I am learning DDD concepts and to strengthen my understanding I am working on some real world examples.
I know that an aggregate should have only one entry point through the root entity and an aggregate should have only one repository (please correct me if I understood it totally wrong)
Now assume that there are consumables with specific types and these consumables are sent from a distribution center. Sending specific types of consumables depends on their quantity, I mean if one of the consumers has a critic quantity 10 for type A and B and those item quantities fall under 10 then the distribution center sends type A and B consumables. Here both the sender and consumer wants to track where the sent package is or if it is delivered or sent at all.
So here, as entities, we have:
Consumable
ConsumableType
ConsumableActivity
Package
PackageItem
Consumer
I am confused about the first three entities: which one should be the aggregate root? In a fast look it seems that the consumable is a strong candidate but on the other hand we do not care about every consumable, we are only interested in their quantity. We don't record 10 different type A consumables but only have a type A record with quantity which changes according to activities. At this point Consumable entity seems redundant, by just looking at activities we can derive the quantity. For example starting from scratch:
Center Create "Type A" 10
Center Create "Type B" 20
Center Send "Type A" 5 ConsumerId=25
Center Send "Type B" 15 ConsumerId=25
ConsumerId=25 Receive "Type A" 5
ConsumerId=25 Receive "Type B" 15
ConsumerId=25 Consume "Type A" 3
ConsumerId=25 Consume "Type B" 1
ConsumerId=25 Consume "Type A" 2
Here we can derive that there are 5 Type A and B consumables at the center and 0 Type A, 14 Type B consumables at consumer with id 25 for now.
Of course this is not an effective approach while after there are much more activities it will take some time to derive consumable quantities, so there should be a static quantity field for every consumable type both for consumers and the distribution center in which we can read the current quantity at once.
I hope you get why I am confused, the consumable entity looks like a root entity but actually it doesn't really fit in to be a root entity if not an entity also.
Can anyone suggest me some improvements about this design or and further reading recommendations which are not limited to customer-product-order-orderline nightmare?
Edit : What is the relation with Consumable and ConsumableType ? What if I want to conduct CRUD operations on ConsumableType (to make the user add new types, change or delete them) but the root entity is Consumable. In order to DDD to preserve data integrity we should't load any repository other than the root entity repository.
Edit 2: Think about a Product entity and its Category entity. The Product seems to be the root entity but we know that products cannot exist without a category. So is the Category entity the root? If so, according to DDD rules, we can access products only by traversing. But in our context the Product is our focus. Then it is supposed that we have two aggregates: Product Aggregate and Category Aggregate. But this time we violate the data integrity because a category may be deleted without deleting products having this category. So I am confused a lot and couldn't find a proper solution.
I am confused about the first three entities: which one should be the
aggregate root?
I am going to say that, most likely, your aggregate is Package even though there is the possibility that this example should be split into two or more separate bounded contexts. (creation and order fulfillment are natural boundaries)
What is the relation with Consumable and ConsumableType ?
It depends on your bounded context. Without knowing any more about ConsumableType other than it is designated by "A" or "B", I would have to say that it is more than likely a value object of Consumable.
What if I want to conduct CRUD operations on ConsumableType (to make
the user add new types, change or delete them) but the root entity is
Consumable
This is most likely a different bounded context altogether (context of some manager or something that doesn't fall within the general workflow we're modeling) for which more investigation about this context is suggested.
[Different Example]
So is the Category entity the root?
The aggregate root is what the user in the context interacts with. Assuming ALOT because you don't fully explain the context in this example, most likely the Product is the aggregate root because that is what the user cares most about. Same as the above example, Product would have a repository that would load it's assigned category to it. Loading the list of categories or hierarchy is best served by a domain service in this case because it doesn't belong to any particular entity instance.
[Another Example]
in your first case, how can, for example a system administrator, list
all available font colors or add a new one?
Again, the context of a system administrator is not the same context as the user who chooses the font color. Remember, each context is a single workflow. In complex workflows, there can be multiple users in the same context, but for the simple workflows like the CRUD operations an administrator might perform, generally there is only one role for this type of workflow. Under the system administrator, AvailableFontColor might be an entity with a Color value property within the Content Decoration Options Administration bounded context.
Can anyone suggest me some improvements about this design or and
further reading recommendations which are not limited to
customer-product-order-orderline nightmare?
I would suggest that you learn more about bounded contexts and why they are one of your most useful (and most hampering at times) tools in modeling a business domain. Also, don't expect to have this perfected to a science within a week.
I have been modeling software using various techniques for over 8 years now and there are still times where I have trouble deciding if I modeled something correctly or not. I think one of the greatest benefits of DDD is that it encourages you to embrace the fact that you probably won't model correctly from the beginning so you should make it easy to change the model and refactor often as you learn more about your domain rather than just going with what you have and ending up with 15 different convoluted cludges around your original model because you didn't fully understand the domain from the beginning.
Related
If we are working on a sub-domain where we're only dealing with a read-only scenario, meaning that our entities and value objects will not be changed, does it make sense to create aggregates composed by roots and its children or should each entity of this context map to a single aggregate?
Imagine that we've entity A and entity B.
In a context where modifications are made, we create an aggregate composed by entity A and entity B, where A is the aggregate root (let's say that B can't live without A and there are some invariants involved).
If we move the same entities to a different context where no modifications are made, does it make sense to keep this aggregate or should we create an aggregate for entity A and a different one for entity B?
In 2019, there's fairly large support for the idea that in a read only scenario, you don't bother with the domain model at all.
Just load the data directly into whatever read only data structure makes sense to support the use case.
See also: cqrs.
The first thing is if B cant live without A and there are some invariants involved, to me A is an Aggregate root, with B being an entity that belongs to it.
Aggregate roots represent a real world concept and dont just exist for the convenience of modification. In many of our applications, we don't modify state of our aggregate roots once created - i.e. we in effect have immutable aggregate roots. These would have some logic for design by contract checks/invariant checks etc but they are in effect anaemic as there is no "Update" methods due to its immutability. Since the "blue book" was written by Eric Evans, alot of things have changed, e.g. the concept of NoSql database have become very popular, functional programming concepts have become very influential rising to more advanced DDD style architectures being recommended such as CQRS. So for example, rather than doing updates to a database I can append (i.e. insert) instead. This leads to aggregates no longer having to be "updated". This leads to leaner anaemic types but this is what we want in this context. The issue before with anaemic types was that "update logic" for a given type was put elsewhere in the codebase instead of being put into the type itself. However if you do not require "update logic" in the first place then you dont have that problem!
If for example there is an Order with many OrderItems, we would create an Order aggregate root and an OrderItem entity. Its a very important concept to distill your domain to properly identify what are aggregates, entities and value types.
Then creation of domain services, repositories etc just flows naturally. For example, aggregate roots and repositories are 1 to 1 i.e. in the example above we would have an Order repository and not have an OrderItem repository. That way your main domain concepts are spread throughout your code in a predictable and easy to understand way.
Finally, in your specific question I would not treat them as the same entities. In one context, you seem to need modification logic - in the other they you dont - they are separate domain concepts to me.
In context where modifications are made: A=agg root, B=entity.
In context without modifications: A=agg root (immutable), B=entity(immutable)
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.
For some time I am dealing with Domain-Driven Design. Unfortunately I have some problems regarding the Aggregate.
Say, I like to model the structure of an university. The university has some departments (faculties) and every department has some classes. There is a rule that every department needs to be unique and so every class in it. For instance the names of the classes needs to be unique. If I understand it right, then "University" seems to be my aggregate root and "department" and "class" are entities within this aggregate.
There is another aggregate root "Professor", because they are globally accessible. They will be assigned to a class. I´m unsure if it is allowed because an aggregate root should only point to another aggregate root and not to its content.
How to handle this?
Appreciate your help,
thanks in advance!
Say, I like to model the structure of an university. The university has some departments (faculties) and every department has some classes. There is a rule that every department needs to be unique and so every class in it. For instance the names of the classes needs to be unique.
Really? why? What's the business value of that rule? What does it cost the business (the university) if there happen to be two classes with the same name. Does that mean the same name across all time, or just during a given semester?
Part of the point of DDD is that the design of the solution requires exploration of the "ubiquitous language" to get a full understanding of the requirement.
In other words, you may be having trouble finding a good fit for this requirement in the design because you haven't yet discovered all of the entities that you need to make it work the way the business experts expect.
Udi Dahan points out that the uniqueness rule may not belong in the domain at all:
Rules that are not part of genuine domain logic do not have to be implemented in the domain model, suggested he, because they do not model the domain.
So if you have a constraint like this, but the constraint isn't a consequence of the domain itself, then the constraint can be correctly implemented elsewhere.
Greg Young has also written about set validation, specifically addressing concerns about eventual consistency.
But broadly, yes -- if you really have a collection of entities, and a domain rules that span multiple elements in the collection, then you need some aggregate that maintains the integrity of the boundary that the collection lives in.
The entities aren't necessarily what you think. For instance, if you need names to be unique, and the rest of the class entity is just along for the ride, then you may be able to simplify the rules by creating a name registry aggregate; Professors reserve names for their classes, and if the reservation is available, then the reserved name can be applied to the class entity.
If your core business really were naming things, with lots of special invariants to consider, you might build out a big model around this. But that's not particularly likely; perhaps you can just slap a table or two into a relational database -- that's a good solution for a set validation problem -- and get on with the valuable part of the project.
There is another aggregate root "Professor", because they are globally accessible. They will be assigned to a class. I´m unsure if it is allowed because an aggregate root should only point to another aggregate root and not to its content.
class.assign(professorId);
is the usual sort of answer here -- you pass around the surrogate key that identifies the aggregate root. Every entity in your domain should have one.
A couple of cautions here: I have found that real world entities (people, in particular) aren't a useful starting point for figuring out what aggregates are for. Primarily, because they end up being representations, primarily, of data where the invariant is enforced outside the domain model.
Also, I've found that starting from the nouns - class, department, professor - tends to put the focus on CRUD, which generally isn't a very interesting problem.
Instead, I recommend thinking about doing something useful -- a use case where there are business rules to enforce, when the business model gets to say "no, the business won't let you do that right now".
Ask yourself these questions:
How many universities will be in your system? If this is only one, it is not your aggregate root.
If you have multiple universities in your system, would be someone working across universities? May be universities are your system tenants?
What happens with a class if some department is dissolved? Will it immediately disappear? I doubt it.
The same as above with university to department relationship
It is not a problem with a Department to hold reference to its classes as a list of value objects that will contain the Class aggregate root id and the class name. The same is valid for departments dealing with their classes.
Vernon's Effective Aggregate Design might help too.
I'm not very experienced in DDD either but here some tips I use to use:
Is it possible to have a Class without a Department assigned? If that is the case then the Department is the aggregate root and Class is another aggregate with a reference to the root, the Department. You can even define a factory method "addClass()" within your Department with the info that a Class needs to be created, so nobody should be allowed to create a Class without a Department.
Why defining a Class a an Aggregate instead of a Value Object? Because Value Objects are distinguished by their properties' value rather than an ID. I would say that even having two Classes with the same name, same students, same info, etc, etc. the business would still want to differentiate each one. It is not the same with a 1 cent coin which with you only care about the value (given by the color, size, weight,...) but you can always replace it with another one with same attributes' value, that is 1 cent. Also assigning another Professor to the class, the class remains the same, it is not immutable as a Value Object should be.
I guess a Professor must be uniquely identified, and he can maybe be assigned to different Classes or even Departments. So to me it is another Aggregate root separated from the department.
First, don't think i'm trying to get the job done by someone else, but i'm trying to design a class diagram for a domain model and something I do is probably wrong because I'm stuck, so I just want to get hints about what i'm not doing correctly to continue...
For example, the user needs to search products by categories from a product list. Each category may have subcategories which may have subcategories, etc.
The first diagram I made was this (simplified):
The user also needs to get a tree list of categories which have at least one product.
For example, if this is all the categories tree:
Music instruments
Wind
String
Guitars
Violins
Percussion
Books
Comics
Fiction
Romance
I can't return a tree of Category which have at least one product because I would also get all subCategories, but not each sub category has a product associated to it.
I also can't remove items from the Category.subCategories collection to keep only items which have associated products because it would alter the Category entity, which may be shared elsewhere, this is not what I want.
I thought of doing a copy, but than I would get 2 different instances of the same entity in the same context, isn't it a bad thing ?
So I redesigned to this:
Now I don't get a collection of child categories I don't want with each Category, I only know about its parent category, which is ok.
However, this creates a tree of categories which is navigable only from the bottom to the top, it makes no sense for the client of ProductList who will always need a top -> bottom navigation of categories.
As a solution I think of the diagram below, but i'm not sure it is very good because it kinda dupplicates things, also the CategoryTreeItem does not seems very meaningful in the domain language.
What am I doing wrong ?
This is rather an algorithmic question than a model question. Your first approach is totally ok, unless you were silent about constraints. So you can assign a category or a sub-category to any product. If you assign a sub-category, this means as per this model, the product will also have the parent category. To make it clear I would attach a constraint that tells that a product needs to be assigned to the most finest know category grain. E.g. the guitar products would be assigned to the Guitar category. As more strange instrument like the Stick would get the Strings category (which not would mean its a guitar and a violin but just in the higher category.
Now when you will implement Category you might think of a method to return a collection of assignedInstruments() which for Guitar would return Fender, Alhambra, etc. You might augment this assignedInstruments(levelUp:BOOL) to get also those instruments of the category above.
Generally you must be clear about what the category assignment basically means. If you change the assignment the product will end up in another list.
It depends on the purpose of the diagram. Do you apply a certain software development method that defines the purpose of this diagram in a certain context and the intended readers audience?
Because you talk about a 'domain model', I guess your goal is to provide a kind of conceptual model, i.e. a model of the concepts needed to communicate the application's functionality to end users, testers etc. In that case, the first and the second diagram are both valid, but without the operations (FilterByCategory and GetCategories), because these are not relevant for that audience. The fact that the GUI only displays a subset of the full category tree is usually not expressed in a UML diagram, but in plain text.
On the other hand, if your intention is to provide a technical design for developers, then the third diagram is valid. The developers probably need a class to persist categories in the database ('Category') and a separate class to supply categories to the GUI ('CategoryTreeItem'). You are right that this distinction is not meaningful in the domain language, but in a technical design, it is common to have such additional classes. Please check with the developers if your model is compatible with the programming language and libraries/frameworks they use.
One final remark:
In the first diagram, you specified multiplicity=1 on the parent side. This would mean that every Category has a parent, which is obviously not true. The second diagram has the correct multiplicity: 0..1. The third diagram has an incorrect multiplicity=1 on the composition of CategoryTreeItem.
From my perspective your design is overly complex.
Crafting a domain model around querying needs is usually the wrong approach. Domain models are most useful to express domain behaviors. In other words, to process commands and protect invariants within the correct boundaries.
If your Product Aggregate Root (AR) references a Category AR by id and this relationship is stored in a relationnal DB then you can easily fulfill any of the mentionned querying use cases with a simple DB query. You'd start by gathering a flat representation of the tree which could then be used to construct an in-memory tree.
These queries could be exposed through a ProductQueryService that is part of the application layer, not the domain as those aren't used to enforce domain rules or invariants: I assumed they are used to fullfil reporting or UI display needs. It is there you could have a concept such as ProductCategoryTreeItemDTO for the in-memory representation.
You are also using the wrong terms according to DDD tactical patterns in your diagrams which is very misleading. An AR is an Entity, but an Entity is not necessarily an AR. The Entity term is mostly used to refer to a concept that is uniquely identified within the boundary of it's AR only, but not globally.
In my current project (e-commerce website), we have different Bounded Context like: billing, delivery or payment in our checkout process.
On top of this, depending on what the customer will buy, the checkout process will be different. So depending on the content of her cart the number of steps in the checkout process can be different, or we won't/will ask her for certain informations.
So should one create a different bounded context for each different type of checkout process ?
For example, the Order aggregate root will be different depending on the checkout process
EticketsOrder (in this context we don't need a delivery address so we won't ask one to the user)
Ticket BillingAddress
ClothesOrder (in this context we need a delivery address and there will be an additional step in the checkout process to get this)
Clothes BillingAddress DeliveryAddress
This separation will imply to create two different domain entities even thought they have similar properties.
What's the best way to model this kind of problem ? How to find the context boundary ?
A bounded context is chiefly a linguistic boundary. A quote from the blue book (highlighted key part):
A BOUNDED CONTEXT delimits the applicability of a particular model so
that team members have a clear and shared understanding of what has
to be consistent and how it relates to other CONTEXTS. Within that
CONTEXT, work to keep the model logically unified, but do not worry
about applicability outside those bounds. In other CONTEXTS, other
models apply, with differences in terminology, in concepts and rules,
and in dialects of the UBIQUITOUS LANGUAGE.
A question to ask is whether the different types of orders created are entirely distinct aggregates, or are they all order aggregates with different values. Is there a need to consider order as a whole regardless of how they were created? I've build and worked with ecommerce systems where different types of orders were all modeled as instances of the same aggregate, just with different settings and there were no linguistic issues. On the other hand, the orders in your domain may be different enough to warrant distinct contexts.
I often consider BC boundaries from the perspective of functional cohesion. If you segregate orders into two BCs will there be a high degree of coupling between them? If so, that may be a sign that they should be combined into one BC. On the other hand, if the only place that the BCs interact is for reporting purposes, there is no need to combined them.
It appears as though you may have missed a bounded context. When this happens one tends to try and fit the functionality into an existing BC. The same thing happens to aggregate roots. If something seems clumsy or it doesn't make sense try to see whether you haven't missed something.
In your example I would suggest a Shopping BC (or whatever name makes sense). You are trying to fit your checkout process into your Order BC. Your Shopping BC would be responsible for gathering all the data and then shuttling it along to the relevant parts.
The product type selected will determine whether a physical delivery is required.
Hope that helps.