In Domain Driven Design, domain services should contain operations that do not naturally belong inside an entity.
I've had the habit to create one service per entity and group some methods inside it (Organization entity and OrganizationService service).
But the more I think about it: OrganizationService doesn't mean anything, "Organization" is not a service, it's a thing.
So right now I have to add a Organization deep copy functionality that will duplicate a whole Organization aggregate, so I want to put it in a service.
Should I do: OrganizationService::copyOrganization(o)?
Or should I do: OrganizationCopyService::copyOrganization(o)?
More generally: is a "service" an abstract concept containing several operations, or is a service a concrete operation?
Edit: more examples given the first one wasn't that good:
StrategyService::apply()/cancel() or StrategyApplicationService::apply()/cancel()? ("Application" here is not related to the application layer ;)
CarService::wash() or CarWashingService::wash()?
In all these examples the most specific service name seems the most appropriate. After all, in real life, "car washing service" is something that makes sense. But I may end up with a lot of services...
*Note: this is not a question about opinions! This is a precise, answerable question about the Domain Driven Design methodology. I'm always weary of close votes when asking "should I", but there is a DDD way of doing things.*
I think it's good if a domain service has only one method. But I don't think it is a rule like you must not have more than one method on a domain service or something. If the interface abstracts only one thing or one behaviour, it's certainly easy to maitain but the granularity of the domain service totally depends on your bounded context. Sometimes we focus on low coupling too much and neglect high cohesive.
This is a bit opinion based I wanted to add it as a comment but ran out space.
I believe that in this case it will make sense to group the methods into one a separate OrganizationFactory-service with different construction method.
interface OrganizationFactory{
Organization createOrganization();
Organization createOrganizationCopy(Organization organization);
}
I suppose it will be in accordance with information expert pattern and DRY principle - one class has all the information about specific object creation and I don't see any reason to repeat this logic in different places.
Nevertheless, an interesting thing is that in ddd definition of factory pattern
Shift the responsibility for creating instances of complex objects and
AGGREGATES to a separate object, which may itself have no
responsibility in the domain model but is still part of the domain
design. Provide an interface that encapsulates all complex assembly
and that does not require the client to reference the concrete classes
of the objects being instantiated.
the word "object" is in a generic sense doesn't even have to be a separate class but can also be a factory method(I mean both the method of a class and the pattern factory method) - later Evans gives an example of the factory method of Brokerage Account that creates instances of Trade Order.
The book references to the family of GoF factory patterns and I do not think that there's a special DDD way of factory decomposition - the main points are that the object created is not half-baked and that the factory method should add as few dependecies as possible.
update DDD is not attached to any particular programming paradigm, while the question is about object-oriented decomposition, so again I don't think that DDD can provide any special recommendations on the number of methods per object.
Some folks use strange rules of thumb, but I believe that you can just go with High Cohesion principle and put methods with highly related responsibilities together. As this is a DDD question, so I suppose it's about domain services(i.e. not infrastructure services). I suppose that the services should be divided according to their responsibilities in the domain.
update 2 Anyway CarService can do CarService::wash()/ CarService::repaint() / CarService::diagnoseAirConditioningProblems() but it will be strange that CarWashingService will do CarWashingService::diagnoseAirConditioningProblems() it's like in Chomsky's generative grammar - some statements(sentences) in the language make sense, some don't. But if your sentence contains too much subjects(more than say 5-7) it also will be difficult to understand, even if it is valid sentence in language.
Related
My question here is quite straight as mentioned in the subject.
However, please allow me to give some brief explanation here about my innocent thoughts.
I've been using Axon for approximately 10 months now. I used to design my project structure based on the Hexagonal architecture with two top level packages respectively for domain and infrastructure.
Furthermore, domain package will contain different domain objects (as explained in the DDD concept) such as follow:
Aggregate (this will be an Axon aggregate class).
Repository (in my case, this will be a Spring Data Repository interface).
Entity (in my case, this contains any lookup entity that i used for set-based consistency validation as written here).
Service Port (collection of Input and Ouput port interfaces).
Commands (representing Axon Command object).
As for Events, I used to put them on a different module that I compiled as a jar file, so I can share it to other developers whom going to use the same event in their project.
I've noticed recently that all of my commands and events were basically anemic models (an anti pattern that we should avoid).
Is there any good practice on this ? Or, Is it something that intentionally used by design ?
I've been thinking to put my Command classes within my Aggregate class (as an inner classes). At least by using this approach I won't end-up with having so many anemic models scattered outside. Any thoughts ?
Commands are designed to be behavior and input structures mirroring the external world. They don't necessarily mirror an aggregate's structure.
They are not even connected clearly to one single aggregate, at times. Enclosing them within aggregates can be a code smell because you are then thinking in terms of resources and UI organization, instead of transaction boundaries and entity groups.
You are also violating the open-closed principle. Changes in volatile layers like user interface and request structures will make you edit the Aggregate class, and that is not good design.
On a more general note...
At times, this debate of anemic vs. non-anemic (or dry vs. non-dry) can push you in the direction of premature - and incorrect - optimization. Try avoiding this trap because you will end up optimising at the code level, but your domain will suffer.
DDD and CQRS guidelines align with principles that help you keep complexity at bay over the long term. Things kept distinct and separate help you achieve this.
First of all, in DDD, your domain had to be free of any frameworks, just use pure language library.
Then, mixing Commands and Aggregates cannot be a good solution. I think Commands belongs to Port while Aggregates belongs to the Hexagone.
Finally, DDD highlights the discovery of the domain thanks to the experts. Did you do that ? If not, if you're only using the Tacticts pattern, you'll miss one of the most important part of DDD.
When I started using DDD, I created Equals() methods in my entities that compared the ID of the entity. So two entity objects with the same ID would be considered equal.
At some point I thought about that and found that two entities in different states should not be considered equal, even when they describe the same thing (i.e. have the same ID). So now I use reference equality for my entities.
I then stumbled over this answer by Mark Seemann, where he writes
Entities are equal if their IDs equal each other.
Now, of course, I'd like to know which approach is better.
Edit: Note that the question is not whether having two instances of the same entity at the same time is a good idea. I'm aware that in most situations it is probably not.
The question is twofold. First, what you really want to know is
How to handle terms that the X language (or Y framework) impose when I code a domain model with it?
C# for example imposes you that any new concept you define inherit a certain set of public methods. Java includes even more methods.
I've never heard a domain expert talking about hash codes or instance equality, but this is one of those situations when the (often misunderstood) quote "don't fight the framework" from Evans apply: just teach developers to not use them when they do not belong to domain's interfaces.
Then, what you want to know is
What is an entity? How it relates to its own identity?
Start with why! You know that entities are terms of the ubiquitous language that are identifiable.
But WHY?
Plain simple: entities describe concepts whose evolution in time is relevant in the context of the problem we are solving!
It is the relevance of the evolution that defines the entity, not the other way around! The identity is just a communication tool to keep track of the evolution, to talk about it.
As an example think about you: you are a person with a name; we use your name to communicate about your interactions with the rest of the world during your life; still, you are not that name.
Ask yourself: why I need to compare domain entities? Is the domain expert talking this way? Or I'm just using a DDD parlance to describe a CRUD application that interact with a relational database?
To me, the need to actually implement Equals(object) or GetHashCode() into an entity looks like a smell of an inadequate infrastructure.
Entities shouldn't be compared like that, in the first place. There is no valid use case (outside testing, but then again the assertion library should handle this for you) to see if 2 entities are equal using the object's Equals method.
What makes an Entity unique is its Id. The purpose of the id is to say 'this very entity is different from other entities despite having identical properties/values'.
That being said, in a Domain you might need to compare a concept instance with another instance. The comparison is done according to Bounded Context (or even Aggregate) specific Domain rules. It doesn't matter an entity is involved, it could have been a value object as well.
Basically the 'comparison' should be a Domain use case which will be probably implemented as a service. This has no relation to an object's Equals method, which is a technical aspect.
When doing DDD, don't think like a programmer (i.e technical aspects) think like an architect (high level). Code, programming language etc is just an implementation detail.
I think it's bad idea to have the two separate instances of the same entity in different states. I can't think of a scenario where that would be desirable. Maybe there is one? I believe there should only ever be one instance of a given entity with a particular ID.
In general I'd compare their equality using their IDs.
But if you wanted to check if they are the same object reference then you could just use:
if (Object.ReferenceEquals(entityA, entityB))
{
DoSomething();
}
When you are developing an architecture in OO/DDD style and modeling some domain entity e.g. Order entity you are putting whole logic related to order into Order entity.
But when the application becomes more complicated, Order entity collects more and more logic and this class becomes really huge.
Comparing with anemic model, yes its obviously an anti-pattern, but all that huge logic is separated in different services.
Is it ok to deal with huge domain entities or i understand something wrong?
When you are trying to create rich domain models, focus entities on identity and lifecyle, and thus try to avoid them becoming bloated with either properties or behavior.
Domain services potentially are a place to put behavior, but I tend to see a lot of domain service methods with behavior that would be better assigned to value objects, so I wouldn't start refactoring by moving the behavior to domain services. Domain services tend to work best as straightforward facades/adaptors in front of connections to things outside of the current domain model (i.e. masking infrastructure concerns).
You can also put behavior in Application services, but ask yourself whether that behavior belongs outside of the domain model or not. As a general rule, try to focus application services more on orchestration-style tasks that cross entities, domain services, repositories.
When you encounter a bloated entity then the first thing to do is look for sets of cohesive set of entity properties and related behavior, and make these implicit concepts explicit by extracting them into value objects. The entity can then delegate its behavior to these value objects.
Since we all tend to be more comfortable with entities, try to be more biased towards value objects so that you get the benefits of immutability, encapsulation and composability that value objects provide - moving you towards a more supple design.
Value objects enable you to incorporate a more functional style (eg. side-effect-free functions) into your domain model and thus free up your entities from having to deal with the complexity of adding complicated behavior to the burden of managing identity and lifecycle. See the pattern summaries for entities and value objects in Eric Evan's http://domainlanguage.com/ddd/patterns/ and the Blue Book for more details.
When you are developing an architecture in OO/DDD style and modeling
some domain entity e.g. Order entity you are putting whole logic
related to order into Order entity. But when the application becomes
more complicated, Order entity collects more and more logic and this
class becomes really huge.
Classes that have a tendency to become huge, are often the classes with overlapping responsibilities. Order is a typical example of a class that could have multiple responsibilities and that could play different roles in your application.
Given the context the Order appears in, it might be an Entity with mutable state (i.e. if you're managing Order's commercial condition, during a negotiation phase) but if you're application is managing logistics, an Order might play a different role: and an immutable Value Object might be the best implementation in the logistic context.
Comparing with anemic model, yes its
obviously an anti-pattern, but all that huge logic is separated in
different services.
...and separation is a good thing. :-)
I have got a feeling that the original model is probably data-centric and data serving different purposes (order creation, payment, order fulfillment, order delivery) is piled up in the same container (the Order class). Can't really say it from here, but it's a very frequent pattern. Not all of this data is useful for the same purpose at the same time.
Often, a bloated class like the one you're describing is a smell of a missing separation between Bounded Contexts, and/or an incomplete Aggregate separation within the same bounded context. I'd have a look to:
things that change together;
things that change for the same reason;
information needed to fulfill behavior;
and try to re-define aggregate boundaries accordingly. And also to:
different purposes for the application;
different stakeholders;
different implicit models/languages;
when it comes to discover the involved contexts.
In a large application you might have more than one model, thus leading to more than a single representation of a single domain concept, at least for concepts that are playing many roles.
This is complementary to Paul's approach.
It's fine to use services in DDD. You will commonly see services at the Domain, Application or Infrastructure layers.
Eric uses these guidelines in his book for spotting when to use services:
The operation relates to a domain concept that is not a natural part of an ENTITY or VALUE OBJECT.
The interface is defined in terms of other elements in the domain model
The operation is stateless
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.
When comming accross concepts within a Domain Model where there exists something that has a name and sounds like an object but overlaps with the responsiblility of one of the 5 main DDD building blocks what is the best practice for naming this object and or dealing with design which may or may not include that name or phrase in the actual implementation?
To give a more concrete example lets say that we are designing a time tracking application in the spirit of DDD and encounter something that the domain experts refer to as a "time log" which is supposed to be the log which holds punch-in and corresponding punch-out times for all employees.
With this information my initial thought is that if there were a class written called TimeLog which allowed for querying existing time entries and also for persisting new or amended time log entries that such a class is really playing the role of a DDD repository. For simplicity sake, lets assume that after various discussions and refactoring that we come to a conclusion that each time log entry is essentially it's own aggregate root and thus has the need for a corresponding repository.
Now we are left with the option of either naming our repository as TimeLog which seems more in line with the DDD concept of ubiquitous language or we could call it TimeLogEntryRepository which seems to fit the more general convention for naming Repositories after the Aggregate root that they query/persist. I'm leaning more towards the the idea of using TimeLog since it is more descriptive of the actual role that it plays in the domain model which should in turn help in communicating design to domain experts. The choice of using TimeLogEntryRepository on the other hand follows existing DDD conventions and thus would make the design easier to follow for developers. A compromise could also be to go with the TimeLog naming but to have all repositories implement an IRepository interface or inherit from a common Repository base class to help developers locate and distinguish repository classes from others that make up the domain model. The main concern I have with using a base class is that it may encourage the use of marker interfaces or a weak unnecessary base class just for the purpose of organization and not due to behavioral factors.
What is the best practice in cases like this? I can see the same type of issue perhaps happening for services as they are another piece of the typical DDD building blocks that developers typically name using a "Service" suffix such as in SomeComplexActivityService but for Entities and Value Objects this is really a non-issue. I'm especially interested to see what others may have to say that have more DDD experience under their belt.
I personally prefer TimeLog.
It's actually amazing how much easier it becomes once you switch focus to business instead of technology. Proper naming is main weapon to keep that focus sharp.
The same goes for services - instead of ApplicationRegistrationService, I use ApplicationRegistrator.
Here's quite nice article about repositories.
I second #Arnis L. suggestion. I would also add that in respect to DDD your domain should reflect the actual UL (Ubiquitous Language) which you share with business analysist and other people that are often non technical people. So I think that you will talk with them about TimeLog and not TimeLogEntryRepository. Repository is just a pattern and it's name should not be in the naming conventions.