I've started learning the principles of DDD and I'm currently trying to get a grasp of the concept of a bounded context. In particular, how do you decide just how big (or small) it has to be? Yeah, I know, as small as possible and as big as necessary (according to Vaughn Vernon).
Let's say I were to model a blog. I could then go and say there are 3 bounded contexts involved: 1) Front Page (featuring the most recent articles, no comments shown) 2) Discussion (a single article including comments) 3) Article Composer (where I compose an article).
However, this doesn't feel right (the ubiquitous language is the same for all of them), it seems as if I'm coming from a front end point of view and am still thinking in terms of view models or something.
Could anyone please point me in the right direction?
A blog is not a good example for use of multiple bounded context. It's not really a "big enough" software example to warrant their definitions. DDD & BC's are really aimed at big/complex enterprising software systems.
Like you say, the aggregates always have the same meaning in your 3 examples.
I gave this example of Bounded Context in a previous answer, which I hope explains BC's and when to use them: Bounded Contexts and Aggregate Roots
Try to look at your whole domain from different perspectives, as an editor of article, you probably will use sentences like creating a draft of an article, publishing an article, as an article a reader you will in example read article and comment on it. Alongside building your domain language you will identify entities and their behaviour, some of them will appear only in one perspective, some will appear in both, but you will distinct them by their behaviour. Your domain language shows you the boundries of each perspective, that you implement as a bounded contexts.
The best example I read by subdomains so far is the following.
Just examine the actual company! Each department taking part in the business process can have its own subdomain. In an ideal world each subdomain has its own bounded context in your implementation. You should ask yourself whether the company needs a new department to do this? Is it really that big?
The BC must be big enough to describe a department of a company. A typical example is a webshop, where you have a shopping core domain and invoicing, delivery and storage subdomains. Having multi-tenancy and so multiple aspects - as a previous answer described - is not enough. A blog with an author and a few readers does not require multiple departments, so you can solve this with a single bounded context. You can have multiple modules in your bounded context if you think you have medium size structures in your bounded context.
I've read Eric Evan's book and am reading Vaughn Vernon's book now. I'm in the second chapter where he talks about subdomains and bounded context and am thoroughly confused now.
From what I was able to distill, there should be a 1:1 relationship between a BC and an SD. However, I read in other places that this isn't necessarily the case.
Can someone explain to me the relationship between a BC and SD?
A subdomain is a part of your business. There are core domains, supporting domains and generic domains. Core domains are where the money is, supporting domains support your core business, and generic domains are the ones you need, but don't care a lot about, so you would probably buy them of the shelf. For an insurance company, the core domain is insurance, a supporting domain could be client portfolio, and a generic domain could be something like timesheets.
In general a bounded context is a boundary within which the ubiquitous language is consistent. In DDD walhalla each subdomain would live in its own bounded context. In reality however, there is legacy, there are packages that try to do everything at once... which will force all kinds of awkard relationships.
I try to explain these concepts with my understanding.
In DDD, everything should be communicated under ubiquitous language so the technical team and business team can use the same terms and have same views on the problems
Domain in DDD represent real problem in business. Such as: E commerce is a domain, Payroll system is a domain
Domain is divided into many sub domains, so each sub domains focus smaller problems. Such as: E commerce has many sub domains such as: Shopping Cart, Billing, Product Catalog, Customer Information...
Each sub domain should have explicit responsibilities so it has a boundary to limit their functionalities, the boundary will help sub domain focus to do only 1 thing and do well. This boundary is considered as bounded context of the sub domain. The bounded context will define:
How many domain models needed for the sub domain?
Which properties needed in the each model?
Which functionalities needed in sub domain?
Ex: Shopping Cart sub domain needs models: Cart, Product, Customer Info... and contains functions to perform CRUD on the cart. Notes: The Product and Customer model in the Shopping Cart sub domain maybe not the same with the models in Product Catalogs and Customer Profiles sub domain, they just contain necessary properties to display on Shopping Cart.
Vaughn Vernon in his “Implementing Domain-Driven Design” book states that “the subdomains live in the problem space and the bounded contexts in the solution space”
Imagine a software that is being developed to support a dentist. A dentist has two problems: fixing patients’ teeth and making appointments for the patients. Fixing teeth is the core domain and making appointments is a supporting subdomain. In the core domain the medical staff cares about a patient’s dental history, can they handle general anesthesia or not, what their current problem is, etc. In the subdomain the staff (not necessarily medical staff) cares about a patient’s contact information, a date and a time that best suits both the doctor and the patient, the type of dental work needed, etc. Both domains need a model of a patient, but that model will depend on the bounded context we put in place to ensure the correct information and features are available when solving the problems of each domain.
read https://robertbasic.com/blog/bounded-contexts-and-subdomains/
Rereading the Booking Context from the blue book 18 times helped me finally get a handle. http://codeidol.com/csharp/domain-driven-design/Maintaining-Model-Integrity/Bounded-Context/
This article helped as well: http://gorodinski.com/blog/2013/04/29/sub-domains-and-bounded-contexts-in-domain-driven-design-ddd/
Here is my understanding, I would use the Hospital example to elaborate the concepts and deep dive into how is BC is different than Subdomain and why they can be a case where there is no 1:1 relationship between them
Example
Imagine we are making software for a Hospital, in which we have identified 3 subdomain
Health Care (Core domain, where they actually want to cure the patient)
Invoice (Supporting domain focused on invoicing)
Knowledge (Generic domain, where doctors maintain procedures on how to operate on a patient for a particular disease)
Now we know that Bounded Contexts are boundaries under which terms
have a very well-defined meaning. So let us apply those in Subdomains
Let's consider the term. Patient. What are the things that you think about when hearing the term patient?
Their current symptoms
Past medical records
Allergies
How about their bill-paying credibility? Current outstanding balance? Didn't think of it? The reason is you were thinking in the core subdomain space of Health Care. The bill-paying credibility makes sense only when you shift to the Invoice subdomain.
What we understand from this is the Patient term is inside a Bounded Context, its a boundary inside a subdomain where it has a very specific meaning
The reason it said
BC is in solution/implementation/programming space and not in business
space
is because here we decide what fields and behaviors should be part of the Patient model
In the core domain space, you might represent Patient it like this
class Patient {
List<Allergy> alergies;
List<MedicalRecord> records;
Age age;
boolean isAllergicTo(Allergy allergy)
boolean canTakeLocalAnesthesia()
}
Whereas in the Invoicing subdomain you might want to represent it like this
class Patient {
CreditCard creditCard;
CreditScore creditScore;
Bill currentBill;
void charge(Amount amount)
}
Similarly, the term Cure in the Health Core subdomain, would have the operations that were/are_to_be performed on a patient to cure the disease whereas in the Knowledge subdomain it would contain information about Symptoms, Diagnosis tests, Prescription suggestions, that go along with a disease.
You can now see the Health Care subdomain has multiple BCs and under a BC each term has a very specific meaning thus supporting the Ubiquitous Language
Please check this link it will help you,
Bounded Context or Context?
The term Context is a general description of a grouping of concepts, the term Bounded Context is more specific – a Bounded Context is an area of your application which has explicitly defined borders, has its own Model, and maintains its own code. Within the Bounded Context everything should be strictly consistent.
Usually, we can use the terms Context and Bounded Context interchangeably, though I tend to talk in terms of Context about the business side of things, and the term Bounded Context about the technical implementation.
In a very short and simple sentence, we can say: subdomains are part of the problem space and are chosen by The Business whereas bounded contexts are software boundaries defined by engineers.
First. The official definitions from the Blue Book is:
Domain: A sphere of knowledge, influence, or activity.
Bounded context: The delimited applicability of a particular model. Bounded contexts gives team members a clear and shared
understanding of what has to be consistent and what can develop
independently.
Note that those concepts exists by themselves before any architecture design or line of code is written down.
DDD is about having a domain model shared by business people and programmers that is reflected in source code. But with medium or bigger organisations it is not practical to have a single model. It is better to divide and conquer because:
Different areas have different needs, cultures, jargon, etc. Sometimes the same concept has different terms or viceversa.
Creating a big meeting to make people agree is costly and it is really hard to agree in something at this scale for so many people.
The cognitive load of developing an enterprise-wide mega application. Better to implement a components that can assigned to smaller teams.
So you reduce the domain modelling to an specific an concrete bounded contexts. This has the advantage of also reducing the complexity. But what if the same concept is used in several contexts? This leads me to the second question:
There should be a 1:1 relationship between a BC and an SD. However, I
read in other places that this isn't necessarily the case.
No. There is no need. Here is an example from Martin Fowler: the products and customers subdomains are shared by the sales and support bounded contexts.
Of course you try to select bounded contexts as loosely coupled as possible. But just as when you separate modules in an app there is a minimum level of coupling to make the connection. So, the same concept is modelled differently in each context (Multiple Canonical Models). This can be implemented in code by adding an Anti-Corruption-Layer that translates between models.
Moving to a single bounded context is not just a matter of software design. It would require modifying the mental model of business and this is hard. Also, people sometimes have simpler views of a domain because it reduces the complexity and their cognitive load.
Concrete example:
In this talks from DDD Europe they have an example from Amazon:
The sub-domain term Book has a very different model in different bounded contexts:
In the Catalog bounded context: Picture, title, authors, rating...
In the Shipping bounded context: Dimensions, weight, international restrictions
In the Search inside bounded context: full-text content, copyright dealing policy
So Amazon may have very complex sub-domains with lots of attributes:
Books: isbn, title, number of pages)
Clothing: size, colour, material
Computers: cpu, graphic card, hard-drive, ram
But only some of them would be relevant in different subdomains.
Let me add a diagram with a more global example
Extra resources:
"Bounded Contexts" Talk by Eric Evans in DDD Europe 2020
DDD Crew: repo resources
Virtual DDD community
Vaughn Vernon states in his book “Implementing Domain-Driven Design” the following:
"It is a desirable goal to align Subdomains one-to-one with Bounded Contexts." Page 57
A model's boundary, the bounded context, can contain ideas from various subdomains. Or a single subdomain might be represented by a number of bounded contexts. The ideal scenario would be one bounded context for one subdomain. If you are able to define multiple bounded context for a subdomain, that sometimes leans you into realizing that the subdomain is not fine-grained, and maybe the subdomain could be distilled into separated subdomains.
The other way around could also be justified, when you had multiple subdomain aspect covered in one BD, because e.g. that was pragmatic to do so.
More specifically, when the subdomain is generic, and the generic solution is easy to integrate, it may be more cost-effective to integrate it in each of the bounded contexts locally.
An example is a logging framework; it would make little sense for one of the bounded contexts to expose it as a service, as the added complexity of integrating such a solution would outweigh the benefit of not duplicating the functionality in multiple contexts.
When two different languages talking the same or similar thing, the thing is referred in 2 different contexts. You can translate the thing in 2 context in certain extents.
Similarly a term could have different meaning in different departments. in that case different context explain the term differently. Translation between two to some extent maybe possible.
Instead of saying “Bounded context” maybe try saying “bounded world”
My understanding about sub-domain and bounded context is-
Each subdomain represents a specific area of knowledge or responsibility within the overall domain, and each subdomain may have one or more responsibilities associated with it. In some cases responsibilities can split across multiple subdomains. Considering all theses issues, it can be useful to draw logical boundaries to separate those responsibilities and maintain consistency and transactional integrity.
Bounded contexts in Domain-Driven Design (DDD) are used to define these logical boundaries and provide a way to manage the complexity of large and complex systems by dividing them into smaller, more manageable parts. By using ubiquitous language we can ensure that the concepts and rules of that context are clearly understood and communicated within the development team. So we draw that boundary based on the uses language in that particular context.
So, in summary, a subdomain represents a specific area of knowledge or responsibility within the overall domain, and bounded contexts are used to manage the complexity of large systems by creating logical boundaries around specific areas of responsibility, and using a specific language, or ubiquitous language, to ensure clear communication and understanding of the concepts and rules within that context.
Bounded context ensure us that one responsibility doesn't blend with another one and finally prevent us from introducing complexity and confusion. In that sense it is very similar with SRP of SOLID
I have started reading few chapters of the blue book and have read the first three chapters of red book (Implementing Domain Driven Design). I have a two questions:
(1) Can a sub-domain have more than one bounded context? I am particularly looking at the example in Implementing Domain Driven Design book where there is a forecasting sub-domain sort of coupled/overlap with inventory. (Apologies if you have not read the book, but the idea is that there is a strong overlap between the two bounded contexts).
(2) How do I organize my project solution structure (I am using .net), are there any examples of real world projects that I can look at? Should I create folders namely sub-domain, core-domain, generic-domain and then specify the modules under it? I am struggling on how best to define my structure so that it shows the onion/hexagonal layers is in place.
Thanks in advance.
Yes. The Domain is composed from multiple sub domains (if it is complex enough) and each are in fact a group of bounded contexts. The Domain itself can be considered a bounded context (BC) from the app point of view.
A BC doesn't mean that it contains an unique model, but a specific representation of the business concept. So you can have a Book definition in multiple BC but in each, the definition is slightly different, ranging from full details to just an id. So the Book from Inventory is different than a Book from Sales for example. It matters how that BC understands a concept.
The resulting model is valid only in that BC, although it can have the same name as the model from another BC. But that's what namespaces are for.
There isn't a recipe for that, everyone structure their projects how they see fit. But most of the time you'll have at least one Domain project and UI, Persistence, Infrastrcuture projects. I think that the best structure depends on the app and on how the developers thinks so the way I do things might not be the optimum way for you. In a nutshell, structure the app as it makes sense for you.
What are DDD recommendations for inter-domain referencing design?
Should I try to connect them as "Matryoshka" (put one into another) or it is better to create upper-level "inter-domain" business service?
P.S. Crossing this smooth water, I was unable to find anything useful to read in the Internet, and have started thinking that for this kind of things exist better term than "inter-domain referencing"... Am I right?
DETAILS:
I have two models/business services.
Semantically first domain (A) is CRM with sell/maintenance process for our goods, second domain (B) is "design" data of our goods. We have two view points on our goods: from seller perspective and from engineer perspective.
Actually each model is effective ORM (Object-Relational Mapping) tool to the same database.
There are some inter-domain activities e.g. validations (e.g. sometimes we can sell things to smb. only if some engineering rules are valid).
From developer's point of view I have two clear possibilities (reference B in A or create new cross reference domain/service C ). But from designer perspective I am lost in understanding what kind of Business Service I have when I compose business logic from two different domains.
As far as I know, DDD has no strict rules for 'inter-domain' referencing. At the end of the day your domain model will have to reference basic Java or .NET classes. Or it may reference specialized date/time or graph library (aka 'Generic Domain').
On the other hand DDD has a concept of Bounded Context. And it has quite a few patterns that can be applied when you work at the boundaries of the system. For example 'Anticorruption Layer' can be used to isolate you from legacy system. Other integration styles can be used depending on how much control you have over external code, team capabilities etc.
So there is probably no need to introduce artificial glue layer if you just dealing with two subdomains in one Bounded Context. Might also be worth reading Part 4 of DDD book (Strategic Design).
UPDATE:
Based on the information you provided, it looks like you only have one Bounded Context. You don't seem to have 'linguistic clashes' where the same word have two different meanings. Bounded Context integration patterns are most likely not applicable to your situation. Your Sales domain can reference Products domain directly. If you think of Products domain being more low-level and Sales being high level you can use Dependency Inversion Principle. Define an interface like ProductCompatiblityValidator in Sales and implement it in Products domain. And then inject the actual implementation at the application layer. This way you will not have a direct reference from Sales to Products.
In addition to what Dmitry has already said...
I think of any code that crosses bounded contexts as application layer code. I would have that application layer code reference domain types from both contexts (and their repositories) but not have two domains reference each other. I think it's OK to have business logic in an application layer if it specifically crosses domain boundaries and is unit-testable.
If you really have a hierarchy, then it would be OK to have the the more concrete subdomain reference the more abstract domain. However, I would be careful if this causes you to need to have domain objects reference repositories of any type. Pulling objects out of of a repository is rarely a true domain concept. Referencing repositories is best done in an application layer that sits a layer above the domain model.
Of course this is all as much art as science. I'd try modeling a thin slice of your application a couple different ways and see what friction you run into with each approach.
I am quite new with DDD and would like to know about any pitfalls you might want to share. I will summarize it later for more newbies to read :)
Thanks
Summary so far:
Anemic domain model where your entities are primarily only data bearing and contain no business logic
Not using bounded contexts enough
Focusing too much on patterns
There is a good presentation on this topic as well here (video).
Probably the most important one: not grokking the central, fundamental principle of the Domain Model and its representation in Ubiquitous Language. With the plethora of technology options around, it's very easy for your head to fill up with ORMs, MVC frameworks, ajax, sql vs nosql, ... So much so there's little space left for the actual problem you're trying to solve.
And that's DDD's key message: don't. Instead, explicitly focus on the problem space first and foremost. Build a domain model shorn of architectural clutter that captures, exposes and communicates the domain.
Oh, and another one: thinking you need Domain Services for everything you can do in the domain model. No. You should always first try to put domain logic with the Entity/Value type it belongs to. You should only create domain services when you find functions that don't naturally belong with an E/V. Otherwise you end up with the anaemic domain model highlighted elsewhere.
hth.
One of the biggest pitfalls is that you end up with a so-called anemic model where your entities are primarily only data bearing and contain no business logic. This situation often arises when you build your domain model on top of an existing relational data model and just make each table in the database an entity in your domain model.
You might enjoy presentation of Greg Young about why DDD fails.
In short:
Lack of intent
Anemic Domain Model
DDD-Lite
Lack of isolation
Ubiquitous what?
Lack of refinement
Proxy Domain Expert (Business analyst)
Not using bounded contexts enough. It's toward the back of the the big blue book but Eric Evans has gone on record as saying that he believes that bounded contexts and ubiquitous language are THE most important concepts.
Similarly, people tend to focus too much on the patterns. Those aren't the meat of DDD.
Also, if you do not have a lot of access to domain experts you are probably not doing DDD, at best you are DDDish.
More concretely, if you end up with many-to-many relationships, you've probably designed something wrong and need to re-evaluate your aggregate roots/contexts
Only adding to what others have already said;
My personal experience is that people often end up with an anemic model and a single model instead of multiple context specific models.
Another problem is that many focus more on the infrastructure and patterns used in DDD.
Just because you have entities and repositoriesand are using (n)Hibernate it doesn't mean you are doing DDD.
It's not from my personal experience with subject, but it was mentioned for a couple of times in DDD books and it's what I've been thinking about recently: use Entities when you really need identity, in other cases use Value Object. I.e., Entity pattern often happens to be the default choice for any model noun, and it's not the way it should be.
Beware of the Big Ball of Mud.
One of the pitfalls of domain driven design is to introduce ambiguity into a model. As explained in the article Strategic Domain Driven Design with Context Mapping:
Ambiguity is the super-villain of our
Ubiquitous Language
This may happen when two distinct concepts share the same name, or when the same concept can have different uses. It may be necessary to
expose the domain structure in
terms of bounded contexts in a context
map
If a model is used in too many different ways, or has too many responsibilities, it may be a sign that it should be divided.