The Fatal Kafka Misstep Most Architects Make

Most of the architects fall into the same design trap. They force-fit Kafka into their architecture without stepping back to understand whether it’s the right tool for the job.

It’s the classic “hammer and nail” syndrome: when you only have one tool in your toolbox, every problem looks the same. Their justification?

“Kafka will make our system fail-proof. If something breaks, Kafka will save the day. At the same time, Kafka can make our system overly complex, harder to maintain, and prone to new types of failures if used inappropriately.”

But here’s the hard truth:

• Kafka isn’t a silver bullet.
• Overengineering leads to bloated, unmaintainable systems.
• Blindly choosing Kafka distracts from solving the real problem.
• And worst of all, it wastes precious time debating solutions that don’t fit.

The result? You end up with:

• Unnecessarily complex systems – adding layers of abstraction no one asked for.
• Designs that fail to address the core business problem – solving a hypothetical issue instead of the actual use case.
• Teams stuck in decision paralysis – drowning in endless Kafka-related discussions.

Why Does This Keep Happening?

The hype around Kafka has made it the go-to choice for any data problem. But not every system needs distributed streams. Many architects fall into these traps:

1. Focusing on tools over use cases. They design systems around Kafka rather than starting with the problem they’re trying to solve.
2. Assuming Kafka solves every scalability issue. Without proper partitioning, infrastructure planning, and monitoring, Kafka won’t fix capacity or throughput problems.
3. Mistaking durability for consistency. Kafka guarantees durability but doesn’t enforce strict consistency. Architects forget to layer additional mechanisms for transactions or critical workflows.

What Should Architects Do Instead?

Begin your journey with the problem, not the tool. Ask yourself: Does this problem even require an event-driven solution? Sometimes, simpler patterns like request-response or message queues are more than enough.

Understand Kafka’s strengths. Use Kafka where it excels, such as:

• High-throughput systems with independent consumer needs.
• Real-time event streaming for pipelines.
• Scenarios requiring replayability via offset management.

Learn where Kafka doesn’t help. Avoid using Kafka to solve:

• Transactional workflows require strict consistency.
• Problems that simpler APIs or synchronous calls can handle.
• Capacity issues caused by poor architecture elsewhere.

Example 1: When Kafka Is Most Effective An e-commerce platform processes payments. Once a payment is completed:

1. Inform the customer.
2. Adjust the inventory system.

Why Choose Kafka?

• These tasks operate independently.
• Kafka allows parallel processing through consumer groups, ensuring both tasks occur simultaneously without interfering with each other.

Example 2: When Kafka Struggles An order management system must maintain strict consistency between inventory updates and payment status. In this case, Kafka alone cannot assure ACID compliance. Additional mechanisms, such as distributed transactions or robust database consistency, are required.

Let’s talk about when and where Kafka shines in event-driven architecture

Step 1: Know When to Use Events

Not every problem screams for Kafka—or even an event-driven architecture.

Before you throw in Kafka, ask yourself: Do I even need events for this use case?

Here’s a quick cheat sheet of patterns to consider:

• Message Queues – For decoupling systems (e.g., processing orders asynchronously).
• Pub-Sub – When one event needs to trigger multiple actions (e.g., send notifications and update a database).
• Event Sourcing – To rebuild the system state from a series of events (useful for auditing or version control).
• Event Streaming – For continuous data pipelines (e.g., real-time analytics).
• Request-Response – For simple, synchronous tasks. Don’t overcomplicate.
• Rule of thumb: Events aren’t a solution. They’re a strategy for solving specific problems.?

Step 2: Understand Where Kafka Shines

Kafka isn’t a magic wand. It’s brilliant for specific use cases, but it’s not going to fix everything.

Here’s when Kafka is a win:

1. Independent consumers process the same data. Example: A payment event triggers multiple actions like sending a receipt and updating inventory.
2. High-throughput systems with scalability needs. Kafka’s partitioning and distributed model thrive under heavy load.

What Kafka brings to the table:

• Multiple Consumer Groups: Independent consumers can handle their part without interfering with others.
• Offset Management: Consumers know what they’ve processed and can replay events if necessary.

But beware! Kafka won’t solve:

• Capacity issues unless you properly plan partitions and infrastructure.
• Poor API design—no amount of Kafka can save bad fundamentals.
• Data consistency problems—it’s durable, but it won’t give you strict consistency guarantees.

Final Thoughts: Solve Problems, Don’t Push Tools

As architects, our job isn’t about using the flashiest tools—it’s about crafting thoughtful, efficient, and scalable solutions.

The next time you’re working on a design, take a step back and ask yourself:

1. Does this use case even need events? Sometimes, simpler patterns like request-response or message queues are better suited.
2. Can I solve the problem more straightforwardly? Overengineering adds complexity and maintenance overhead.
3. Is Kafka addressing scalability, or am I masking deeper architectural issues?

Kafka is a powerful tool, but it’s not a one-size-fits-all solution. Every design decision should be driven by the problem at hand—not the temptation to use a specific tool.

So, as an architect, what’s your approach? Do you see Kafka as a default solution, or do you prefer a more deliberate approach? Let’s exchange ideas!

?