I tried to reduce my problem to the following simple example. If the profit is low and the customer is not a regular one then the order should become canceled. In all other cases (low/regular, high/*) the order is to be executed. How should I model the disconnected part in the middle?
Wheter or not the client corresponding to order is a regular client follows from the data model:
I assume you are looking for the formally correct way to model this. Here it is:
If less formality is sufficient, you could skip the decision input flows and simply assume that the guards have access to any objects in the scope of the activity. Then one decision node is sufficient with a guard [profit=low AND not order.customer.regular Customer].
Related
When reading about CQRS it is often mentioned that the write model should not depend on any read model (assuming there is one write model and up to N read models). This makes a lot of sense, especially since read models usually only become eventually consistent with the write model. Also, we should be able to change or replace read models without breaking the write model.
However, read models might contain valuable information that is aggregated across many entities of the write model. These aggregations might even contain non-trivial business rules. One can easily imagine a business policy that evaluates a piece of information that a read model possesses, and in reaction to that changes one or many entities via the write model. But where should this policy be located/implemented? Isn't this critical business logic that tightly couples information coming from one particular read model with the write model?
When I want to implement said policy without coupling the write model to the read model, I can imagine the following strategy: Include a materialized view in the write model that gets updated synchronously whenever a relevant part of the involved entities changes (when using DDD, this could be done via domain events). However, this denormalizes the write model, and is effectively a special read model embedded in the write model itself.
I can imagine that DDD purists would say that such a policy should not exist, because it represents a business invariant/rule that encompasses multiple entities (a.k.a. aggregates). I could probably agree in theory, but in practice, I often encounter such requirements anyway.
Finally, my question is simply: How do you deal with requirements that change data in reaction to certain conditions whose evaluation requires a read model?
First, any write model which validates commands is a read model (because at some point validating a command requires a read), albeit one that is optimized for the purpose of validating commands. So I'm not sure where you're seeing that a write model shouldn't depend on a read model.
Second, a domain event is implicitly a command to the consumers of the event: "process/consider/incorporate this event", in which case a write model processor can subscribe to the events arising from a different write model: from the perspective of the subscribing write model, these are just commands.
Having read a lot about the topic and having thought hard about it myself, I attempt to answer my own question.
First, a clarification about the terms used. The write and read models themselves never have any dependency to one another. The corresponding command and query components might have instead. I will therefore call the entirety of the command component and its write model the command side, and the entirety of one particular query component and its read model a query side (of which there might be many).
So consider a command handler that is responsible for evaluating and executing a business policy. It takes a command DTO, validates it, loads part of the write model into memory, and applies changes to it in one atomic transaction. The question specifically was, whether this handler is allowed to query one of the query sides in order to inform its decision about what to do in the write model.
The answer would be a resounding NO. Here's why:
The command side would depend on one particular query side (it doesn't matter if you hide the dependency behind an interface – it is still there), so the query side cannot change independently.
Who actually guarantees that the command handler runs when it has to? The query side is certainly not the one responsible for it, and clients aren't either.
The command request is prolonged by performing a nested query request, which might be detrimental to the performance.
Instead, we can do the following:
Work with domain events raised by the write model, register a domain event handler in the command side that evaluates the policy. This way it is guaranteed that the policy will be executed whenever it has to be.
If the performance allows it, this domain event handler can simply load as much of the write model as it requires to evaluate the business condition. Don't prematurely optimize – maybe the entities are small and can easily be loaded into memory.
If the performance does not allow it, denormalize the write model and maintain the required statistics using domain events. No one says that the write model cannot itself contain query-oriented data. Being a write model simply says that it is a model designed to do writes, and this necessarily must include some means to read as well.
Finally, if applying the policy is not an integral part of the domain logic itself, but rather just a use case, consider putting the responsibility of calling it into a client or another microservice, where it is totally fine to first query one of our query sides, and afterwards calling our command side with the appropriate parameters.
I do a university course on business process management. The lecturer said that you can model conditions on sequence flows, which I agree with. However in the context of gateways he said that you can even model conditions on outgoing sequence flows if you use parallel gateways. My understanding is that this is not correct as the bpmn specification/page 97 also states:
A Sequence Flow can optionally define a condition Expression, indicating that the token will be passed down the Sequence Flow only if the Expression evaluates to true. This Expression is typically used when the source of the Sequence Flow is a Gateway or an Activity.
A conditional outgoing Sequence Flow from an Activity MUST be drawn with a mini-diamond marker at the beginning of the connector (as seen in Figure 8.33).
If a conditional Sequence Flow is used from a source Activity, then there MUST be at least one other outgoing Sequence Flow from that Activity.
Conditional outgoing Sequence Flows from a Gateway MUST NOT be drawn with a mini-diamond marker at the beginning of the connector.
A source Gateway MUST NOT be of type Parallel or Event.
From my interpretation the last 2 list items explicitly forbid to model conditions on outgoing sequence flows of a parallel gateway. Am I right or wrong? Or is this more a question of definition and modelling philosophy?
Thank you in advance
I think you are correct with your interpretation of the specification. Here is another source that also states that parallel gateways cannot have conditions.
That being said, in practice you will sometimes find diagrams that violate the standard in a detail. If the diagram is still very clear and understandable, I am personally okay with that - after all, diagrams are meant to be a tool for communication. But you will find other people who would not share this opinion. So yes, asking for the modelling philosophy is also a valid question.
On this concrete example, I do not really see a purpose of having parallel paths with conditions.
I have two flows going to the same action. The action is Make Payment. One flow is for rent, and other is for purchase. In both cases customer has to pay. I want to use one payment action for both flows. Or should I use merge node and then connect the output to make payment action. I am not sure whether I can use merge node or not, because both flows are independent of each other. I have uploaded a picture.
This one caught me on the wrong foot. When there are multiple unguarded transitions going out of a state/action an implicit fork is issued so multiple tokens leave and travel independently. P. 401:
When an ExecutableNode completes an execution, the control token representing that execution is removed from the ExecutableNode and control tokens are offered on all outgoing ControlFlows of the ExecutableNode. That is, there is an implicit fork of the flow of control from the ExecutableNode to its outgoing ControlFlows.
I seemed to remember that analogously two incoming transitions mean that both have to deliver a token. And reading on (above) on p. 401:
An ExecutableNode shall not execute until all incoming ControlFlows (if any) are offering tokens. That is, there is an implicit join on the incoming Control Flows. Specific kinds of ExecutableNodes may have additional prerequisites that must be satisfied before the node can execute.
Now when you look at p. 425 you find
A merge node is a control node that brings together multiple alternate flows. It is not used to synchronize concurrent flows but to accept one among several alternate flows.
So here you are. You need to merge beforehand to make it correct.
N.B.: If you are modeling informally (so in a certain domain where this is documented) you could live with your notation since it's often used. Theory and practice... It's not recommended, though.
Just to add to Thomas Kilian answer
Can you model like that at all? Yes. But it will mean implicit Join so both flows has to complete in order to start the Make Payment action. This is allowed but not what you want to achieve.
Can you model like this in your case? No. This will have a different behaviour than what you want to achieve (join rather than merge).
Can you use Merge node before the activity to obtain expected results? Yes, that's absolutely correct and preferred way of merging flows when we want to continue when just one incoming flow completes. The fact that the flows are separately triggered does not pose a problem.
Can you achieve the same without Merge node? Yes, you can use parameters and parameter sets. You can use one parameter and the flows coming to that parameter create an implicit merge. Also if you have parameter sets defined action starts when all parameters of just one parameters set is offered a token but that means different sets of parameters are passed with different flows. Yet the approach with parameters is possible only if you have some parameters to pass. Besides it'll more difficult to understand so I would discourage such approach until you really know what you're doing.
I have the below UML activity diagram for a shopping cart use case. It has several decision and fork nodes but there are no corresponding join/merge nodes. Could you please show me:
how to correct the diagram by introducing the merge/join nodes.
how to modify the diagram so that a customer can repeat the process (of adding more products to the shopping cart).
Thank you.
You should look into the token concept. It is introduced in petri nets and also used in the UML activity diagram.
Decision nodes produce one token only, i.e. they follow just one outgoing path. To merge such paths, of which only was is followed, you can use a merge node. Which just looks like a reversed decision node and is able to consume exactly one token. A diamond with multiple incoming edges.
If you use a parallelization node to start concurrent execution paths, you have multiple tokens leaving the parallelization node. To merge these kind of paths, you can use a synchronization node, it looks like a reversed parallelization node and has to consume one token per incoming edge.
(source: amg at www.lcc.uma.es)
Do you have an initial activity element anywhere? Makes it a bit easier to read. To your question, the merge should be used as opposed to having multiple connectors coming into the same activity. For instance, "Acknowledge Msg" should have a merge above it that the other branches can flow into.
As for how to make it repeatable, you may want an "Add to Cart" action, and prior to a "Checkout" action, have a Decision with guards for "Shopping Complete" (which goes to the Checkout action) and "Continue Shopping" (which goes back to "Enter Product #").
I need to know this differences in order to undestand how to use them right.
Which are the differences of DFD and Activity diagram?
Actually, it's reasonably logical. You only have to look at the names.
In data flow diagrams, the lines between "boxes" represent data that flows between components of a system. Because these only show the flow of data, they do not give an indication of sequencing.
In activity diagrams, those lines are simply transitions between activities and do not represent data flow at all. They more represent the sequencing of activities and decisions. You can tell from these what order things happen in.
That's a simplistic explanation but should be a good starting point. Further information can be garnered from Wikipedia for DFDs and activity diagrams.
Explicit bias: I'm a DFDs proponent.
#John is correct that Activity diagrams can be used to represent object flow. #pax equally correct they seldom are.
Two big DFD advantages for me:
Link to object model. Data stores on a DFD provide a really nice way to link the data produced / consumed to the object model. Very useful for consistency and ensuring your thinking is joined up.
They de-emphasise control flow. Far too often designs over-constrain sequencing. Activity diagrams do support concurrency - but it requires the user to (a) remember and (b) use it. So the default is over-serialisation. DFDs don't. They lay bare the real sequence dependencies without any extra effort on the part of the user. Consequently they also make it easier to see causal relationships. If processes a and b both require data input D then it's obvious on the diagram. And hence parallel activity is obvious.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not against Activity diags. Where control flow is the primary consideration I'll use an AD over a DFD. But empirically I'd say I find DFDs a more useful tool in ~70-80% of cases.
Of course, YMMV.
Just a humble opinion from someone who has had to explain processes, both computer and manual, to upper management and CIOs. I have found simple is better and pound-for-pound, DFDs get the message across when I am actually "asked" about details. That being said, the better approach is to always practice the story line and answer in simple answers.
One final comment regarding the age of tools and products. Remember that in most cases these are running the business and work pretty darn good. The adage "you break it (or replace it) and you own it" can make you a hero or make you into a clown.
We have a CIO who wants to replace all mainframe application for the simple reason that they are old technology. One must weigh the consequences and understand if the replacement can handle workload. Have you ever wondered why JPMC, Credit Swiss, Walmart, and Bank of America to name a few still run mainframes?
My apologies for taking it in that direction. Just make sure, whatever analysis tool is used, that all aspects of the replacement are documented including workload, I/O, concurrent users, adoption curve, and scalability.
Data Flow represents flow within one module or one independent code. However Sequence Diagram represents sequence of activity in between different modules.
Yes at some points they may pass the same messages.
I basically use Sequence diagram in interface documents which will be shared with other modules/elements, however DFD will be used in Low level design documents which will be used to develop the code within one module or network element.
If we look closer to a dataflow diagram, we can notice that when a node collects data from all its edges, it starts to process them. And to process, it needs an activity token, which represents access to a processor. Usually the process of obtaining that token is omitted, but it has to exist. Typically, the whole node as a token is put in a double-ended queue, where on the other end of that queue free activities (processors or threads) are stored. A thread pool is a perfect example of such a queue, and the nodes ready to work are represented as tasks. As soon as a node meets activity, they both are taken from the queue and actual processing starts. When processing finishes, activity is returned to the queue. This way we can think of activity as a special kind of token.
So both dataflow and activity diagrams are just simplified variants of a general active-data-flow diagram, with either activities or data tokens omitted. But generally, both kinds of tokens can be represented in a diagram simultaneously.
Programmers used to think about threads as activities, but if we look at them closer, we notice that when a thread is ready to execute, it gets in a line to processors, and real execution starts only when a free processor switch to that thread. This is absolute analogy as tasks are executed on a thread pool. So from simplified point of view, a thread is an activity, and from more rigorous point of view a thread is a data token and the only real activity is a physical processor. This shows that activity tokens are not different from data tokens. And indeed, we can omit the route of node chasing an activity and consider a dataflow node as an activity itself, which starts to work immediately when all its edges (inputs) contain data.