I am trying to understand the Domain Event pattern illustrated by Udi Dahan with regard to adding new domain entities in a certain situation.
Now normally with entities I would create them and then add them via repository. I assume I would still do this?
My example is we normally add assets to the system. Like this:
var asset= new Asset();
/*bunch of prop setting*/
_assetRepository.Add(asset);
However asset creation is an event that we want to follow certain processes as a result of. Therefore it was suggested by developer we no longer need to do this as it could be handled by domain event:
var asset= new Asset();
/*bunch of prop setting*/
asset.Create(location);
Now a create method would raise an event and be handled by a create event handler that basically just inserts it into the repo and does some other stuff email the warehouse manager of the create location etc.
However having a create event on the asset looks pretty active record to me. However in the domain people talk about new assets being created. So we were not sure.
Thoughts?
The created domain event should be raised in the constructor of the Asset class because that is when that particular entity is created. In your current implementation, this would be erroneous because the Asset entity provides a parameterless constructor. Instead, create a constructor which has all required properties as parameters thereby preventing creation of an Asset entity in an inconsistent state. It could look like this:
public class Asset
{
public Asset(string prop1, decimal prop2)
{
this.Prop1 = prop1;
this.Prop2 = prop2;
DomainEvents.Raise(new AssetCreated(prop1, prop2));
}
public string Id { get; private set; }
public string Prop1 { get; private set; }
public decimal Prop2 { get; private set; }
}
You still have to persist the entity using the repository after creating it. This can be problematic because the handlers for the AssetCreated cannot reference its ID since it is not yet assigned when they are notified. If using event sourcing, then the creation event would be explicitly stored in the underlying event store.
I've been struggling for this problem for quite a long time. But no good solution. I think,
A domain event shouldn't be published or handled before the aggregate it belongs to being successfully persisted
It's not the application layer's responsibility to publish any domain events
So far, I think the best approach is to take advantage of AOP. We can "fire" events in the aggregate, but instead of dispatching them instantly, we keep it in a queue, and really dispatch it after the corresponding transaction successes. We can define a custom #Transactional interceptor to achieve this, thus keeping the app service from knowning any concept of "event publishing".
Related
I'm trying to get my head around DDDD in Greg Young's style.
There is much talk about how to implement DDDD with CQRS+EventSourcing and there are some sample implementations ... and altogether it can be quite confusing...
In Gregs view aggregates don't have getters or setters - just state-changing methods which emit an corresponding event.
Basicly a event decribes a state-transitions that happend in the past. It's data describes what changed.
Some say, that this data can be "enriched" by additional data.
Where can this additional data come from?
i.e. I have User and Usergroup - both aggregate roots (can exist independently, have identity). User has a method called AddToUsergroup.
public class User : AggregateRoot
{
// ...
public void AddToUsergroup(Usergroup usergroup)
{
// validate state
RaiseEvent(new UserJoinedUsergroup(this.Id, usergroup.Id));
}
// ...
}
public class Usergroup : AggregateRoot
{
private string _displayName;
// ...
public void ChangeDisplayName(string displayName)
{
// validate state
RaiseEvent(new DisplayNameChanged(this.Id, displayName));
}
public void Apply(DisplayNameChanged e)
{
this._displayName = e.DisplayName;
}
// ...
}
If I would like to "enrich" the event with the name of the Usergroup (for debug reasons or something like this), how would I do that?
getters are nonexistent
internal state of usergroup is inaccessible
Injecting such things as repositories into User is not allowed (am I right here?!?), like
Read-side repository
Event-store repository
Bottomline questions:
Can Should something like repositories be injected to aggregate roots?
Should a event only use data available through parameters and internal state of the aggregate?
Should events only contain the minimum data describing the state-change?
And (little off-topic but the sample is here)
Should AddToUsergroup take an Guid instead of an full aggregate root?
Looking forward to your answers!
Lg
warappa
Should something like repositories be injected to aggregate roots?
No and there is no need to in this case. It can be appropriate to pass a domain service to a behavioral method on an aggregate, but again, not needed in this case.
Should a event only use data available through parameters and internal
state of the aggregate?
Yes, the original domain event should be such that it can be easily built by the aggregate and can be replayed in a deterministic fashion.
Should events only contain the minimum data describing the
state-change?
Yes. However, to address requirements of external subscribers, this is where content enricher comes into play. To dispatch a domain event externally, it is first committed to the event store then you can dispatch in the same tx or have an out of process mechanism which publishes events externally. At the point of publishing externally, you will normally use a different contract for the message since subscribers may need more than what is on the domain event itself. In this case, you need the user group name. The publisher, then, can pull up the user group name and place that data into the enriched event. This publisher can have access to a read-model repository for user groups which would allow it to retrieve the name.
Should AddToUsergroup take an Guid instead of an full aggregate root?
Yes. Passing the entire aggregate may not be possible and also creates the illusion that something other than the ID may be used, which should not be the case.
I'm developing an application using domain driven design. One of the patterns I've been using is Repository pattern. For the sake of simplicity, let's say I have following classes and interfaces.
Car - domain class representing car domain concept.
public class Car {
public int Id {get;private set;}
public string SomeUniqueCode {get;private set;}
}
ICarRepository - interface for adding, deleting or saving changes to Car objects.
public interface ICarRepository{
Car AddCar(Car c);
void DeleteCar(Car c);
}
My problem is, how to check uniqueness of SomeUniqueCode property among all Car objects in the database? That property is changed by user (not auto-generated) at any time during the object life-cycle. Of course, one solution would be to put the unique key in the database, but that is not the principle of DDD. I've seen Specification pattern used to validate single objects. How would that pattern be applied to a set of Car objects?
Is it legitimate that Specification class (let's call it CheckUniqueCarSpecification) accesses ICarRepository?
A repository mimics an in-memory collection. What I have used before is a Contains method as opposed to a Find method, I guess you could have either. A query layer could also be used for this. Just as you have a CarRepository you could have a CarQuery. Trying to check for uniqueness in the domain is somewhat pesky. I would do a check for the sake of convenience but still rely on the DB to raise the exception since you should also handle that case. Using the specification pattern for this may be more effort than it is worth.
Since repository is a 'collection' I wouldn't have Commit and Rollback on there.
Use DomainService ICarCodesLibrary.
public class Car {
ctor(string someUniqueCode, ICarCodesLibrary codes)
{
// the check
codes.IsValidCode(someUniqueCode)
}
public int Id {get;private set;}
public string SomeUniqueCode {get;private set;}
}
Implement the interface in the place where u create the Car object and inject it. Also get rid of the properties and use fields. The ID is OK to be a prop.
I've just started with Domain Driven Design and trying to apply it for my current project.
I've started with a pure domain model and now stuck with my Data Access layer. I have a completely home made data access layer therefore no any of well known ORM tools can be applied here.
I cannot figure out how to deal with updates. Let's say I have the following Objects:
public class Document : Entity
{
public IPropertiesCollection Properties { get; set; }
public IContents Contents { get; set; }
}
public class PostalDocumentsPackage : Entity
{
public String Name { get; set; }
public DateTime DeliverDate { get; set; }
public ICollection<Document> Documents { get; set; }
}
I have corresponding repositories IDocumentsRepository and IPostalDocumentPackagesRepository for retrieving objects (for now).
The problem I deal with now is to situation when i want to add a new document do Documents collection of PostalDocumentsPackage. Basically I see two possible cases here:
1) Implement the collection that track changes in original collection and holds lists of items that were updated\removed.
2) Implement separate methods in repository for adding documents to the package.
I wonder are these approaches is ok or can cause problems in future? or there is another alternatives?
Typically change tracking would be handled by an ORM such as NHibernate. In your case you may be able to do the following:
Select new documents based on the value of the identity property.
Issue a SQL delete statement before re-inserting into the table.
A problem with either approach is that the documents collection may be big, such that loading all documents for each PostalDocumentsPackage may be a bottleneck. Also you must consider whether you need change tracking on the Document entity in addition to the documents collection. If so, then you would need to implement change tracking for the Document class as well. Given that you're not using an ORM I would suggest solution #2 since solution #1 will lead you down a path of re-implementing change tracking, which among other things would pollute your domain classes. You may also consider a CQRS/Event Sourcing architecture in which change tracking is made explicit.
I'm trying to figure out how to accomplish the following:
User can have many Websites
What I need to do before adding a new website to a user, is to take the website URL and pass it to a method which will check whether the Website already exist in the database (another User has the same website associated), or whether to create a new record. <= The reason for this is whether to create a new thumbnail or use an existing.
The problem is that the repository should be per aggregate root, which means I Cant do what I've Explained above? - I could first get ALL users in the database and then foreach look with if statement that checks where the user has a website record with same URL, but that would result in an endless and slow process.
Whatever repository approach you're using, you should be able to specify criteria in some fashion. Therefore, search for a user associated with the website in question - if the search returns no users, the website is not in use.
For example, you might add a method with the following signature (or you'd pass a query object as described in this article):
User GetUser(string hasUrl);
That method should generate SQL more or less like this:
select u.userId
from User u
join Website w
on w.UserId = u.UserId
where w.Url = #url
This should be nearly as efficient as querying the Website table directly; there's no need to load all the users and website records into memory. Let your relational database do the heavy lifting and let your repository implementation (or object-relational mapper) handle the translation.
I think there is a fundamental problem with your model. Websites are part of a User aggregate group if I understand correctly. Which means a website instance does not have global scope, it is meaningful only in the context of belonging to a user.
But now when a user wants to add a new website, you first want to check to see if the "website exists in the database" before you create a new one. Which means websites in fact do have a global scope. Otherwise anytime a user requested a new website, you would create a new website for that specific user with that website being meaningful in the scope of that user. Here you have websites which are shared and therefore meaningful in the scope of many users and therefore not part of the user aggregate.
Fix your model and you will fix your query difficulties.
One strategy is to implement a service that can verify the constraint.
public interface IWebsiteUniquenessValidator
{
bool IsWebsiteUnique(string websiteUrl);
}
You will then have to implement it, how you do that will depend on factors I don't know, but I suggest not worrying about going through the domain. Make it simple, it's just a query (* - I'll add to this at the bottom).
public class WebsiteUniquenessValidator : IWebsiteUniquenessValidator
{
//.....
}
Then, "inject" it into the method where it is needed. I say "inject" because we will provide it to the domain object from outside the domain, but .. we will do so with a method parameter rather than a constructor parameter (in order to avoid requiring our entities to be instantiated by our IoC container).
public class User
{
public void AddWebsite(string websiteUrl, IWebsiteUniquenessValidator uniquenessValidator)
{
if (!uniquenessValidator.IsWebsiteUnique(websiteUrl) {
throw new ValidationException(...);
}
//....
}
}
Whatever the consumer of your User and its Repository is - if that's a Service class or a CommandHandler - can provide that uniqueness validator dependency. This consumer should already by wired up through IoC, since it will be consuming the UserRepository:
public class UserService
{
private readonly IUserRepository _repo;
private readonly IWebsiteUniquenessValidator _validator;
public UserService(IUserRepository repo, IWebsiteUniquenessValidator validator)
{
_repo = repo;
_validator = validator;
}
public Result AddWebsiteToUser(Guid userId, string websiteUrl)
{
try {
var user = _repo.Get(userId);
user.AddWebsite(websiteUrl, _validator);
}
catch (AggregateNotFoundException ex) {
//....
}
catch (ValidationException ex) {
//....
}
}
}
*I mentioned making the validation simple and avoiding the Domain.
We build Domains to encapsulate the often complex behavior that is involved with modifying data.
What experience shows, is that the requirements around changing data are very different from those around querying data.
This seems like a pain point you are experiencing because you are trying to force a read to go through a write system.
It is possible to separate the reading of data from the Domain, from the write side, in order to alleviate these pain points.
CQRS is the name given to this technique. I'll just say that a whole bunch of lightbulbs went click once I viewed DDD in the context of CQRS. I highly recommend trying to understand the concepts of CQRS.
I have a domain Aggregate, call it "Order" that contains a List of OrderLines. The Order keeps track of the sum of the Amount on the Order Lines. The customer has a running "credit" balance that they can order from that is calculated by summing the history of their database transactions. Once they use up all the money in the "pool" they can't order any more products.
So every time a line is added to the order, I need to get to check how much is left in the pool and if the order pushes them over it. The amount in the pool is continually changing because other related customers are continually using it.
The question is, thinking in terms of DDD, how do I get that amount since I don't want to pollute my Domain Layer with DataContext concerns (using L2S here). Since I can't just query out to the database from the domain, how would I get that data so I can validate the business rule?
Is this an instance where Domain Events are used?
Your Order aggregate should be fully encapsulated. It therefore needs to be able to determine whether it's valid to add an item, i.e. whether or not the customer credit is exceeded. There are various ways to do this but they all depend on the Order repository returning a specific aggregate that knows how to do this particular thing. This will probably be a different Order aggregate from one you'd use for satisfying orders, for example.
You have to recognise, then capture in code, the fact that you're expecting the order to fulfil a particular role in this case, i.e. the role of adding additional line items. You do this by creating an interface for this role and a corresponding aggregate that has the internal support for the role.
Then, your service layer can ask your Order repository for an order that satisfies this explicit role interface and the repository thus has enough information about what you need to be able to build something that can satisfy that requirement.
For example:
public interface IOrder
{
IList<LineItem> LineItems { get; }
// ... other core order "stuff"
}
public interface IAddItemsToOrder: IOrder
{
void AddItem( LineItem item );
}
public interface IOrderRepository
{
T Get<T>( int orderId ) where T: IOrder;
}
Now, your service code would look something like:
public class CartService
{
public void AddItemToOrder( int orderId, LineItem item )
{
var order = orderRepository.Get<IAddItemsToOrder>( orderId );
order.AddItem( item );
}
}
Next, your Order class that implements IAddItemsToOrder needs a customer entity so that it can check the credit balance. So you just cascade the same technique by defining a specific interface. The order repository can call on the customer repository to return a customer entity that fulfils that role and add it to the order aggregate.
Thus you'd have a base ICustomer interface and then an explicit role in the form of an ICustomerCreditBalance interface that descends from it. The ICustomerCreditBalance acts both as a marker interface to your Customer repository to tell it what you need the customer for, so it can create the appropriate customer entity, and it has the methods and/or properties on it to support the specific role. Something like:
public interface ICustomer
{
string Name { get; }
// core customer stuff
}
public interface ICustomerCreditBalance: ICustomer
{
public decimal CreditBalance { get; }
}
public interface ICustomerRepository
{
T Get<T>( int customerId ) where T: ICustomer;
}
Explicit role interfaces give repositories the key information they need to make the right decision about what data to fetch from the database, and whether to fetch it eagerly or lazily.
Note that I've put the CreditBalance property on the ICustomerCreditBalance interface in this case. However, it could just as well be on the base ICustomer interface and ICustomerCreditBalance then becomes an empty "marker" interface to let the repository know that you're going to be querying the credit balance. It's all about letting the repository know just what role you want for the entity it returns.
The final part which brings this all together, as you mentioned in your question, is domain events. The order can raise a failure domain event if the customer's credit balance would be exceeded, to notify the service layer that the order is invalid. If the customer has enough credit, on the other hand, it can either update the balance on the customer object or raise a domain event to notify the rest of the system that the balance needs to be reduced.
I've not added the domain event code to the CartService class since this answer is already rather long! If you want to know more about how to do that, I suggest you post another question targeting that specific issue and I'll expand on it there ;-)
In such a scenario, I off-load responsibility using events or delegates. Maybe the easiest way to show you is with some code.
Your Order class will have a Predicate<T> that is used to determine if the customer's credit line is big enough to handle the order line.
public class Order
{
public Predicate<decimal> CanAddOrderLine;
// more Order class stuff here...
public void AddOrderLine(OrderLine orderLine)
{
if (CanAddOrderLine(orderLine.Amount))
{
OrderLines.Add(orderLine);
Console.WriteLine("Added {0}", orderLine.Amount);
}
else
{
Console.WriteLine(
"Cannot add order. Customer credit line too small.");
}
}
}
You will probably have a CustomerService class or something like that to pull the available credit line. You set the CanAddOrderLine predicate before adding any order lines. This will perform a check of the customer's credit each time a line is added.
// App code.
var customerService = new CustomerService();
var customer = new Customer();
var order = new Order();
order.CanAddOrderLine =
amount => customerService.GetAvailableCredit(customer) >= amount;
order.AddOrderLine(new OrderLine { Amount = 5m });
customerService.DecrementCredit(5m);
No doubt your real scenario will be more complicated than this. You may also want to check out the Func<T> delegate. A delegate or event could be useful for decrementing the credit amount after the order line is placed or firing some functionality if the customer goes over their credit limit in the order.
Good luck!
In addition to the problem of getting the "pool" value (where I would query the value using a method on an OrderRepository), have you considered the locking implications for this problem?
If the "pool" is constantly changing, is there a chance that someone elses transaction creeps in just after your rule passes, but just before you commit your changes to the db?
Eric Evans refers to this very problem in Chapter 6 of his book ("Aggregates").