Future CMS for e-Business: Will Microservices and Containerization

Change the Game?

Carina Landerer and Philipp Brune

Neu-Ulm University of Applied Sciences, Wileystraße 1, Neu-Ulm, Germany

Keywords: Web Services, Microservices, e-Commerce, CMS, Node.js, Docker.

Abstract:

Content Management Systems (CMS) are widely adopted commodity applications today. Well-established

implementations exist since many years, both commercial and Open Source, e.g. WordPress or Drupal. In

consequence, research on CMS has strongly declined since its peak more than a decade ago. However, in

recent years new trends for building and running large-scale web applications emerged, such as Node.js,

microservice architectures and containerization, while most established CMS still use a traditional monolithic

architecture. This rises the question how these emerging new technologies will challenge those established

CMS implementations. Therefore, in this paper a microservice architecture for an exampliﬁed e-business CMS

is proposed, and a Proof-of-Concept implementation is described. The approach is evaluated with respect to

its feasibility using a qualitative empirical study. Results indicate that the approach is well-suited for building

more state-of-the-art CMS in the near future, which are likely to challenge the position of the traditional

monolithic implementations.

1 INTRODUCTION

According to Gartner, it took 20 years for Content

Management System (CMS) market to become the

“over-night-success” it now is (Gartner, 2017). But

from the beginning in the late 1990s, it was expected

to be very promising. Therefore, a lot of research con-

cerning (Web) CMS (WCMS) was published during

that time (McKeever, 2003; Vidgen et al., 2001). E.g.,

core functionalities such as storing content separately

from its formatting and presentation attracted a lot of

interest (van de Weerd et al., 2006; Fernandez et al.,

1998).

However, since (W)CMS became a commodity

and well-established implementations such as Word-

Press

or Drupal

exist for more than a decade

now, research activities declined and new publica-

tions on CMS-related topics became scarce, with one

of the few exceptions being studies comparing well-

established CMS against each other (Martinez-Caro

et al., 2018; Mirdha et al., 2014).

On the other hand, in recent years new con-

cepts and technologies for building and running large-

scale web applications emerged, such as server-side

https://wordpress.org

https://www.drupal.org

JavaScript using Node.js

, microservice architectures

and containerization, e.g. using Docker

. Despite

this, most established CMS such as Wordpress or

Drupal still use a traditional monolithic architecture,

mostly extendable by plugins. The impact of these

new technologies on the further evolution of CMS has

not been addressed in the literature so far.

Therefore, in this paper a microservice architec-

ture for an example e-business CMS is proposed, and

a respective Proof-of-Concept implementation is de-

scribed. The approach is evaluated with respect to its

feasibility using a qualitative empirical study.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows: In

section 2 the related work is reviewed in detail and

the respective research gap is derived. Section 3 illus-

trates the proposed software architecture and section 4

its Proof-of-Concept implementation. The qualitative

empirical evaluation of its feasibility and the obtained

results are discussed in sections 5 and 6, respectively.

We conclude with a summary of our ﬁndings.

https://nodejs.org/en/

https://www.docker.com

210

Landerer, C. and Brune, P.

Future CMS for e-Business: Will Microservices and Containerization Change the Game?.

DOI: 10.5220/0008065002100217

In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies (WEBIST 2019), pages 210-217

ISBN: 978-989-758-386-5

2 RELATED WORK

There are few publications about the general impact

of e-commerce applications on enterprises. Most of

them are from the time when e-commerce was still

in its childhood (Wu et al., 2003; Sanders, 2007),

but few more recent studies exist on the impact of

e-commerce applications in more speciﬁc domains

(Benitez et al., 2017a; Benitez et al., 2017b). Pri-

vacy, trust and e-business adoption have also widely

been studied (McKnight and Chervany, 2001; Ni-

lashi et al., 2015), as they play a crucial role for e-

commerce success. The same holds true for security

of e-commerce applications (Kraft and Kakar, 2009;

Niranjanamurthy and Chahar, 2013).

However, most research on e-commerce applica-

tions deals with the possibilities of value-creation in

such systems, starting already at the beginning of the

e-business era in the very early years of this century

(Amit and Zott, 2001) until today (Shea et al., 2017).

Regarding web service and web application de-

velopment in general, Service-oriented Architectures

(SOA) have been discussed as a major archtectural

paradigm for some time (Erl, 2005; Papazoglou,

2003; Al-Rawahi and Baghdadi, 2005). More re-

cently, it evolved into the state-of-the-art approach

of “Microservice Architectures”, which are currenly

frequently discussed in the literature (He and Yang,

2017; Messina et al., 2016; Khazaei et al., 2016), in-

cluding their relation to SOA (Pautasso et al., 2017;

Xiao et al., 2016). Speciﬁc topics such as perfor-

mance and scalability of microservices compared to

monolthic architectures (Villamizar et al., 2015) or

the mapping of architectural challenges to microser-

vice architectures (Alshuqayran et al., 2016; Pahl and

Jamshidi, 2016) have been investigated as well.

Containerization is another architecture design

pattern that is closely related to deploying microser-

vices in the cloud. Containerization technologies like

Docker

offer a high level of agility in “develop-

ing and running applications in cloud environment”

(Kang et al., 2016), which has been discussed by var-

ious authors (Jaramillo et al., 2016; Kratzke, 2017).

With respect to the languages and platforms for

implementing CMS and e-commerce applications,

PHP

is still the dominating server-side programming

language, with a total share of 82% in 2017

. There-

fore, since its release in 1995, the development of

web applications using PHP has been comprehen-

sively studied (Cholakov, 2008; Cui et al., 2009).

https://www.docker.com/

http://php.net

https://w3techs.com/technologies/history overview/

programming language

Since there are many more server-side programming

languages, multiple studies exist comparing web de-

velopment technologies. As PHP is still the predom-

inating language in this area, most of these studies

include PHP as one benchmark language (Suzumura

et al., 2008; Trent et al., 2008; Purer, 2009).

For the development of the web frontends of

CMS and other applications, Angular and React.js

are the two most popular technologies at the moment

(Shahzad, 2017; Aggarwal, 2018).

Angular is the strongly redesigned successor to

the well-known JavaScript framework Angular.js.

There is plenty of literature about Angular.js, the pre-

cursor of Angular (Jain et al., 2015; Jadhav et al.,

2015). However, while Angular is rather different

from its predecissor, studies about the use of the new

Angular framework since version 2+ are scarce.

On the other hand, in recent years also server-

side development using JavaScript with Node.js is

becoming increasingly popular (Tilkov and Vinoski,

2010; Bermudez-Ortega et al., 2015; Madsen et al.,

2015; Chaniotis et al., 2015; Lei et al., 2014). Com-

paring Node.js to PHP, according to some studies

Node.js provides better performance and scalability

due to its event-driven architecture and Javascript’s

asynchronous request-handling (McCune, 2011).

In contrast, a big advantage of PHP is its broad

support by powerful frameworks and its use by pop-

ular CMS. Most of the currently used and predomi-

nating CMS like Wordpress or Drupal as well as most

of their plugins are written in PHP. Therefore, there

are some studies about correlations between the lan-

guage and the CMS functionalities or issues (Eshke-

vari et al., 2014; Koskinen et al., 2012). Overall,

a large body of literature about PHP and CMS ex-

ists, while literature about CMS in combination with

Node.js is rather scarce.

In addition, the software architecture of the tra-

ditional PHP-based CMS systems like WordPress or

Drupal is rather monolithic. Nearly no research exists

so far on using microservice architectures for CMS

development. Only one paper addresses the imple-

mentation of a collaborative rich text editor, which

is most closely to the functions provided by a CMS

(Gadea et al., 2016a).

On the other hand, there is a close connection be-

tween Node.js and microservice architectures. Most

applications based on microservice architectures use

at least one component that is running on Node.js on

the server-side (Gadea et al., 2016b).

In the last years, CMS more and more became

a commodity and not much has been added to the

body of knowledge on CMS anymore, neither in re-

search nor in practice. However, the described emerg-

Future CMS for e-Business: Will Microservices and Containerization Change the Game?

211

ing technologies for building and running large-scale

web applications, such as server-side JavaScript us-

ing Node.js, microservices and containerization, now

suggest to review and re-think the implementation of

CMS as well.

The dominating CMS implementations such as

WordPress or Drupal currently still exhibit a mono-

lithic software architecture, mostly extendable by plu-

gins. This bears the permanent risk of version con-

ﬂicts during updates due to compatibility problems,

in particular if custom plugins are used. Using a

microservice architecture for CMS presumable could

help to overcome these problems, but has never been

studied so far in the literature.

A special case of a CMS is one that is used

for building e-business applications, which not only

needs to serve static content or interactive compo-

nents, but also has to provide the secure handling of

the online shopping process.

Therefore, in this paper the question is addressed,

how a prototypical microservice architecture for an

e-business CMS could be designed and implemented

using different modern web technologies, particularly

for those functionalities where they might offer a spe-

ciﬁc advantage.

3 DESIGN OF THE SOFTWARE

ARCHITECTURE

The functionalities of a prototypical e-business CMS

could be grouped according to the three typical user

groups: the administrator, the registered user and the

website visitor.

The administrator should be able to change con-

tent on the system and furthermore manage the ac-

cess control of other user groups. The website visitor

should only see the actual website of the online shop

where he can look around and search for products.

Website visitors should have the possibility to regis-

ter on its own and thereby becoming a registered user.

Registered users can place orders and save personal

data like delivery addresses after they are logged in.

Since the administrator should be able to change

content on the website, there is the need of a separated

area containing a dashboard, where only users with

administrator rights can access and change data. In

context of CMS, this area including the dashboard is

called the backend of the CMS. Those main adminis-

tration functions are: Manage offered products, man-

age users, manage additional static content sites and

manage basic site settings.

Since the CMS is basically developed to create an

e-business application, it should contain the typical

important shop components by default. Thus, after

articles are created by the administrator, customer(s)

should instantly be able to order products in the online

shop. This includes the process of searching, choos-

ing and ﬁnally ordering a product. For this processes,

the following components are obligatorily required: a

product listing page, an article details page and a bas-

ket component.

In an online shop, there are always problems that

can arise during the ordering process. Therefore, a

customer support is needed to provide customers the

possibility of directly asking questions to responsible

staff members. In the application proposed in this pa-

per, the customer support is implemented by a live

chat in which registered users and website visitors can

always request help. Therefore, a separated compo-

nent in the admin area is needed, where staff mem-

bers that have administrator rights can handle those

requests.

To address these requirements, a microservice-

based software architecture for the e-business CMS

was designed, illustrated in ﬁgure 1.

On top of the application, a central Angular-based

web frontend integrates the different microservices.

All requests are made towards the Nginx reverse

proxy server that distributes the request to the corre-

sponding microservices.

Each microservice has its own, independent data

store, which could be a NoSQL database, relational

database, REST endpoint, SOAP endpoint, a web-

socket server or a combination of any or all of these

data sources. All services provide a single endpoint

API which handles all external communication from

the client side as well as from other microservices.

This encapsulation allows to choose different

technologies like databases or program languages for

each microservice. To verify this, different technolo-

gies were used for the services of the prototype. Mi-

croservices or their components each run in individual

Docker containers, e.g. allowing for an easy scale-out

in production environments.

4 PROOF-OF-CONCEPT

IMPLEMENTATION

To evaluate the proposed architecture, a prototype

CMS application was implemented using the compo-

nents described in the following.

4.1 Angular Frontend

Based on the analysis of different frontend technolo-

gies, Angular was selected as it seemed best suited

WEBIST 2019 - 15th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies

212

Figure 1: Proposed prototypical microservice architecture for an e-business CMS. Its different functionalities (page adminis-

tration, article administration, authentication, etc.) are implemented as microservices made up of multiple Docker containers.

The respective port mappings for Docker are shown for each container.

for the special case, as CMS require a high level of

modularity. On the other hand, the user interface (UI)

does not have to offer especially complex user inter-

actions as customers are used to simple handlings in

online shops and decline high complexity. Moreover,

for special cases of online shops with large level of

individual user interactions, typically a custom appli-

cation is implemented instead of a CMS.

For routing between the pages of the application,

the Angular Router is used

. As in CMS, it is highly

important to clearly restrict accessibility, there is a

need of inhibiting access of unauthorized users. This

is realized through the possibility of Angular Router

to create a guard class that can check if a route should

be activated depending on a speciﬁc condition.

For this authorization, a token is stored in the

cookies of the browser and every time authorization

is needed, the token is sent to the authentication ser-

vice to approve the authority of the user. If the ad-

min authorization is valid, the dashboard components

are loaded and the user can enter the admin area for

changing content and adding data.

4.2 Article Microservice

The ﬁrst microservice implemented was the article

microservice. According to the previous analysis pre-

sented in section 2, Node.js was chosen for the server-

side scripting language as passing article objects to

the angular frontend leads to a low amount of pars-

ing problems if both client and server-side are written

in the same language. This is especially important as

passed data can vary a lot depending on user’s settings

for one article type.

https://angular.io/tutorial/toh-pt5

In this service, the database is cloud-hosted by a

platform-as-a-service provider which fully manages

MongoDB instances in the cloud. Cloud hosting was

chosen for reasons of scalability as different web-

shops can use a completely different number of prod-

ucts that are offered.

4.3 Order Microservice

For the order microservice, another software stack

was used with technologies close to the well-

established LAMP stack. Here, only the Apache web-

server was replaced by the lightweight nginx. Ng-

inx however has turned out to be the faster and more

lightweight choice while the setup for an nginx server

is a little harder, if there are any adaptions to be made.

In the provided example, the image could be used un-

modiﬁed directly from a Docker image.

The main reason for choosing a relational

database was the decision to use a PHP framework

which is aligned to SQL databases. The selected

framework, Lumen, is a fast and lightweight micro-

framework that is built on components of the popular

PHP framework Laravel.

For creating an order, the user must be registered

and logged in. The token sent to the user after login is

passed to the order controller for checking the identity

of the user again on the server side.

4.4 Authentication Microservice

Authentication is a main requirement in the context of

a CMS, as different user roles contain different access

rights.

In an environment of microservices, it is implicitly

necessary to provide an authentication method that

Future CMS for e-Business: Will Microservices and Containerization Change the Game?

213

guarantees user authentication in every independent

service as it is not possible to store the user data on

the backend side and request it while needed.

For secure requesting and passing data belonging

to a speciﬁc user over an API, typically token-based

authentication is used. This kind of authentication

method allows third-party applications and other ser-

vices to access user-speciﬁc data with minimum risk

of security breaches. Therefore, an Authentication

Service was needed for generating, returning and val-

idating those tokens after user login.

For the authentication service, a solution from

DockerHub was selected, which provided a ready-to-

run microservice that fully implemented token-based

authentication. It consists of three different docker

containers that constitute a stack consisting of a ng-

inx server, a Node.js backend and a Mongo database.

4.5 Additional Services vs. Plugins

In a common CMS architecture, additional function-

alities are accomplished by adding plugins to the

monolith. They run quite independent from the core

system as communication also works over predeﬁned

APIs, but they are still closer connected to the core

system then microservices. Plugins can not be run

or deployed independently, there is a need of a main

CMS instance handling the processes.

In contrast, for adding features in a microser-

vice architecture environment, microservices would

be added instead of plugins, which run independently

and can be changed or substituted at any time. This

reduces compatibility problems as it decreases the

risk of version intolerance if a the system is updated.

5 EVALUATION

To analyze the feasibility of the proposed approach,

a qualitative empirical study was performed. The

purpose of this study was twofold: First to evaluate

the CMS functionality of the prototype from a user’s

perspective, and second to evaluate the underlying

microservice-based software architecture. A conve-

nience sample of seven persons was selected for the

study, as listed in table 1. According to their re-

spective skills, interviewees 1 to 5 were selected to

evaluate the actual CMS functionality, and intervie-

wees 6 and 7 as experts to evaluate the software archi-

tecture.All interviews were audio-recorded for subse-

quent analysis.

To evaluate the CMS functionality, interviewees

1 to 5 were asked to ﬁrst perform some given tasks

Table 1: Interviewees for the qualitative evaluation.

Interviewee 1 no precognitions with CMS,

Student

Interviewee 2 experienced with CMS,

Student

Interviewee 3 experienced with CMS,

working in a marketing

department

Interviewee 4 some precognitions in CMS,

Student

Interviewee 5 some precognitions in CMS,

Student

Interviewee 6 Head of software development

in a smaller company

Interviewee 7 Software developer

for some years

within the prototype and afterwards answer some

questions about their experiences.

A test case was handed out to the participants, in

which they were asked to create a fully-implemented

online shop using the prototype CMS and afterwards

using it from the customers’ point of view. The pur-

pose of this test was not to evaluate the user experi-

ence design, but the mere feasibility to perform the

task using the given systems with its microservice ar-

chitecture. The participants were observed and asked

to “think aloud” during performing the tasks, which

was audio-recorded for analysis.

For evaluating the software architecture of the pro-

vided prototype, two qualitative interviews were con-

ducted with two experts with long-term experience in

the ﬁeld of software development and architecture (in-

terviewees 6 and 7).

6 RESULTS

6.1 Evaluation of the CMS

Functionality

First, the test persons were asked to enter the adminis-

trative area with the provided admin login credentials

and customize the site towards the provided compa-

nies’ details, including a modiﬁcation of the design

and the site name. No obvious problems occurred dur-

ing this task, and every user directly navigated to the

settings section, where they could change both.

The second step was to create a static content page

that provides additional contact details of the com-

pany. Users seemed to be positively surprised from

the possibility of supervising the entered details di-

rectly and in real-time in a section next to the cre-

WEBIST 2019 - 15th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies

214

ation area. In the subsequent interview, some of the

test persons mentioned this feature as especially use-

ful (Interviewee 1: “It was really useful, that there

was a preview of my content site directly while en-

tering the data”, Interviewee 4: “It is quite simple to

create an additional content page if you have a direct

preview”).

The next task was to create a new article for the

online shop employing article details that were pro-

vided in the task sheet. There were no problems that

occurred during this process , the workﬂow was even

mentioned as a positive feature of the CMS (Intervie-

wee 4: “Creating articles was very intuitive and easy”,

Interviewee 2: “Creating articles was easy and self-

explanatory.”, Interviewee 1: “There was no problem

creating articles, except the fact that it should be ex-

plained that there is no need of adding units to the

price”).

There was a moment of irritation during every test.

Participants did not realize if the article was already

saved as they did not receive a conﬁrmation message

(Interviewee 5: “It was not clear if the article is al-

ready saved”, Interviewee 1: “It was not possible to

see if the content of the article is saved”, Interviewee

4: “Sometimes I didn’t recognize if the content was

already saved”). This issue is also easily avoidable

and even quite easy to implement within the proto-

type.

The last task was to register as a new customer and

customer’s point-of view by ordering an article. No

issues occured during this process.

6.2 Evaluation of the Software

Architecture

First, the architecture of the prototype was presented

and the experts were asked to describe the differences

from a common CMS like Wordpress. One expert

claimed, that microservice architecture is already self-

explanatory. Hence, “the modularity is much higher

than in common CMS like Wordpress. The code is

more independent and therefore it is structured clearer

than in a common system because many components

are stuck together to one system” (Interviewee 6).

The ﬁrst important positive characteristic men-

tioned is modularity and scalability. There is the big

advantage of easily “substituting or replacing parts of

the system” (Interviewee 6). Also, the opportunity is

mentioned that it is possible to complementary deploy

a second service, which adds further functionalities to

the ﬁrst one “without the need of rewriting a broad

part of the code” (Interviewee 7).

Another advantage noted is the opportunity of bet-

ter load distribution. In an architecture that is based

on a monolith, the whole application must be on one

single physical server while it is easily possible to

spread the services of a microservice to more physical

servers and therefore reach a better load balance (In-

terviewee 7). The possibility “of putting the services

to the cloud” (Interviewee 6) is also highly rated, de-

spite issues of security mentioned at this point as well

as possible latency problems.

If the microservice architecture affects the secu-

rity of an application, depends in general on the setup

of the services and the application. “If they are still

running on one physical server and all microservices

and data are called internally, there is no need of fur-

ther encryptions than in common systems” (Intervie-

wee 6).

If using different technologies and platforms in

different microservices is useful, will depend on the

companies and applications size and hard to evaluate.

The advantage of programming all code in the same

language is staff ﬂexibility as team members can “eas-

ily switch between the single services or teams and

directly get along with the structure and the code” (In-

terviewee 7).

On the other hand, switching between technolo-

gies sometimes can be “a requirement because tech-

nologies are too slow or make things extremely com-

plicated at one part of the code” (Interviewee 6). In

this case, the big advantage is that microservices pro-

vide the possibility of switching to a new technol-

ogy without changing all the rest of the code. In this

case, using different technologies highly affects per-

formance in a positive way (Interviewee 6).

The question if microservices would affect the

daily workﬂow in a department was clearly con-

ﬁrmed. “It is possible to build teams for every

microservice and independently chose technologies

within this unit.” (Interviewee 7).

It was also mentioned, that in a big project code

“is getting complex very fast” (Interviewee 6). In this

context, the advantage for new staff members is seen

of getting along faster in those “smaller code parts

than in a big monolith” (Interviewee 6).

In context of CMS, scalability is a very important

topic as extending existing functions adds customized

additional functionalities to the system. This depends

on the size and the kind of application that is embed-

ded. Using microservices brings a “little more over-

head in implementation in the beginning as it needs to

be decided about the setup of the API and error han-

dling” (Interviewee 6).

On the other hand, one expert claims that this

overhead in contrast is “making the code clearer and

cleaner” (Interviewee 7). Programming towards an

Future CMS for e-Business: Will Microservices and Containerization Change the Game?

215

API is much cleaner than “getting into additional

dependencies with plugins that are using the same

databases or services” (Interviewee 7).

All test persons agreed on an overall positive ex-

perience of creating an online shop with the provided

CMS.

7 CONCLUSION

In conclusion, in this paper a microservice archi-

tecture for a CMS for e-business applications was

proposed and evaluated. Starting from typical re-

quirements for e-business-applications, the architec-

ture was designed and implemented by Proof-of-

Concept implementation using state-of-the-art tech-

nologies like Node.js, Angular and Docker. This pro-

totype then was evaluated by means of a qualitative

empirical study.

The results indicate that a microservice-based ar-

chitecture could be beneﬁcial for e-business CMS as

well, allowing to build better maintainable applica-

tions without exhibiting any drawbacks with respect

to functionality.

Further research is needed to extend the prototype

to a full-ﬂedged CMS application and evaluate it in

more comprehensive lab and ﬁeld tests.

REFERENCES

Aggarwal, S. (2018). Modern web-development using re-

actjs.

Al-Rawahi, N. and Baghdadi, Y. (2005). Approaches to

identify and develop web services as instance of soa

architecture. In Services Systems and Services Man-

agement, 2005. Proceedings of ICSSSM’05. 2005 In-

ternational Conference on, volume 1, pages 579–584.

IEEE.

Alshuqayran, N., Ali, N., and Evans, R. (2016). A

systematic mapping study in microservice architec-

ture. In Service-Oriented Computing and Applications

(SOCA), 2016 IEEE 9th International Conference on,

pages 44–51. IEEE.

Amit, R. and Zott, C. (2001). Value creation in e-business.

Strategic management journal, 22(6-7):493–520.

Benitez, J., Chen, Y., Teo, T. S., and Ajamieh, A. (2017a).

Evolution of the impact of e-business technology

on operational competence and ﬁrm proﬁtability: A

panel data investigation. Information & Management.

Benitez, J., Chen, Y., Teo, T. S., and Ajamieh, A. (2017b).

Impact of e-business technology on operational com-

petence and ﬁrm proﬁtability over time.

Bermudez-Ortega, J., Besada-Portas, E., L

opez-Orozco, J.,

Bonache-Seco, J., and De la Cruz, J. (2015). Re-

mote web-based control laboratory for mobile de-

vices based on ejss, raspberry pi and node. js. IFAC-

PapersOnLine, 48(29):158–163.

Chaniotis, I. K., Kyriakou, K.-I. D., and Tselikas, N. D.

(2015). Is node. js a viable option for building mod-

ern web applications? a performance evaluation study.

Computing, 97(10):1023–1044.

Cholakov, N. (2008). On some drawbacks of the php plat-

form. In Proceedings of the 9th international confer-

ence on computer systems and technologies and work-

shop for phd students in computing, page 12. ACM.

Cui, W., Huang, L., Liang, L., and Li, J. (2009). The re-

search of php development framework based on mvc

pattern. In 2009 Fourth International Conference

on Computer Sciences and Convergence Information

Technology, pages 947–949. IEEE.

Erl, T. (2005). Service-Oriented Architecture: Concepts,

Technology, And Design. Pearson Education India.

Eshkevari, L., Antoniol, G., Cordy, J. R., and Di Penta, M.

(2014). Identifying and locating interference issues in

php applications: the case of wordpress. In Proceed-

ings of the 22nd International Conference on Program

Comprehension, pages 157–167. ACM.

Fernandez, M., Florescu, D., Kang, J., Levy, A., and Suciu,

D. (1998). Catching the boat with strudel: Experi-

ences with a web-site management system. In ACM

SIGMOD Record, volume 27, pages 414–425. ACM.

Gadea, C., Trifan, M., Ionescu, D., Cordea, M., and

Ionescu, B. (2016a). A microservices architecture

for collaborative document editing enhanced with face

recognition. In Applied Computational Intelligence

and Informatics (SACI), 2016 IEEE 11th International

Symposium on, pages 441–446. IEEE.

Gadea, C., Trifan, M., Ionescu, D., and Ionescu, B. (2016b).

A reference architecture for real-time microservice api

consumption. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop

on CrossCloud Infrastructures & Platforms, page 2.

ACM.

Gartner (2017). Magic quadrant for web content manage-

ment. Report, Gartner.

He, X. and Yang, X. (2017). Authentication and authoriza-

tion of end user in microservice architecture. In Jour-

nal of Physics: Conference Series, volume 910, page

012060. IOP Publishing.

Jadhav, M. A., Sawant, B. R., and Deshmukh, A. (2015).

Single page application using angularjs. International

Journal of Computer Science and Information Tech-

nologies, 6(3):2876–2879.

Jain, N., Bhansali, A., and Mehta, D. (2015). Angularjs:

A modern mvc framework in javascript. Journal of

Global Research in Computer Science, 5(12):17–23.

Jaramillo, D., Nguyen, D. V., and Smart, R. (2016). Lever-

aging microservices architecture by using docker

technology. In SoutheastCon, 2016, pages 1–5. IEEE.

Kang, H., Le, M., and Tao, S. (2016). Container and mi-

croservice driven design for cloud infrastructure de-

vops. In Cloud Engineering (IC2E), 2016 IEEE Inter-

national Conference on, pages 202–211. IEEE.

Khazaei, H., Barna, C., Beigi-Mohammadi, N., and Litoiu,

M. (2016). Efﬁciency analysis of provisioning mi-

croservices. In 2016 IEEE International Conference

WEBIST 2019 - 15th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies

216

on Cloud Computing Technology and Science (Cloud-

Com), pages 261–268. IEEE.

Koskinen, T., Ihantola, P., and Karavirta, V. (2012). Qual-

ity of wordpress plug-ins: an overview of security and

user ratings. In Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust (PAS-

SAT), 2012 International Conference on and 2012 In-

ternational Confernece on Social Computing (Social-

Com), pages 834–837. IEEE.

Kraft, T. A. and Kakar, R. (2009). E-commerce security.

In Proceedings of the Conference on Information Sys-

tems Applied Research, Washington DC, USA.

Kratzke, N. (2017). About microservices, containers and

their underestimated impact on network performance.

arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.04049.

Lei, K., Ma, Y., and Tan, Z. (2014). Performance com-

parison and evaluation of web development technolo-

gies in php, python, and node. js. In 2014 IEEE 17th

International Conference on Computational Science

and Engineering (CSE), pages 661–668. IEEE.

Madsen, M., Tip, F., and Lhot

ak, O. (2015). Static analy-

sis of event-driven node. js javascript applications. In

ACM SIGPLAN Notices, volume 50, pages 505–519.

ACM.

Martinez-Caro, J.-M., Aledo-Hernandez, A.-J., Guillen-

Perez, A., Sanchez-Iborra, R., and Cano, M.-D.

(2018). A comparative study of web content manage-

ment systems. Information, 9(2):27.

McCune, R. R. (2011). Node. js paradigms and bench-

marks. STRIEGEL, GRAD OS F, 11:86.

McKeever, S. (2003). Understanding web content manage-

ment systems: evolution, lifecycle and market. Indus-

trial management & data systems, 103(9):686–692.

McKnight, D. H. and Chervany, N. L. (2001). What trust

means in e-commerce customer relationships: An

interdisciplinary conceptual typology. International

journal of electronic commerce, 6(2):35–59.

Messina, A., Rizzo, R., Storniolo, P., Tripiciano, M., and

Urso, A. (2016). The database-is-the-service pattern

for microservice architectures. In International Con-

ference on Information Technology in Bio-and Medi-

cal Informatics, pages 223–233. Springer.

Mirdha, A., Jain, A., and Shah, K. (2014). Compara-

tive analysis of open source content management sys-

tems. In Computational Intelligence and Computing

Research (ICCIC), 2014 IEEE International Confer-

ence on, pages 1–4. IEEE.

Nilashi, M., Ibrahim, O., Mirabi, V. R., Ebrahimi, L., and

Zare, M. (2015). The role of security, design and con-

tent factors on customer trust in mobile commerce.

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 26:57–

69.

Niranjanamurthy, M. and Chahar, D. D. (2013). The study

of e-commerce security issues and solutions. Inter-

national Journal of Advanced Research in Computer

and Communication Engineering, 2(7).

Pahl, C. and Jamshidi, P. (2016). Microservices: A system-

atic mapping study. In CLOSER (1), pages 137–146.

Papazoglou, M. P. (2003). Service-oriented computing:

Concepts, characteristics and directions. In Web Infor-

mation Systems Engineering, 2003. WISE 2003. Pro-

ceedings of the Fourth International Conference on,

pages 3–12. IEEE.

Pautasso, C., Zimmermann, O., Amundsen, M., Lewis, J.,

and Josuttis, N. M. (2017). Microservices in practice,

part 1: Reality check and service design. IEEE Soft-

ware, 34(1):91–98.

Purer, K. (2009). Php vs. python vs. ruby–the web scripting

language shootout. Vienna University of Technology.

Sanders, N. R. (2007). An empirical study of the impact

of e-business technologies on organizational collabo-

ration and performance. Journal of Operations Man-

agement, 25(6):1332–1347.

Shahzad, F. (2017). Modern and responsive mobile-

enabled web applications. Procedia Computer Sci-

ence, 110:410–415.

Shea, V. J., Dow, K. E., Chong, A. Y.-L., and Ngai, E. W.

(2017). An examination of the long-term business

value of investments in information technology. In-

formation Systems Frontiers, pages 1–15.

Suzumura, T., Trent, S., Tatsubori, M., Tozawa, A., and On-

odera, T. (2008). Performance comparison of web ser-

vice engines in php, java and c. In Web Services, 2008.

ICWS’08. IEEE International Conference on, pages

385–392. IEEE.

Tilkov, S. and Vinoski, S. (2010). Node. js: Using javascript

to build high-performance network programs. IEEE

Internet Computing, 14(6):80–83.

Trent, S., Tatsubori, M., Suzumura, T., Tozawa, A., and On-

odera, T. (2008). Performance comparison of php and

jsp as server-side scripting languages. In Proceedings

of the 9th ACM/IFIP/USENIX International Confer-

ence on Middleware, pages 164–182. Springer-Verlag

New York, Inc.

van de Weerd, I., Brinkkemper, S., Souer, J., and

Versendaal, J. (2006). A situational implementation

method for web-based content management system-

applications: method engineering and validation in

practice. Software process: improvement and prac-

tice, 11(5):521–538.

Vidgen, R., Goodwin, S., and Barnes, S. (2001). Web con-

tent management. In Proceedings of the 14th Interna-

tional Electronic Commerce Conference, pages 465–

480.

Villamizar, M., Garc

es, O., Castro, H., Verano, M., Sala-

manca, L., Casallas, R., and Gil, S. (2015). Evaluating

the monolithic and the microservice architecture pat-

tern to deploy web applications in the cloud. In Com-

puting Colombian Conference (10CCC), 2015 10th,

pages 583–590. IEEE.

Wu, F., Mahajan, V., and Balasubramanian, S. (2003). An

analysis of e-business adoption and its impact on busi-

ness performance. Journal of the Academy of Market-

ing science, 31(4):425–447.

Xiao, Z., Wijegunaratne, I., and Qiang, X. (2016). Reﬂec-

tions on soa and microservices. In 2016 4th Interna-

tional Conference on Enterprise Systems (ES), pages

60–67. IEEE.

Future CMS for e-Business: Will Microservices and Containerization Change the Game?

217