I've got a question on my mind that has been stirring for months as I've read about DDD, patterns and many other topics of application architecture. I'm going to frame this in terms of an MVC web application but the question is, I'm sure, much broader. and it is this: Does the adherence to domain entities create rigidity and inefficiency in an application?
The DDD approach makes complete sense for managing the business logic of an application and as a way of working with stakeholders. But to me it falls apart in the context of a multi-tiered application. Namely there are very few scenarios when a view needs all the data of an entity or when even two repositories have it all. In and of itself that's not bad but it means I make multiple queries returning a bunch of properties I don't need to get a few that I do. And once that is done the extraneous information either gets passed to the view or there is the overhead of discarding, merging and mapping data to a DTO or view model. I have need to generate a lot of reports and the problem seems magnified there. Each requires a unique slicing or aggregating of information that SQL can do well but repositories can't as they're expected to return full entities. It seems wasteful, honestly, and I don't want to pound a database and generate unneeded network traffic on a matter of principle. From questions like this Should the repository layer return data-transfer-objects (DTO)? it seems I'm not the only one to struggle with this question. So what's the answer to the limitations it seems to impose?
Thanks from a new and confounded DDD-er.
What's the real problem here? Processing business rules and querying for data are 2 very different concerns. That realization leads us to CQRS - Command-Query Responsibility Segregation. What's that? You just don't use the same model for both tasks: Domain Model is about behavior, performing business processes, handling command. And there is a separate Reporting Model used for display. In general, it can contain a table per view. These tables contains only relevant information so you can get rid of DTO, AutoMapper, etc.
How these two models synchronize? It can be done in many ways:
Reporting model can be built just on top of database views
Database replication
Domain model can issue events containing information about each change and they can be handled by denormalizers updating proper tables in Reporting Model
as I've read about DDD, patterns and many other topics of application architecture
Domain driven design is not about patterns and architecture but about designing your code according to business domain. Instead of thinking about repositories and layers, think about problem you are trying to solve. Simplest way to "start rehabilitation" would be to rename ProductRepository to just Products.
Does the adherence to domain entities create rigidity and inefficiency in an application?
Inefficiency comes from bad modeling. [citation needed]
The DDD approach makes complete sense for managing the business logic of an application and as a way of working with stakeholders. But to me it falls apart in the context of a multi-tiered application.
Tiers aren't layers
Namely there are very few scenarios when a view needs all the data of an entity or when even two repositories have it all. In and of itself that's not bad but it means I make multiple queries returning a bunch of properties I don't need to get a few that I do.
Query that data as you wish. Do not try to box your problems into some "ready-made solutions". Instead - learn from them and apply only what's necessary to solve them.
Each requires a unique slicing or aggregating of information that SQL can do well but repositories can't as they're expected to return full entities.
http://ayende.com/blog/3955/repository-is-the-new-singleton
So what's the answer to the limitations it seems to impose?
"seems"
Btw, internet is full of things like this (I mean that sample app).
To understand what DDD is, read blue book slowly and carefully. Twice.
If you think that fully fledged DDD is too much effort for your scenario then maybe you need to take a step down and look at something closer to Active Record.
I use DDD but in my scenario I have to support multiple front-ends; a couple web sites and a WinForms app, as well as a set of services that allow interaction with other automated processes. In this case, the extra complexity is worth it. I use DTO's to transfer a representation of my data to the various presentation layers. The CPU overhead in mapping domain entities to DTO's is small - a rounding error when compared to net work calls and database calls. There is also the overhead in managing this complexity. I have mitigated this to some extent by using AutoMapper. My Repositories return fully populated domain objects. My service layer will map to/from DTO's. Here we can flatten out the domain objects, combine domain objects, etc. to produce a more tabulated representation of the data.
Dino Esposito wrote an MSDN Magazine article on this subject here - you may find this interesting.
So, I guess to answer your "Why" question - as usual, it depends on your context. DDD maybe too much effort. In which case do something simpler.
Each requires a unique slicing or aggregating of information that SQL can do well but repositories can't as they're expected to return full entities.
Add methods to your repository to return ONLY what you want e.g. IOrderRepository.GetByCustomer
It's completely OK in DDD.
You may also use Query object pattern or Specification to make your repositories more generic; only remember not to use anything which is ORM-specific in interfaces of the repositories(e.g. ICriteria of NHibernate)
Related
I've read a few posts relating to this, but i still can't quite grasp how it all works.
Let's say for example i was building a site like Stack Overflow, with two pages => one listing all the questions, another where you ask/edit a question. A simple, CRUD-based web application.
If i used CQRS, i would have a seperate system for the read/writes, seperate DB's, etc..great.
Now, my issue comes to how to update the read state (which is, after all in a DB of it's own).
Flow i assume is something like this:
WebApp => User submits question
WebApp => System raises 'Write' event
WriteSystem => 'Write' event is picked up and saves to 'WriteDb'
WriteSystem => 'UpdateState' event raised
ReadSystem => 'UpdateState' event is picked up
ReadSystem => System updates it's own state ('ReadDb')
WebApp => Index page reads data from 'Read' system
Assuming this is correct, how is this significantly different to a CRUD system read/writing from same DB? Putting aside CQRS advantages like seperate read/write system scaling, rebuilding state, seperation of domain boundaries etc, what problems are solved from a persistence standpoint? Lock contention avoided?
I could achieve a similar advantage by either using queues to achieve single-threaded saves in a multi-threaded web app, or simply replicate data between a read/write DB, could i not?
Basically, I'm just trying to understand if i was building a CRUD-based web application, why i would care about CQRS, from a pragmatic standpoint.
Thanks!
Assuming this is correct, how is this significantly different to a CRUD system read/writing from same DB? Putting aside CQRS advantages like seperate read/write system scaling, rebuilding state, seperation of domain boundaries etc, what problems are solved from a persistence standpoint? Lock contention avoided?
The problem here is:
"Putting aside CQRS advantages …"
If you take away its advantages, it's a little bit difficult to argue what problems it solves ;-)
The key in understanding CQRS is that you separate reading data from writing data. This way you can optimize the databases as needed: Your write database is highly normalized, and hence you can easily ensure consistency. Your read database in contrast is denormalized, which makes your reads extremely simple and fast: They all become SELECT * FROM … effectively.
Under the assumption that a website as StackOverflow is way more read from than written to, this makes a lot of sense, as it allows you to optimize the system for fast responses and a great user experience, without sacrificing consistency at the same time.
Additionally, if combined with event-sourcing, this approach has other benefits, but for CQRS alone, that's it.
Shameless plug: My team and I have created a comprehensive introduction to CQRS, DDD and event-sourcing, maybe this helps to improve understanding as well. See this website for details.
A good starting point would be to review Greg Young's 2010 essay, where he tries to clarify the limited scope of the CQRS pattern.
CQRS is simply the creation of two objects where there was previously only one.... This separation however enables us to do many interesting things architecturally, the largest is that it forces a break of the mental retardation that because the two use the same data they should also use the same data model.
The idea of multiple data models is key, because you can now begin to consider using data models that are fit for purpose, rather than trying to tune a single data model to every case that you need to support.
Once we have the idea that these two objects are logically separate, we can start to consider whether they are physically separate. And that opens up a world of interesting trade offs.
what problems are solved from a persistence standpoint?
The opportunity to choose fit for purpose storage. Instead of supporting all of your use cases in your single read/write persistence store, you pull documents out of the key value store, and run graph queries out of the graph database, and full text search out of the document store, events out of the event stream....
Or not! if the cost benefit analysis tells you the work won't pay off, you have the option of serving all of your cases from a single store.
It depends on your applications needs.
A good overview and links to more resources here: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/architecture/patterns/cqrs
When to use this pattern:
Use this pattern in the following situations:
Collaborative domains where multiple operations are performed in parallel on the same data. CQRS allows you to define commands with
enough granularity to minimize merge conflicts at the domain level
(any conflicts that do arise can be merged by the command), even when
updating what appears to be the same type of data.
Task-based user interfaces where users are guided through a complex process as a series of steps or with complex domain models.
Also, useful for teams already familiar with domain-driven design
(DDD) techniques. The write model has a full command-processing stack
with business logic, input validation, and business validation to
ensure that everything is always consistent for each of the aggregates
(each cluster of associated objects treated as a unit for data
changes) in the write model. The read model has no business logic or
validation stack and just returns a DTO for use in a view model. The
read model is eventually consistent with the write model.
Scenarios where performance of data reads must be fine tuned separately from performance of data writes, especially when the
read/write ratio is very high, and when horizontal scaling is
required. For example, in many systems the number of read operations
is many times greater that the number of write operations. To
accommodate this, consider scaling out the read model, but running the
write model on only one or a few instances. A small number of write
model instances also helps to minimize the occurrence of merge
conflicts.
Scenarios where one team of developers can focus on the complex domain model that is part of the write model, and another team can
focus on the read model and the user interfaces.
Scenarios where the system is expected to evolve over time and might contain multiple versions of the model, or where business rules
change regularly.
Integration with other systems, especially in combination with event sourcing, where the temporal failure of one subsystem shouldn't
affect the availability of the others.
This pattern isn't recommended in the following situations:
Where the domain or the business rules are simple.
Where a simple CRUD-style user interface and the related data access operations are sufficient.
For implementation across the whole system. There are specific components of an overall data management scenario where CQRS can be
useful, but it can add considerable and unnecessary complexity when it
isn't required.
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
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.
In Domain Driven Design are collection properties of entities allowed to have partial values?
For example, should properties such as Customer.Orders, Post.Comments, Graph.Vertices always contain all orders, comments, vertices or it is allowed to have today's orders, recent comments, orphaned vertices?
Correspondingly, should Repositories provide methods like
GetCustomerWithOrdersBySpecification
GetPostWithCommentsBefore
etc.?
I don't think that DDD tells you to do or not to do this. It strongly depends on the system you are building and the specific problems you need to solve.
I not even heard about patterns about this.
From a subjective point of view I would say that entities should be complete by definitions (considering lazy loading), and could completely or partially be loaded to DTO's, to optimized the amount of data sent to clients. But I wouldn't mind to load partial entities from the database if it would solve some problem.
Remember that Domain-Driven Design also has a concept of services. For performing certain database queries, it's better to model the problem as a service than as a collection of child objects attached to a parent object.
A good example of this might be creating a report by accepting several user-entered parameters. It be easier to model this as:
CustomerReportService.GetOrdersByOrderDate(Customer theCustomer, Date cutoff);
Than like this:
myCustomer.OrdersCollection.SelectMatching(Date cutoff);
Or to put it another way, the DDD model you use for data entry does not have to be the same as the DDD model you use for reporting.
In highly scalable systems, it's common to separate these two concerns.
After reading Evan's and Nilsson's books I am still not sure how to manage Data access in a domain driven project. Should the CRUD methods be part of the repositories, i.e. OrderRepository.GetOrdersByCustomer(customer) or should they be part of the entities: Customer.GetOrders(). The latter approach seems more OO, but it will distribute Data Access for a single entity type among multiple objects, i.e. Customer.GetOrders(), Invoice.GetOrders(), ShipmentBatch.GetOrders() ,etc. What about Inserting and updating?
CRUD-ish methods should be part of the Repository...ish. But I think you should ask why you have a bunch of CRUD methods. What do they really do? What are they really for? If you actually call out the data access patterns your application uses I think it makes the repository a lot more useful and keeps you from having to do shotgun surgery when certain types of changes happen to your domain.
CustomerRepo.GetThoseWhoHaventPaidTheirBill()
// or
GetCustomer(new HaventPaidBillSpecification())
// is better than
foreach (var customer in GetCustomer()) {
/* logic leaking all over the floor */
}
"Save" type methods should also be part of the repository.
If you have aggregate roots, this keeps you from having a Repository explosion, or having logic spread out all over: You don't have 4 x # of entities data access patterns, just the ones you actually use on the aggregate roots.
That's my $.02.
DDD usually prefers the repository pattern over the active record pattern you hint at with Customer.Save.
One downside in the Active Record model is that it pretty much presumes a single persistence model, barring some particularly intrusive code (in most languages).
The repository interface is defined in the domain layer, but doesn't know whether your data is stored in a database or not. With the repository pattern, I can create an InMemoryRepository so that I can test domain logic in isolation, and use dependency injection in the application to have the service layer instantiate a SqlRepository, for example.
To many people, having a special repository just for testing sounds goofy, but if you use the repository model, you may find that you don't really need a database for your particular application; sometimes a simple FileRepository will do the trick. Wedding to yourself to a database before you know you need it is potentially limiting. Even if a database is necessary, it's a lot faster to run tests against an InMemoryRepository.
If you don't have much in the way of domain logic, you probably don't need DDD. ActiveRecord is quite suitable for a lot of problems, especially if you have mostly data and just a little bit of logic.
Let's step back for a second. Evans recommends that repositories return aggregate roots and not just entities. So assuming that your Customer is an aggregate root that includes Orders, then when you fetched the customer from its repository, the orders came along with it. You would access the orders by navigating the relationship from Customer to Orders.
customer.Orders;
So to answer your question, CRUD operations are present on aggregate root repositories.
CustomerRepository.Add(customer);
CustomerRepository.Get(customerID);
CustomerRepository.Save(customer);
CustomerRepository.Delete(customer);
I've done it both ways you are talking about, My preferred approach now is the persistent ignorant (or PONO -- Plain Ole' .Net Object) method where your domain classes are only worried about being domain classes. They do not know anything about how they are persisted or even if they are persisted. Of course you have to be pragmatic about this at times and allow for things such as an Id (but even then I just use a layer super type which has the Id so I can have a single point where things like default value live)
The main reason for this is that I strive to follow the principle of Single Responsibility. By following this principle I've found my code much more testable and maintainable. It's also much easier to make changes when they are needed since I only have one thing to think about.
One thing to be watchful of is the method bloat that repositories can suffer from. GetOrderbyCustomer.. GetAllOrders.. GetOrders30DaysOld.. etc etc. One good solution to this problem is to look at the Query Object pattern. And then your repositories can just take in a query object to execute.
I'd also strongly recommend looking into something like NHibernate. It includes a lot of the concepts that make Repositories so useful (Identity Map, Cache, Query objects..)
Even in a DDD, I would keep Data Access classes and routines separate from Entities.
Reasons are,
Testability improves
Separation of concerns and Modular design
More maintainable in the long run, as you add entities, routines
I am no expert, just my opinion.
The annoying thing with Nilsson's Applying DDD&P is that he always starts with "I wouldn't do that in a real-world-application but..." and then his example follows. Back to the topic: I think OrderRepository.GetOrdersByCustomer(customer) is the way to go, but there is also a discussion on the ALT.Net Mailing list (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/altdotnet/) about DDD.