In many applications, I deal with users and finance companies (as an example) and I have long been struggling to model the relationship between the two according to Domain Driven Design principles.
In my system I can do the following:
Add a user to an existing finance company.
Add a finance company to an existing user.
I believe both are aggregate roots... Finance Company and User.
How do I model the relationship between the 2? Is it FinanceCompany.Users? or User.FinanceCompanies? Is it neither? Or am I missing knowledge of some key DDD concept(s)? The problem is if I choose one way over the other, the code is more understandable / clear from one aggregate root entry point, but not the other. Sometimes there are cases where it makes more sense to navigate to a Finance Company and add users to it, and other times there are cases where it makes more sense to navigate to a specific user and add finance companies to the user.
Is there some better way to approach this, maybe through repository methods? Is there some key concept I am not getting or understanding here? It doesn't feel right to assume the relationship between Finance Company and User belongs under either of the 2 ARs. When I store the relationship I have to store it in a table named FinanceCompanyUsers or UserFinanceCompanies, but it still doesn't seem clear.
Would I have code such as FinanceCompany.AddUser() and User.AddFinanceCompany()? or is there some completely different approach for relationships such as this?
You have already determined that both User and FinanceCompany are aggregates so each has its own life-cycle.
The problem with many domains is that we don't have a complete understanding of the relationships. As another example we can take an Order and a Product. Both are aggregates but would we have Order.AddProduct() or Product.AddOrder()? In this case it seems pretty obvious in that an Order contains a limited subset of Product entries whereas a Product may very well contain many orders and we are not really too interested in that relationship since it is a rather weak relationship. A Product can exist and be valid without any orders attached but an Order is pretty useless without at least one product entry. This means that the Order has an invariant imposed in terms of its OrderItem entries. In addition to this we have enough knowledge about this hackneyed example that we know we are going to need an associative entity (in relational theory speak) since we need additional information regarding the relationship and entering the fray would be our OrderItem table. Curiously I have not seen it called OrderProduct.
The guidance I would suggest is to pick the most appropriate side.
However, if no side is a true winner and both aggregates can exist without a relationship to the other in terms of an invariant perhaps the relationship itself is an aggregate as you have certainly alluded to. Perhaps it isn't only a UserFinanceCompany aggregate but perhaps there is a concept that is missing from the ubiquitous language that the domain experts refer to. Perhaps something like Auditor or some such that represents that relationship. This is akin to the OrderItem or OrderLine concept as opposed to OrderProduct.
I'm building an application that manages most of the LOB stuff at my company. I'm trying to wrap my head around DDD... starting with customer management. Many examples are very, very simple in regards to the domain model which doesn't help me much.
My aggregate root is a Customer class, which contains a collection of Addresses (address book), a collection of Contacts, and a collection of communication history.
Seems like this aggregate root is going to be huge, with functions to modify addresses, contacts (which can have x number of phone numbers), and communication.
E.G.
UpdateCustomerName(...)
SetCustomerType(...) // Business or individual
SetProspect(...) // if the customer is a prospect
SetDefaultPaymentTerms(...) // line of credit, etc. for future orders
SetPreferredShippingMethod(...) // for future orders
SetTaxInfo(...) // tax exempt, etc.
SetCreditLimit(...)
AddAddress(...)
RemoveAddress(...)
UpdateAddress(...)
VerifyAddress(...)
SetDefaultBillingAddress(...)
SetDefaultShippingAddress(...)
AddContact(...)
UpdateContact(...)
RemoveContact(...)
SetPrimaryContact(...)
AddContactPhoneNumber(...)
RemoveContactPhoneNumber(...)
UpdateContactPhoneNumber(...)
AddCommunication(...)
RemoveCommunication(...)
UpdateCommunication(...)
etc.
I've read that value objects don't have identity. In this system, each address (in the database) has an ID, and has a customerId as the foreign key. If Address is it's own aggregate root, then I wouldn't be able to have my business logic for setting default billing / shipping. Many examples have value objects without an ID... I Have no idea how to persist the changes to my Customer table without it.
Anywho, feels like I'm going down the wrong path with my structure if its going to get this ginormous. Anyone do something similar? Not sure how I can break down the structure and maintain basic business rules (like making sure the address is assigned to the customer prior to setting it as the default billing or shipping).
The reason that you're butting up against the issue of where business logic should lie is because you're mixing bounded contexts. LoB applications are one of the typical examples in DDD, most of which show the application broken up into multiple bounded contexts:
Customer Service
Billing
Shipping
Etc.
Each bounded context may require some information from your Customer class, but most likely not all of it. DDD goes against the standard DRY concept when approaching the definition of entities. It is OK to have multiple Customer classes defined, one for each bounded context that requires it. In each bounded context, you would define the classes with properties and business logic to fulfill the requirements within that bounded context:
Customer Service: Contact information, contact history
Billing: Billing address, payment information, orders
Shipping: Line items, shipping address
These bounded contexts can all point to the same database, or multiple databases, depending on the complexity of your system. If it is the same database, you would set up your data access layer to populate the properties required for your bounded context.
Steve Smith and Julie Lerman have a fantastic course on Pluralsight called Domain-Driven Design Fundamentals that covers these concepts in depth.
Generally in UML, you model roles as opposed to people however if there is a use case to model people (along with their names, contact details, etc), is there a known way of depicting this?
For example do I create a superclass called "Person" and generalize the roles followed by a specialization of a real person?
I took a look at some of your other questions and now I realise I completely misunderstood and you're probably trying to model an organization and the people in it.
ArchiMate is a semantic layer on top of UML that is intended for architecture modelling. Real people get described in the business layer, as actors.
A business actor is defined as an organizational entity capable of (actively) performing behavior.
A business actor performs the behavior assigned to (one or more) business roles. Examples of business actors are humans, departments, and business units. A business actor may be assigned to one or more business roles. The name of a business actor should preferably be a noun.
Now generally the person fills a spot in the organization that in a couple years could be filled by another person. The structure / architecture of the organization would not change and as such the actor can be described by the name of their position, say, "Head of department" rather than by their name and phone number.
Still, I understand that it may be handy to have this sort of information available when you want to contact them.
UML-model-wise, I'd think that the actor Head of Department is a class, realizing a business role that's also a class, and that Joe with phonenumber 12345 is an object of that class.
But practically, I'd think this is too much detail for the level at which you're describing the organization. I'd suggest you stick a UML note on those few actors of key contacts whose names you think are worth mentioning in the diagram. But administrate the rest of them in a system that's more fit for this, like your company's ADS or Contacts in Microsoft Outlook.
We are trying to model an RBAC-based user maintenance system using DDD principles. We have identified the following entities:
Authorization is an Aggregate Root with the following:
User (an entity object)
List<Authority> (list of value objects)
Authority contains the following value objects:
AuthorityType (base class of classes Role and Permission)
effectiveDate
Role contains a List<Permission>
Permission has code and description attributes
In a typical scenario, Authorization is definitely the Aggregate Root since everything in user maintenance revolves around that (e.g. I can grant a user one or more Authority-ies which is either a Role or Permission)
My question is : what about Role and Permission? Are they also Aggregate Roots in their own separate contexts? (i.e. I have three contexts, authorization, role, permission). While can combine all in just one context, wouldn't the Role be too heavy enough since it will be loaded as part of the Authorization "object graph"?
Firstly I can't help but feel you've misunderstood the concept of a bounded context. What you've described as BC's I would describe as entities. In my mind, bounded contexts serve to give entities defined in the ubiquitous language a different purpose for a given context.
For example, in a hospital domain, a Patient being treated in the outpatients department might have a list of Referrals, and methods such as BookAppointment(). A Patient being treated as an Inpatient however, will have a Ward property and methods such as TransferToTheatre(). Given this, there are two bounded contexts that patients exist in: Outpatients & Inpatients. In the insurance domain, the sales team put together a Policy that has a degree of risk associated to it and therefore cost. But if it reaches the claims department, that information is meaningless to them. They only need to verify whether the policy is valid for the claim. So there is two contexts here: Sales & Claims
Secondly, are you just using RBAC as an example while you experiment with implementing DDD? The reason I ask is because DDD is designed to help solve complex business problems - i.e. where calculations are required (such as the risk of a policy). In my mind RBAC is a fairly simple infrastructure service that doesn't concern itself with actual domain logic and therefore doesn't warrant a strict DDD implementation. DDD is expensive to invest in, and you shouldn't adopt it just for the sake of it; this is why bounded contexts are important - only model the context with DDD if it's justifiable.
Anyway, at the risk of this answer sounding to 'academic' I'll now try to answer your question assuming you still want to model this as DDD:
To me, this would all fit under one context (called 'Security' or something)
As a general rule of thumb, make everything an aggregate that requires an independent transaction, so:
On the assumption that the system allows for Authorities to be added to the Authorization object, make Authorization an aggregate. (Although there might be an argument for ditching Authorization and simply making User the aggregate root with a list of Authorities)
Authorities serve no meaning outside of the Authorization aggregate and are only created when adding one, so these remain as entities.
On the assumption that system allows for Permissions to be added to a Role, Role becomes an aggregate root.
On the assumption that Permissions cannot be created/delete - i.e. they are defined by the system itself, so these are simple value objects.
Whilst on the subject of aggregate design, I cannot recommend these articles enough.
This is a practical Domain Driven Design question:
Conceptually, I think I get Aggregate roots until I go to define one.
I have an Employee entity, which has surfaced as an Aggregate root. In the Business, some employees can have work-related Violations logged against them:
Employee-----*Violations
Since not all Employees are subject to this, I would think that Violations would not be a part of the Employee Aggregate, correct?
So when I want to work with Employees and their related violations, is this two separate Repository interactions by some Service?
Lastly, when I add a Violation, is that method on the Employee Entity?
Thanks for the help!
After doing even MORE research, I think I have the answer to my question.
Paul Stovell had this slightly edited response to a similar question on the DDD messageboard. Substitute "Customer" for "Employee", and "Order" for "Violation" and you get the idea.
Just because Customer references Order
doesn't necessarily mean Order falls
within the Customer aggregate root.
The customer's addresses might, but
the orders can be independent (for
example, you might have a service that
processes all new orders no matter who
the customer is. Having to go
Customer->Orders makes no sense in
this scenario).
From a domain point of view, you can
even question the validity of those
references (Customer has reference to
a list of Orders). How often will you
actually need all orders for a
customer? In some systems it makes
sense, but in others, one customer
might make many orders. Chances are
you want orders for a customer between
a date range, or orders for a customer
that aren't processed yet, or orders
which have not been paid, and so on.
The scenario in which you'll need all
of them might be relatively uncommon.
However, it's much more likely that
when dealing with an Order, you will
want the customer information. So in
code, Order.Customer.Name is useful,
but Customer.Orders[0].LineItem.SKU -
probably not so useful. Of course,
that totally depends on your business
domain.
In other words, Updating Customer has nothing to do with updating Orders. And orders, or violations in my case, could conceivable be dealt with independently of Customers/Employees.
If Violations had detail lines, then Violation and Violation line would then be a part of the same aggregate because changing a violation line would likely affect a Violation.
EDIT**
The wrinkle here in my Domain is that Violations have no behavior. They are basically records of an event that happened. Not sure yet about the implications that has.
Eric Evan states in his book, Domain-Driven Design: Tackling the Complexity in the Heart of Software,
An AGGREGATE is a cluster of associated objects that we treat as a unit for the purpose of data changes.
There are 2 important points here:
These objects should be treated as a "unit".
For the purpose of "data change".
I believe in your scenario, Employee and Violation are not necessarily a unit together, whereas in the example of Order and OrderItem, they are part of a single unit.
Another thing that is important when modeling the agggregate boundaries is whether you have any invariants in your aggregate. Invariants are business rules that should be valid within the "whole" aggregate. For example, as for the Order and OrderItem example, you might have an invariant that states the total cost of the order should be less than a predefined amount. In this case, anytime you want to add an OrderItem to the Order, this invariant should be enforced to make sure that your Order is valid. However, in your problem, I don't see any invariants between your entities: Employee and Violation.
So short answer:
I believe Employee and Violation each belong to 2 separate aggregates. Each of these entities are also their own aggregate roots. So you need 2 repositories: EmployeeRepository and ViolationRepository.
I also believe you should have an unidirectional association from Violation to Employee. This way, each Violation object knows who it belongs to. But if you want to get the list of all Violations for a particular Employee, then you can ask the ViolationRepository:
var list = repository.FindAllViolationsByEmployee(someEmployee);
You say that you have employee entity and violations and each violation does not have any behavior itself. From what I can read above, it seems to me that you may have two aggregate roots:
Employee
EmployeeViolations (call it EmployeeViolationCard or EmployeeViolationRecords)
EmployeeViolations is identified by the same employee ID and it holds a collection of violation objects. You get behavior for employee and violations separated this way and you don't get Violation entity without behavior.
Whether violation is entity or value object you should decide based on its properties.
I generally agree with Mosh on this one. However, keep in mind the notion of transactions in the business point of view. So I actually take "for the purpose of data changes" to mean "for the purpose of transaction(s)".
Repositories are views of the domain model. In a domain environment, these "views" really support or represent a business function or capability - a transaction. Case in point, the Employee may have one or more violations, and if so, are aspects of a transaction(s) in a point in time. Consider your use cases.
Scenario: "An employee commits an act that is a violation of the workplace." This is a type of business event (i.e. transaction, or part of a larger, perhaps distributed transaction) that occurred. The root affected domain object actually can be seen from more than one perspective, which is why it is confusing. But the thing to remember is behavior as it pertains to a business transaction, since you want your business processes to model the real-world as accurate as possible. In terms of relationships, just like in a relational database, your conceptual domain model should actually indicate this already (i.e. the associativity), which often can be read in either direction:
Employee <----commits a -------committed by ----> Violation
So for this use case, it would be fair that to say that it is a transaction dealing with violations, and that the root - or "primary" entity - is a Violation. That, then would be your aggregate root you would reference for that particular business activity or business process. But that is not to say that, for a different activity or process, that you cannot have an Employee aggregate root, such as the "new employee process". If you take care, there should be no negative impact of cyclic references, or being able to traverse your domain model multiple ways. I will warn, however, that governing of this should be thought about and handled by your controller piece of your business domain, or whatever equivalent you have.
Aside: Thinking in terms of patterns (i.e. MVC), the repository is a view, the domain objects are the model, and thus one should also employ some form of controller pattern. Typically, the controller declares the concrete implementation of and access to the repositories (collections of aggregate roots).
In the data access world...
Using LINQ-To-SQL as an example, the DataContext would be the controller exposing a view of Customer and Order entities. The view is a non-declarative, framework-oriented Table type (rough equivalent to Repository). Note that the view keeps a reference to its parent controller, and often goes through the controller to control how/when the view gets materialized. Thus, the controller is your provider, taking care of mapping, translation, object hydration, etc. The model is then your data POCOs. Pretty much a typical MVC pattern.
Using N/Hibernate as an example, the ISession would be the controller exposing a view of Customer and Order entities by way of the session.Enumerable(string query) or session.Get(object id) or session.CreateCriteria(typeof(Customer)).List()
In the business logic world...
Customer { /*...*/ }
Employee { /*...*/ }
Repository<T> : IRepository<T>
, IEnumerable<T>
//, IQueryable<T>, IQueryProvider //optional
{ /**/ }
BusinessController {
Repository<Customer> Customers { get{ /*...*/ }} //aggregate root
Repository<Order> Orders { get{ /*...*/ }} // aggregate root
}
In a nutshell, let your business processes and transactions be the guide, and let your business infrastructure naturally evolve as processes/activities are implemented or refactored. Moreover, prefer composability over traditional black box design. When you get to service-oriented or cloud computing, you will be glad you did. :)
I was wondering what the conclusion would be?
'Violations' become a root entity. And 'violations' would be referenced by 'employee' root entity. ie violations repository <-> employee repository
But you are consfused about making violations a root entity becuase it has no behavior.
But is 'behaviour' a criteria to qualify as a root entity? I dont think so.
a slightly orthogonal question to test understanding here, going back to Order...OrderItem example, there might be an analytics module in the system that wants to look into OrderItems directly i.e get all orderItems for a particular product, or all order items greater than some given value etc, does having a lot of usecases like that and driving "aggregate root" to extreme could we argue that OrderItem is a different aggregate root in itself ??
It depends. Does any change/add/delete of a vioation change any part of employee - e.g. are you storing violation count, or violation count within past 3 years against employee?