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.
I was asked to implement CQRS/Event sourcing patterns into a legacy web application, in order to prepare to migrate it from a monolithic/state oriented model to a distributed, service oriented app.
I have some questions on how I can design a Domain oriented code bundle that would connect the legacy entities strongly coupled to database, with a new Event sourced model.
The first things I did were:
writing a small "framework" for CQRS/ES, with classes like AggregateRoot, DomainEvent, Command, Handlers, Messaging, Eventstore, AggregateIds, etc.
trying to group and "migrate" the legacy Entities into some Aggregates to reconstruct all the history and states of the app into EventSoourced Aggregates
plug some Commands dispatching in the old controllers in order to let the app work as is, but also to feed the new CQRS/ES system on the side.
The context:
The legacy app contains several entities, mapped to database, that hold the model layer. (Our domain is Human resources (manpower).
Let's say we have those existing entities:
Worker, with various fields and related entities (OneToOne, OneToMany), like
name
address 1-1
competences 1-N
Society, in which worker works, with various fields and related entities (OneToOne, OneToMany), like
name
address 1-1
hours
Contract, with various fields and related entities (OneToOne, OneToMany), like
address 1-1
Worker 1-1
Society 1-1
documents 1-N
days 1-N
hours
etc.
From this legacy model, I designed a MissionAggregate that holds:
A db independent ID, like UUID
some Value objects: address, days (they were an entity in the legacy model, they became VOs here)
I also designed a WorkerAggregate and a SocietyAggregate, with fields and UUIDS, and in the MissionAggregate I added:
a reference to WorkerAggregate's UUID
a reference to SocietyAggregate's UUID
As I said earlier, my aim is to leave the legacy app as is, but just introduce in the CRUD controller's methods some calls to dispatch Commands to the new CQRS system.
For example:
After flushing newly created Contract in bdd, I want to dispatch a "CreateMissionCommand" to the new command bus.
It targets the appropriate Command Handler, that handles all the command's data, passes it to a newly created Aggregate with a new UUID and stores "MissionCreatedDomainEvent" in the EventStore.
The DomainEvent is indexed with an AggregateId, a playhead, and has a payload which contains the fields necessary to be applied to and build the MissionAggregate.
The newly Contract created in the app has now its former lifecycle, as usual, with all the updates that the legacy app does on it. But I also need to reflects all those changes to the corresponding EventSourcedAggregate, so every time there is a flush in database in the app, I dispatch a Command that translates the "crud like operations" of the legacy app into a Domain oriented /Command oriented pattern.
To sum up the workflow is:
A Crud legacy operation occurs and flushes some changes on the Contract Entity
In just a row of code in the controller, I dispatch a command built with necessary fields (AggregateId of the MissionAggregate... that I need to have stored somewhere... see next problems) to the Domain command bus, so that the impact on the existing code base is very low.
The bus passes the command to the corresponding command handler
The handler loads the aggregate and applies the changes it by calling the appropriate Aggregate method
then after some validation, the aggregate raises and stores the appropriate event
My problems and questions (some of them at least) are:
I feel like I am rewriting all big portions of the legacy app, with the same kind of relations between the Aggregates that I have between the Entities, and with the same type of validations, checks etc.
Having references, to both WorkerAggregate and SocietyAggregate UUID in MissionAggregate implies that I have to build those aggregate also (hence to dispatch commands from legacy app when the Worker and Society entities are flushed). Can't I have only references to Worker's entity id and Society's entity id?
How can I avoid having a eternally growing MissionAggregate? The Contract Entity is quite huge, it has a lot of fields that are constantly updated (hours, days, documents, etc.) If I want to store all those events, I need to have a large MissionAggregate to reflect all those changes; and so I need to have a tons of CommandHandlers that react to all the Commands of add, update, etc. that I am going to dispatch from the legacy app.
How "free" is an Aggregate from the Root entity it is supposed to refer to ? For example, a Contract Entity needs to relate somewhere to it's related Mission Aggregate, like for example when I want to dispatch a Command from the app, just after the legacy code having flushed something on the Entity. Where to store this relation? In the Entity itself, in a AggregateId field? in the Aggregate, should I have a ContractId field? Or should I have some kind of Mapping Table somewhere that holds the relationship between Contract ID and MissionAggregate ID?
What to do with the past? Should I migrate all the existing data through a script that generates Aggregates and events on all the historical data?
Thanks in advance for your time.
You have a huge task ahead of you, let's try to break it down.
It's best to build this new part of the system in isolation from the legacy codebase, otherwise you're going to have your hands tied in every turn of the way.
Create a separate layer in your project for these new requirements. We're going to call it "bubble" from now on. This bubble will be like a greenfield project, with its own structure, dependencies, etc. There will be no direct communication between the bubble and the legacy; communication will happen through another dedicated translation layer, which we'll call "Anti-Corruption Layer" (ACL).
ACL
It is like an API between two systems.
It translates calls from the bubble to the legacy and vice-versa. Its purpose is to prevent one system from corrupting or influencing the other. This way you can keep building/maintaining each system independently from each other.
At the same time, the ACL allows one system to consume the other, and reuse logic, validations, rules, etc.
To answer your questions directly:
I feel like i am rewriting all big portions of the legacy app, with the same kind of relations between the Aggregates that i have between the Entities, and with the same type of validations, checks etc.
With the ACL, you can resort to calling validations and reuse implementations from the legacy code. This will allow you time to rewrite things as needed or as possible.
You may not need to rewrite the entire system, though. If your goal is to implement CQRS and Event Sourcing and you can achieve this goal by keeping most or part of the legacy system, I would say you do it. Unless, of course, one of the goals is to completely replace the old system. Otherwise, keep it; write as less code as possible.
Suggested workflow:
Keep the CQRS and Event Sourcing system in the bubble
Do not bring these new frameworks into legacy
Make the lagacy Controller issue method calls to the ACL
The ACL will convert these calls into Commands and dispatch them
Any events will be caught by your Event Sourcing framework
Results will be persisted to the bubble's database
The bubble's database can be a different schema in the same database or can be a different database altogether. But you'll have to think about synchronization, and that's a topic of its own. To reduce complexity, I recommend a different schema in the same database.
Having references, to both WorkerAggregate and SocietyAggregate UUID in MissionAggregate implies that i have to build those aggregate also (hence to dispatch commands from legacy app when the Worker and Society entities are flushed). Can't i have only references to Worker's entity id and Society's entity id?
How can i avoid having a eternally growing MissionAggregate ? The Contract Entity is quite huge, it has a looot of fields that are constantly updated (hours, days, documents, etc.) If i want to store all those events, i need to have a large MissionAggregate to reflect all those changes; and so i need to have a tons of CommandHandlers that react to all the Commands of add, update, etc that i am going to dispatch from the legacy app.
You should aim for small aggregates. Huge aggregates are likely to degrade performance and cause concurrency problems.
If you anticipate having a huge aggregate, it is best to rethink it and try to break it down. Ask what fields/properties change together - these are possibly a different aggregate.
Also, when you speak about CQRS, you generally lean towards a task-based way of doing things in your system.
Think of a traditional web application, where you have a huge page with lots of fields that are all sent to the server in one batch when the user saves.
Now, contrast it with a modern web app where the user changes small portions of data at each step. If you think about your system this way you'll find those smaller aggregates.
PS. you don't need to rebuild your interfaces for this. If your legacy system has those huge pages, you could have logic in the controllers to detect which fields were changed and issue the appropriate commands.
How "free" is an Aggregate from the Root entity it is supposed to refer to ? For example, a Contract Entity needs to relate somewhere to it's related Mission Aggregate, like for example when i want to dispatch a Command from the app, just after the legacy code having flushed something on the Entity. Where to store this relation ? In the Entity itself, in a AggregateId field ? in the Aggregate, should i have a ContratId field ? Or should i have some kind of Mapping Table somewhere that holds the relationship between Contract ID and MissionAggregate ID?
Aggregates represent a conceptual whole. They are like atoms, indivisible things. You should always refer to an aggregate by its Root Entity Id, and never to a Child Entity Id: looking from the outside, there are no children.
An aggregate should be loaded as a whole and persisted as a whole. One more reason to have small aggregates.
An aggregate can be comprised of a single entity. Or it can have more entities and value objects, forming a graph, but one entity will be elected as the Root and will hold references to its children. Child entities and value objects should not hold references to their parents. The dependency is not bi-directional.
If Contract is an entity inside the Mission aggregate, the Contract should not have a reference to its parent.
But, if your Contract and Mission are different aggregates, then they can reference each other by their Ids.
What to do with the past? Should i migrate all the existing datas through a script that generates Aggregates and events on all the historical data?
That's a question for the business experts. Do they need it? If they don't, then don't implement it just for the sake of doing so. Every decision you make should be geared towards satisfying a business need and generating real value for it, considering the costs and tradeoffs.
Some people say that code is a liability, not an asset, and I aggre to some extent: every line of code you write needs to be tested and supported. Don't write any code that is not really necessary.
Also, have a look at this article about the Strangler Pattern, which shows how to migrate a legacy system by gradually replacing specific pieces of functionality with new applications and services.
If you have a chance, watch this course at Pluralsight (paid): Domain-Driven Design: Working with Legacy Projects. The author presents practical approaches for dealing with this kind of task.
I hope this has given you some insight.
I don't want to spoil your game. Everybody knows how cool it is to rewrite something from scratch. It's a challenge, it's fun, it's exciting. However...
migrate it from a monolithic/state oriented model to a distributed, service oriented app
CQRS/Event Sourcing won't solve any of your problems and it won't help you distribute the app in any reasonable way. If you just generate events on the CRUD operations you'll have a large tangled mess of dependencies between each part. Every part that needs data will have to call a couple of "services" (i.e. tables) to get it, than push data elsewhere, generate events1 that some other parts will react to. It will be a mess. Usually this is called a distributed monolith.
This is also the reason you already see problems with it. These problems won't go away, because you are essentially building the same system in the same way, but this time it'll be more complex.
Where to go from here
The very first thing is always: have a clear goal. You want a service oriented architecture you said. Why? Are there parts that need different scaling, different resources? Are they managed by different teams with different life-cycles? Etc.? Maybe you already have all this, I don't know, but if not, that's your first task.
Then. The parts you do want to pull out can't be just CRUD things. Those will not be independent, so whether your goal (see point above!) is scaling or different team, you won't reach your goal! To be independent you'll have to pull out the behavior with the data, and in a way that the service can operate on its own.
You can't just throw buzzwords at it and hope for the best. I'd suggest to just ignore all the hype and buzzwords and think about the goal you want to reach.
For example: I need a million workers to log their time in under 10 minutes total. So that means I need a "service" to enable worker to log their time with a web interface. So let's create that as a complete independent piece with its own database so it can be scaled to a 100 nodes when it needs to be. Export data to billing automatically every hour or so.
I got a command : MovePlayerCommand.
One of the validator for this command does 3 things :
calculate the cost for the player to move (can be called for validation but also for displaying purpose)
validate this cost
listen to the "PlayerMoved" event so we can apply the costs (for instance - 10 action point).
Is this too much responsibilities for a single class ? If so how would you separate this ?
Edit : I know that removing the cost and checking it are 2 things, but I cant separate them from the computing of this costs, and I don't want to have 3 classes for each Action
There is a big misunderstanding here, as some poeple making comments seem to be mixing DDD and CQRS. The OP is talking about commands and has tagged the question with cqrs, so I am going to assume that the OP is indeed using DDD with CQRS.
The domain validation logic should be in the command handler, you can do, and indeed should do data checking before the command hits the handler stub, but not do any domain logic validation. That said, there is no other place where you could validate the command against the domain logic other than in the command handler because that is the place where your aggregates are loaded.
The validations you are showing are domain validations, so they should be actually performed by your aggregate, so yes, I think you should break that responsibility a bit, and split the different types of validation: data and domain.
Impossible to answer definitively without a lot more information.
That said, what you described does not sound like a validator; it sounds like a "calculator" of sorts.
It's likely that the calculating methods would belong in one class (the calculator class), and the validator class would then reference the calculator.
I tend to handle domain events in a very thin handler class, which then defers to an aggregate root or service (this is a common but not universal practice). So the root or service would likely also have a reference to the calculator (and possibly the validator).
This question may be too broad for SO, and might be better answered on a DDD forum. Even then, you may need to provide more background.
Suppose we have a situation when we need to implement some domain rules that requires examination of object history (event store). For example we have an Order object with CurrentStatus property, and we need to examine Order.CurrentStatus changes history.
Most likely you will answer that I need to move this knowledge to domain and introduce Order.StatusHistory property that contains a collection of status records, and that I should not query event store. And I will agree with you.
What I question is the need of Event Store.
We write in event store events that has business meaning (domain value), we do not record UserMovedMouse events (in most cases). And as with OrderStatusChanged event there is a high chance that most of events from EventStore will be needed at some point for domain logic, and we end up with a domain object that have a EventHistory property with the collection of events.
I can see a value in separate event store for patterns such as CQRS when you have a single write only event store and multiple read only query stores, which gives you some scalability. However the need to to introduce such thing in code is in question too for me. All decent databases support single write server, multiple read servers scalability (master-slave replication). Why should I introduce such thing at source code level? Why not to forget about Web Services, and Message buses and use write your own wrapers around Sockets.
I have a great respect to "old school" DDD as it was described be Eric Evans, and I see some fresh and good ideas in new wave DDD+SQRC+EventSourcing pattern aggregate. However the main idea of CQRS is under big question for me. Am I missing something?
In short: if event sourcing is not needed (for its added benefits or as workarounds for some quirks), then you definitely shouldn't bring it into your system just for the sake of it.
ES is just one of many ways to augment CQRS architectural style within a bounded context. It is not a requirement.
I'll admit that I am still quite a newbie with DDD and even more so with CQRS. I also realize that DDD and/or CQRS might not be the right approach to every problem. Nevertheless, I like the principals but have some questions in the context of a current project.
The solution is a simulator that generates performance data based on the current configuration. Administrators can create and modify the specifications for simulations. Testers set some environmental conditions and run the simulator. The results are captured, aggregated and reported.
The solution consists of 3 component areas each with their own use-cases, domain logic and supporting data structure. As a result, a modular designed seems appealing as a way to segregate logic and separate concerns.
The first area would be the administrative aspect which allows users to create and modify the specifications. This would be a CRUD heavy 'module'.
The second area would be for executing the simulations. The domain model would be similar to the first area but optimized for executing the simulation as opposed to providing a convenient model for editing.
The third area is reporting.
From this I believe that I have three Bounding Contexts, yes? I have three clear entry points into the application, three sets of domain logic and three different data models to support the domain logic.
My first instinct is to follow these lines and create three modules (assemblies) that encapsulate the domain layer for each area. Should I also have three separate databases? Maybe more than three to support write versus read?
I gather this may be preferred for CQRS but am not sure how to go about it. It appears to me that CQRS suggests a set of back-end processes that move data around. But if that's the case, and data persistence is cross-cutting (as DDD suggests), then doesn't my data access code need awareness of all of the domain objects? If so, then is there a benefit to having separate modules?
Finally, something I failed to mention earlier is that specifications are considered 'drafts' until published, which makes then available for simulation. My PublishingService needs to have knowledge of the domain model for both the first and second areas so that when it responds to the SpecificationPublishedEvent, it can read the specification, translate the model and persist it for execution. This makes me think I don't have three bounding contexts after all. Or am I missing something in my analysis?
You may have a modular UI for this, but I don't see three separate domains in what you are describing necessarily.
First off, in CQRS reporting is not directly a domain model concern, it is a facet of the separated Read Model which takes on the responsibility of presenting the domain state optimized for reporting.
Second just because you have different things happening in the domain is not necessarily a reason to bound them away from each other. I'd take a read through the blue DDD book to get a bit better feel for what BCs look like.
I don't really understand your domain well enough but I'll try to give some general suggestions.
Start with where you talked about your PublishingService. I see a Specification aggregate root which takes a few commands that probably look like CreateNewSpecification, UpdateSpecification and PublishSpecification.
The events look similar and probably feel redundant: SpecificationCreated, SpecificationUpdated, SpecificationPublished. Which kind of sucks but a CRUD heavy model doesn't have very interesting behaviors. I'd also suggest finding an automated way to deal with model/schema changes on this aggregate which will be tedious if you don't use code generation, or handle the changes in a dynamic *emphasized text*way that doesn't require you to build new events each time.
Also you might just consider not using event sourcing for such an aggregate root since it is so CRUD heavy.
The second thing you describe seems to be about starting a simulation which will run based on a Specification and produce data during that simulation (I assume). An event driven architecture makes sense here to decouple updating the reporting data from the process that is producing the data. This has huge benefits if you are producing large amounts of data to process.
However it doesn't sound like a Simulation is necessarily the kind of AR that would benefit from Event Sourcing either. For a couple reasons:
Simulation really takes only one Command which is something like StartSimulation
Simulation then produces events over it's life-time which represent what is happening internally with the simulation
Simulation doesn't seem to ever receive any other Commands that could depend on the current state of the Simulation
Simulation is not interacted with by multiple clients/users simultaneously and as we pointed out it isn't really interacted with at all
In general, domain modeling is very specific to each individual project so it's hard to give you all the information you need to build your domain model. It will come as a result of spending a great deal of time trying to understand your user's needs and the problem they are trying to solve with the software. It likely will go through multiple refinements as you develop insights into their process.