I started designing one console application with domain driven design and onion architecture, before doing that i want to explore a fully designed application with domain driven design and onion architecture. If you come across any kind of sample please post the link to it.
I had the same question as you and came to the following conclusion: You won't find a complete DDD example as it does not exist.
A proper DDD application will scream domain and not framework. When you look at the code you will see an accounting system or a scheduling system, not a DDD system.
I would suggest you take each part, starting with entity, aggregate root, application boundary and repository and start implementing them 1 by 1. When you get stuck, look for solutions to your specific problem.
Update
I found this book by Vaughn Vernon https://vaughnvernon.co/?page_id=168
I will be starting a series on implementing DDD in .net on my blog soon.
Related
I'm starting on DDD and I have a doubt on application of DDD on a Web Project.
If I have multiple Bounded Contexts for every section of a web project. For example, "Catalog" and "Shopping Cart" on a E-Commerce project. ¿Where should be the code that implements the frontend for all the Web and presents concepts from many Bounded Contexts?
I have thought about creating the "Web" Bounded Context, but this Bounded Context won`t represent a specific Ubiquitous Language because this BC will use concepts of many Bounded Contexts and Subdomains.
What you do think about this?
Thanks.
Where this code goes depend on the structure of your application.
DDD is a set of patterns and rules that helps you model your business. This model should be ubiquitous, meaning different applications should share the same business logic. The main rule of DDD is what describes the business goes in the domain, everything else does not. DDD does not state anything about how to you should structure your application, it can be applied to any architecture.
What you describe is called presentation logic and does not describe your business logic. It describes how your system interacts with clients, which are external actors and is specific to your application: if you make a web or a mobile version of your app, chances are that you will have the same domain implementation but your presentation logic will slightly differ. So, there is no DDD answer to where the presentation logic goes, besides not in the domain.
If you make a traditional 3-layered application, this logic goes in the presentation layer.
Does anyone know this certification? Opinions?
https://www.lightbend.com/certified-reactive-architect
Yes I know this certification and have completed the same.
The syllabus of this certification is really awesome and will help you enhance your thinking and change the way you may think about the architectures traditionally.
It is related to Microservice Architecture. It will teach you to build the reactive system from scratch.
It teaches you how to think and interact with the customers/subject matter experts with the help of DDD(Domain Driven Design). It teaches you how to make Microservice Responsive, Resilient, Elastic and Message Driven. It adheres to reactive manifesto. It also teaches you microservice design patterns like Saga, CQRS and ES patterns. Architect systems using Hexagonal Architecture/ Onion Architecture where domain is the core of architecture.
It teaches you about CAP theorem too which is Consistency, Availability and Partiton Tolerance in depth.
Akka Toolkit, Lagom framework, Axon Framework, Eventuate Framework, Kafka, Cassandra and many more, follow these Principles and will really help us in understanding many more frameworks based on this Manifesto.
It basically will help you design the Systems with zero downtime.(Reactive Systems like, LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter etc..)
It also helps you understand application partitioning, clustering, remoting, sharding, etc..
Overall I rate this certification as a 5 star and will help you think like an architect and may help achieve your goal of becoming the technical architect.
I am in the process of moving an application from c# to node.js. I am learning node.js as I go along, so I am a node.js newbie. I am reading the book, Patterns, Principles and Practices of Domain Driven Design and found a lot of great information my current project could benefit from.
For instance, in the book, there is a sample e-commerce application that contains three bounded contexts: sales, shipping and billing. Each bounded context is responsible for its own database and each bounded context is running in an instance of NServiceBus. This seems to be a great approach as everything is running under the same solution, but different projects. In translating this to node.js, I am having a few areas of confusion.
1) I am having a rough time finding good examples that incorporate node.js with ddd like the e-commerce example above? Some of the hurdle here is the difference in how OOP is handled.
2) If in the book sample code, each bounded context is in its own project and runs within NServiceBus, would this mean that in translating this to node.js, I am using vscode as GUI, that I would need to create a separate parent folder(bounded context) for each project and supply a different port for each bounded context to listen on if I want all of the bounded contexts to run on the same server until I need to scale accordingly?
3) NServiceBus allows messages and events to get passed back ad forth. For node.js, what service bus technology, preferably open source and can run on linux-based machine, exists that would provide the kind of functionality NServiceBus provides and reliably? Should I just look at using rabbitmq alone to provide this functionality including sending events?
You might be interested in wolkenkit, a CQRS and event-sourcing framework for Node.js and JavaScript that plays very well together with domain-driven design (DDD).
Besides the actual framework (which is deployed as npm module wolkenkit), there are a number of sample applications available that show how things work:
wolkenkit-todomvc is the classical TodoMVC application modeled using DDD
wolkenkit-boards is a team collaboration software similar to Trello
wolkenkit-nevercompletedgame is the wolkenkit version of the game at nevercompletedgame.com
wolkenkit-geocaching is an application to manage caches for geocaching
Apart from that you might want to take a look at the wolkenkit documentation, and there again especially at the brochure you can download which explains DDD, event-sourcing and CQRS, what they are, how they relate to each other, and so on…
PS: Please note that I am one of the authors of wolkenkit, so please take my answer with a grain of salt.
I would suggest going through the npm modules tagged with ddd:
https://www.npmjs.com/browse/keyword/ddd
and tagged with service bus:
https://www.npmjs.com/browse/keyword/servicebus
There is also a JavaScript Domain-Driven Design book by Philipp Fehre.
This post is a couple of years old, but for anyone still interested there's a DDD framework for Typescript/node at:
https://github.com/node-ts/ddd
As well as an NServiceBus inspired message bus at:
https://node-ts.github.io/bus/
They're designed to work together to build message driven DDD systems with node
We're starting a web application using DDD and CQRS (using the ncqrs framework) and before we get started writing our own infrastructure class library, i wanted to see if any are already available.
I'd think at least some basic interfaces and common implementations for writing to the file system, sending emails, etc could be used in any project.
Those types of services are sufficiently context dependent to be unyielding to common frameworks above the facilities provided by the .NET Framework. There may frameworks centered around specific tasks, such as emailing, however you're better of selecting a solution that fits the requirements, instead of the converse. Instead, consider reviewing some sample DDD projects as listed here.
I agree with what eulerfx stated earlier. I'd add that if you depend upon a framework for using DDD and CQRS, then you risk depending on the framework and not truly understanding what is happening. As a result, you may miss what DDD (and CQRS) is providing to you.
I will state that I started off learning about CQRS by using a framework (NCQRS in fact), but my DDD knowledge was based on Evans' book and I didn't look for a framework for modeling my domain. As each domain is unique to the problem, I think it's hard to truly have a framework that "helps" you implement DDD.
In retrospect, I wish I had not gone with NCQRS right from the start as I missed or passed over some of the subtleties of the CQRS pattern.
There are probably some DDD frameworks out there, but I'd recommend forgoing them and build your own. You'll thank yourself later.
Hope this helps. Good luck!
You can try my library CoreDdd, documentation here, blog posts about it here. It contains support for DDD (entities, aggregate roots) and CQRS (commands, queries). No support for writing file system or sending emails, use standard .net for this.
I have been practicing DDD for a while now with the 4 distinct layers: Domain, Presentation, Application, and Infrastructure. Recently, I introduced a friend of mine to the DDD concept and he thought it introduced an unnecessary layer of complexity (specifically targeting interfaces and IoC). Usually, its at this point, I explain the benefits of DDD-- especially, its modularity. All the heavy lifting and under the hood stuff is in the Infrastructure and if I wanted to completely change the underlying data-access method, I could do so with only having to touch the Infrastructure layer repository.
My friend's argument is that he could build a three tiered application in the same way:
Business
Data
Presentation
He would create business models (like domain models) and have the repositories in the Data layer return those Business models. Then he would call the business layer which called the data layer. I told him the problem with that approach is that it is not testable. Sure, you can write integration tests, but you can't write true unit tests. Can you see any other problems with his proposed 3-tiered approach (I know there is, because why would DDD exist otherwise?).
EDIT: He is not using IoC. Each layer in his example is dependent on one another.
I think you're comparing apples and oranges. Nothing about N-Tier prohibits it from utilizing interfaces & DI in order to be easily unit-tested. Likewise, DDD can be done with static classes and hard dependencies.
Furthermore, if he's implementing business objects and using Repositories, it sounds like he IS doing DDD, and you are quibbling over little more than semantics.
Are you sure the issue isn't simply over using DI/IoC or not?
I think you are mixing a few methodologies up. DDD is Domain-Driven Developement and is about making the business domain a part of your code. What you are describing sounds more like the Onion Architecture (link) versus a 'normal' 3-layered approach. There is nothing wrong with using a 3-layered architecture with DDD. DDD depends on TDD (TestDriven Developement). Interfaces help with TDD as it is easier to test each class in isolation. If you use Dependency Injection (and IoC) it is further mitigated.
The Onion Architecture is about making the Domain (a.k.a. business rules) independent of everything else - ie. it's the core of the application with everything depending on the business objects and rules while things related to infrastructure, UI and so on are in the outer layers. The idea is that the closer to the 'shell of the onion' a module is - the easier it is to exchange for a new implementation.
Hope this clears it a bit up - now with a minor edit!
Read "Fundamentals of Software Architecture: An Engineering Approach", Chapter 8, Page 100 to 107.
The top-level partitioning is of particular interest to architects because it defines the fundamental architecture style and way of partitioning code. It is one of the first decisions an architect must make. These two styles (DDD & Layered) represent different ways to top-level partition the architecture. So, you are not comparing apples and oranges here.
Architects using technical partitioning organize the components of the system by technical capabilities: presentation, business rules, persistence, and so on.
Domain partitioning, inspired by the Eric Evan book Domain-Driven Design, which is a modeling technique for decomposing complex software systems. In DDD, the architect identifies domains or workflows independent and decoupled from each other.
The domain partitioning (DDD) may use a persistence library and have a separate layer for business rules, but the top-level partitioning revolves around domains. Each component in the domain partitioning may have subcomponents, including layers, but the top-level partitioning focuses on domains, which better reflects the kinds of changes that most often occur on projects.
So you can implement layers on each component of DDD (your friend is doing the opposite, which is interesting and we might try that out as well).
However, please note that ("Fundamentals of Software Architecture: An Engineering Approach", Page 135)
The layered architecture is a technically partitioned architecture (as
opposed to a domain-partitioned architecture). Groups of components,
rather than being grouped by domain (such as customer), are grouped by
their technical role in the architecture (such as presentation or
business). As a result, any particular business domain is spread
throughout all of the layers of the architecture. For example, the
domain of “customer” is contained in the presentation layer, business
layer, rules layer, services layer, and database layer, making it
difficult to apply changes to that domain. As a result, a
domain-driven design approach does not work as well with the layered
architecture style.
Everything in architecture is a trade-off, which is why the famous answer to every architecture question in the universe is “it depends.” Being said that, the disadvantage with your friend's approach is, it has higher coupling at the data level. Moreover, it will creates difficulties in untangling the data relationships if the architects later want to migrate this architecture to a distributed system (ex. microservices).
N Tier or in this case 3-tier architecture is working great with unit tests .
All you have to do is IoC (inversion of control) using dependency injection and repository pattern .
The business layer can validate , and prepare the returned data for the presentation \ web api layer by returning the exact data which is required .
You can then use mock in you unit tests all the way through the layers.
All your business logic and needs can be on bl layer . And Dal layer will contain repositories injected from higher level.