was launching an ambitious digital platform—part e-commerce store, part editorial publication, part community forum, part event management system. Perfect for showcasing Twill's modular approach.
"We'll build this like a modern application," I explained to the team. "Clean separation of concerns, reusable components, pluggable modules that can be mixed and matched as needed."
The module list was impressive:
Articles Module: Editorial content management
Products Module: E-commerce catalog and inventory
Events Module: Calendar and ticket management
Users Module: Community profiles and authentication
Media Module: Asset management and galleries
Reviews Module: User-generated content and ratings
Newsletter Module: Email campaigns and subscriber management
Analytics Module: Custom reporting and metrics
Comments Module: Threaded discussions
Tags Module: Cross-content taxonomy
Search Module: Full-text search across all content types
Notifications Module: Real-time alerts and messaging
Each module was beautifully self-contained. Clean APIs, well-defined boundaries, minimal coupling. During development, we could work on different modules simultaneously without stepping on each other's toes.
"This is how CMSs should be built," I told the client during our architecture presentation. "Modular, scalable, maintainable. You want to add a new content type? Just plug in another module. Need to remove functionality? Unplug the module. It's that simple."
The demo was flawless. We enabled and disabled modules in real-time, showing how the system gracefully adapted to different configurations.
The First Cracks
Two weeks after launch, the client requested what seemed like a simple change: "Can we show related articles at the bottom of product pages?"
Easy enough. The Products Module would just query the Articles Module for content with matching tags. I added the integration and deployed.
The feature worked perfectly—until someone deleted a tag that was being referenced by both articles and products. The product page threw a 500 error because the Articles Module's tag relationship was broken, but the Products Module had no way to know that.
"Quick fix," I thought, and added some error handling. Products would gracefully handle missing tags from the Articles Module.
But then the client wanted product reviews to show up in the site-wide search results. So the Search Module needed to understand the Reviews Module's data structure. And reviews needed to link to user profiles, so the Reviews Module needed to integrate with the Users Module.
Each integration felt reasonable in isolation. But the dependency web was growing.
The Integration Cascade
Within six months, our beautifully modular system had become a tangled mess of interdependencies:
The Articles Module needed:
Tags Module (for categorization)
Users Module (for author attribution)
Media Module (for featured images)
Comments Module (for reader engagement)
Analytics Module (for view tracking)
Newsletter Module (for article promotion)
Search Module (for content discoverability)
The Products Module needed:
Tags Module (for product categorization)
Media Module (for product images)
Reviews Module (for customer feedback)
Users Module (for purchase attribution)
Analytics Module (for sales tracking)
Search Module (for product discovery)
Events Module (for product launches)
The Events Module needed:
Users Module (for attendee management)
Products Module (for ticket sales)
Media Module (for event photos)
Newsletter Module (for event promotion)
Analytics Module (for attendance tracking)
Notifications Module (for event reminders)
Every module was connected to every other module. We'd built a distributed monolith disguised as a modular system.
The Cascade Failure
The house of cards collapsed during a routine maintenance update.
I was upgrading the Tags Module to add hierarchical taxonomy support. The change seemed contained—just extending the tag data model and adding some new API endpoints. I tested the Tags Module in isolation, and everything worked perfectly.
But when I deployed to production, the entire site went down.
The cascade failure was spectacular:
Tags Module upgrade changed the tag data structure
Articles Module couldn't parse the new tag format and started throwing exceptions
Products Module couldn't load because it shared tag relationships with Articles
Search Module crashed because it was indexing both articles and products
Reviews Module failed because it linked to products that couldn't load
Users Module errored because it displayed user reviews that were now broken
Analytics Module couldn't track anything because all the tracked content was failing
Notifications Module started sending error alerts for every failed page load
A single module update had brought down the entire platform.
The Debugging Nightmare
The worst part wasn't the outage—it was trying to understand what had broken and why.
In a traditional monolithic application, you can trace through the code and see exactly how components interact. But in our modular system, the interactions were spread across multiple modules, each with their own APIs, data models, and integration points.
The Mystery of the Phantom Dependencies: We discovered modules were depending on other modules in ways that weren't documented anywhere. The Reviews Module had somehow become dependent on the Newsletter Module because someone had added a "subscribe to review notifications" feature six months earlier.
The API Version Hell: Different modules were calling different versions of each other's APIs. The Search Module was still using the old Tags API format, while the Articles Module had upgraded to the new format. There was no central API versioning strategy.
The Database Schema Maze: Each module managed its own database tables, but they were all interconnected through foreign keys and shared data structures. A schema change in one module could break three others in subtle ways that didn't surface until specific combinations of data were accessed.
The Configuration Nightmare: Module settings were scattered across multiple configuration files, environment variables, and database settings. Understanding how the system was configured required knowledge of all modules simultaneously.
The Performance Domino Effect
Once we got the system stable again, we discovered a new problem: performance had degraded catastrophically.
Our modular architecture meant that loading a single page often required API calls across multiple modules:
Article page: Query Articles Module, then Tags Module for categories, then Users Module for author info, then Media Module for images, then Comments Module for discussion, then Analytics Module to log the view
Product page: Query Products Module, then Reviews Module for ratings, then Users Module for reviewer info, then Events Module for launch dates, then Media Module for product gallery, then Tags Module for categories
What should have been single database queries had become complex, multi-step API orchestrations. A simple product page was making 15+ internal API calls across 8 different modules.
We'd optimized each module individually, but we'd never optimized the system as a whole.
The Maintenance Multiplication
The modular approach had promised easier maintenance. Instead, it created maintenance multiplication.
Every security update needed to be tested across all module combinations. A bug fix in one module required regression testing of every module that integrated with it. Deploying a single feature often meant coordinating changes across multiple modules.
The Update Matrix Problem: We had 12 modules, each with their own release schedule. Testing every combination of module versions was mathematically impossible. We never knew which combinations were safe to deploy together.
The Knowledge Silos: Different team members had become experts in different modules, but nobody understood the whole system anymore. Debugging cross-module issues required assembling a committee of specialists.
The Documentation Explosion: Each module had its own documentation, API specs, and integration guides. New developers needed to understand not just individual modules, but dozens of integration patterns between them.
The Simplification Solution
We rebuilt the system around domain boundaries instead of technical boundaries:
Content Domain: Articles, media, tags, and search unified into a single module
Commerce Domain: Products, reviews, and analytics combined into one cohesive system
Community Domain: Users, comments, and notifications integrated together
Events Domain: Calendar, tickets, and promotions as a single unit
Instead of 12 loosely coupled modules, we had 4 tightly cohesive domains. Each domain could still be developed and deployed independently, but the internal complexity was contained.
The result:
90% fewer API calls between system components
Single database transactions instead of distributed operations
Domain experts instead of module specialists
Integrated testing within each domain boundary
Coherent documentation organized around business functions
What We Actually Learned
1. Modularity Isn't Free
Every module boundary creates integration complexity. The cost of coordination often exceeds the benefits of separation.
2. Domain Boundaries Beat Technical Boundaries
Modules should be organized around business domains, not technical capabilities. "Users who buy products and write reviews" is one domain, not three separate modules.
3. Dependencies Are Technical Debt
Every inter-module dependency is a maintenance burden. Minimizing dependencies is more important than maximizing modularity.
4. Integration Complexity Is Exponential
The complexity of a modular system grows exponentially with the number of modules. 12 modules aren't just twice as complex as 6 modules—they're exponentially more complex.
The Real Architecture
The best modular architecture isn't the one with the most modules. It's the one with the fewest necessary boundaries, placed in the right locations.
Twill's modular capabilities are genuinely powerful, but power requires restraint. The question isn't "can we separate this into its own module?" but "should we?"
Sometimes the most elegant architecture is the one that keeps related things together, even if they could technically be separated.
Have you built modular systems that became too modular for their own good? Share your stories of beautiful architectures that collapsed under the weight of their own complexity.
Made with Twill | twillcms.com