DDD is Domain-Driven Design , it is a methodology that include ubiquitous language, root entity , value object and aggregations..
DCI: Data, Context, Interactions is a programming paradigm invented by Trygve Reenskaug.
how can I combine with them in a new system?
This is a subject of on going discussion, and something you'll probably find better answers to at the object-composition Google group where it has been discussed earlier. Also there is an effort to port the canonical DDD sample to DCI at the DCI github page.
Long story overly short though: DCI fits within a Bounded Context, where you'd then have a DCI context per use case.
If you read through this https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/jj554200.aspx I believe the DCI notion of a "context" would be synonymous with a "process manager". Instead of the process manager calling methods on the aggregates, it would apply roles to the aggregates and coordinate using those. A "bounded context" could have several "process managers" aka "contexts". What do you think?
Related
I attended a Webinar today by someone quite famous and respected author, lecturer, and expert in software engineering, architecture, and design. The webinar topic was "Incremental Architecture". This luminary stated that the concept of an entity in DDD has nothing to do with the concept of entity in databases. It was an unfortunate choice of term by Eric Evans in his original 2003 book. I was not satisfied with his explanation, and I find that his statement to potentially be very confusing to anyone trying to use DDD in design.
My question: what exactly does the term entity in DDD mean? - if it is not the very well understood and very well defined concept of entity in databases, ORM frameworks, JPA, development frameworks (Spring), etc.
Extensive research in software architecture.
This is a question about DDD strategic design. Coding is not involved.
Not relevant to my question. You allow a topic tag about DDD, which is a design approach, not a coding approach, yet you insist on having code-related questions. How is DDD related to coding?
My question: what exactly does the term entity in DDD mean?
Evan's defined entity in Chapter 5 (A Model Expressed in Software) of Domain Driven Design.
Entities (a.k.a. Reference Objects) ... are not fundamentally defined by their properties, but rather by a thread of continuity and identity.
An object defined primarily by its identity is called an ENTITY.
An ENTITY is anything that has continuity through a life cycle and distinctions independent of attributes that are important to the application's user.
It is an in memory abstraction of something that changes over time. It's a temporally varying membership function which for time t maps an identifier to some state. It's used within the domain model to represent things that change.
An example of a entity in a domain model might be... a question on stack overflow.
The meaning of "entity" in Domain-Driven Design
When somebody edits the text, or changes the title, or downvotes... it's still the same question, in that there's a progression from what the text used to be to what the text is now. It changes over time from having this text to having that text.
A simple entity in a domain model might map to a single row in a relational database, but it won't necessarily do so. More precisely, we might save the current state of the entity in a single row. But if that state includes a collection, then it is likely that the state will be distributed across multiple rows, perhaps in multiple tables.
You allow a topic tag about DDD, which is a design approach, not a coding approach, yet you insist on having code-related questions. How is DDD related to coding?
If The Source Code is The Design, then the design necessarily includes coding. The middle section of the Domain Driven Design book, which gets most of the attention, covers topics in modeling domains in code.
Truth be told: domain-driven-design turns up fewer questions with authoritative answers than, for example java.
An entity is a type that has an identity. The id could be anything but it has to be unique to the system and in fact depending on the subdomain you are in, the identity/entity might change.
For example:
A database might have a "User" Table that has fields "firstname", "lastname" e.t.c.
In DDD for an ecommerce application's purchase subdomain, you might have "Shoppers". These Shoppers might have an id of "firstname lastname". In the "Shipping" subdomain of the same application, you'll also have the concept of a "Shopper"(or buyer) but this time the identity of the shopper might be "Full address".
So, where a database entity is nothing more than a grouping of data with an identifier, A DDD entity is a concept. The concept is pertinent to the system, described in the ubiquitous language and is the central actor around which many functions in the domain will operate. The data that populates a DDD's entity usually comes from several datatable entities.
I've started learning the principles of DDD and I'm currently trying to get a grasp of the concept of a bounded context. In particular, how do you decide just how big (or small) it has to be? Yeah, I know, as small as possible and as big as necessary (according to Vaughn Vernon).
Let's say I were to model a blog. I could then go and say there are 3 bounded contexts involved: 1) Front Page (featuring the most recent articles, no comments shown) 2) Discussion (a single article including comments) 3) Article Composer (where I compose an article).
However, this doesn't feel right (the ubiquitous language is the same for all of them), it seems as if I'm coming from a front end point of view and am still thinking in terms of view models or something.
Could anyone please point me in the right direction?
A blog is not a good example for use of multiple bounded context. It's not really a "big enough" software example to warrant their definitions. DDD & BC's are really aimed at big/complex enterprising software systems.
Like you say, the aggregates always have the same meaning in your 3 examples.
I gave this example of Bounded Context in a previous answer, which I hope explains BC's and when to use them: Bounded Contexts and Aggregate Roots
Try to look at your whole domain from different perspectives, as an editor of article, you probably will use sentences like creating a draft of an article, publishing an article, as an article a reader you will in example read article and comment on it. Alongside building your domain language you will identify entities and their behaviour, some of them will appear only in one perspective, some will appear in both, but you will distinct them by their behaviour. Your domain language shows you the boundries of each perspective, that you implement as a bounded contexts.
The best example I read by subdomains so far is the following.
Just examine the actual company! Each department taking part in the business process can have its own subdomain. In an ideal world each subdomain has its own bounded context in your implementation. You should ask yourself whether the company needs a new department to do this? Is it really that big?
The BC must be big enough to describe a department of a company. A typical example is a webshop, where you have a shopping core domain and invoicing, delivery and storage subdomains. Having multi-tenancy and so multiple aspects - as a previous answer described - is not enough. A blog with an author and a few readers does not require multiple departments, so you can solve this with a single bounded context. You can have multiple modules in your bounded context if you think you have medium size structures in your bounded context.
How do you plan and divide your application into bounded contexts? On the one hand it's very handy having all this decoupling, but on the other hand too much granularity can lead to a very cumbersome development. Where is this thin line? What factors do you take under consideration when designing your bounded contexts and context maps? Are they technical, strategic maybe?
In a lot of examples you see e-commerce app as a set of bounded contexts: catalog, shopping, invoicing, delivery etc.
Where are those coming from?
Technical, definitely not...
Did you heard about Event Storming ? I think it is a good way to found your boundaries...
Bounded context is about language, it is not technical or architectural think, but more about your domain and the words used by your Domain Expert : Greg Young explain-it well in the beginning of this talk
When you are modelling your Domain Model, you have to define your boundaries (for eCommerce, Product is not the same concept with the same attributes in different contexts : catalog, shopping... The same thing about customer... And you don't have to use the same entity for each context, so every context have its specific Ubiguitous language), think about this activity iteratively (sometime Bounded Contexts emerge and are not clearly visible first)
As soon as you use both same words to define distinct concepts, you are faced to both bounded contexts.
Suppose an application dealing with movies rental.
If your team (business/developers) talk about "Users" to define users in terms of identity and access, and "Users" too to in terms of Renters, then you would have both bounded context:
IdentityAndAccessContext (managing authentication, roles etc.. technical)
MovieRentalContext (unaware of Users, but Renters)
Bounded context is the reflection of the chosen ubiquitous language.
For modeling domain from scratch I think is good decision to start from one bounded context and one module. Than concepts start to conflict or look strange keeped in one module, it's time to separate some concepts into distinct module (or reorganize between modules).
Same approach for separating modules into distinct bounded contexts.
One common reaction that I see for a lot of questions asked here and other forums are like "You don't need to do DDD for that. Its a simple CRUD application, DDD is an over-engineering".
Well I am new to DDD and I feel there are a lot of elements in DDD that has universal appeal and can be used across the board, irrespective of the fact whether your application is complex enuf to mandate DDD. For example, layering of application, differnent artifacts that DDD recognises etc. May be start with the basics and admittedly anemic models and then work/refactor towards as much purity as one can get.
Does this approach sound good?
Or would you say that there is a fundamental choice in design of every application in terms of whether to go DDD way or not , kind of "all-or-none" choice?
UPDATE (to provide more context, in response to hugh's comment below)
I am building a webapp around an existing RuleEngine kind of application, basically CRUD and some validations, invariants and then a process of deployment. The rule-authoring and semantic check is done by a standalone piece of code that i call as part of the CRUD and none of that semantic specific logic is there in my code. I am trying to use DDD for this application, but i see it might not be complicated enough to fit into the DDD paradigm. There is no ubiquitous language defined for the domain i.e the language is not specialized enough beyond naming the set of entities involved. I hear my domain expert speaking in terms of creating, editing, deleting entities.
DDD is not all-or-nothing. Also, many of the patterns described in DDD are not new and can be found all over the place. Eric Evans (the author of the DDD book) just assembled them, formalized them where needed, and set them in relation to each other. You are free to use what fits to your problem space.
What is often overlooked: DDD describes implementation patterns as well as analysis patterns. The analysis patterns may be overkill in many (if not most) applications, but the implementation patterns (i.e. Entities, Specifications, Services) can be of great use in less complex scenarios as well.
In short,
If it's just CRUD, I wouldn't bother.
On the other hand,
If it's got behavior, where the next state of something relies on the previous state, then DDD is something you probably want to consider.
DDD approach is based on two type of patterns: Strategics patterns and Tactical patterns. IMHO, be free to use tactical patterns in every case that you sure can be helpful. But using Strategic patterns can be overkill for some type of domains. If CRUD style thinking, does not have negative impact in modeling process, certainly you doesn't gonna need it.
I am quite new with DDD and would like to know about any pitfalls you might want to share. I will summarize it later for more newbies to read :)
Thanks
Summary so far:
Anemic domain model where your entities are primarily only data bearing and contain no business logic
Not using bounded contexts enough
Focusing too much on patterns
There is a good presentation on this topic as well here (video).
Probably the most important one: not grokking the central, fundamental principle of the Domain Model and its representation in Ubiquitous Language. With the plethora of technology options around, it's very easy for your head to fill up with ORMs, MVC frameworks, ajax, sql vs nosql, ... So much so there's little space left for the actual problem you're trying to solve.
And that's DDD's key message: don't. Instead, explicitly focus on the problem space first and foremost. Build a domain model shorn of architectural clutter that captures, exposes and communicates the domain.
Oh, and another one: thinking you need Domain Services for everything you can do in the domain model. No. You should always first try to put domain logic with the Entity/Value type it belongs to. You should only create domain services when you find functions that don't naturally belong with an E/V. Otherwise you end up with the anaemic domain model highlighted elsewhere.
hth.
One of the biggest pitfalls is that you end up with a so-called anemic model where your entities are primarily only data bearing and contain no business logic. This situation often arises when you build your domain model on top of an existing relational data model and just make each table in the database an entity in your domain model.
You might enjoy presentation of Greg Young about why DDD fails.
In short:
Lack of intent
Anemic Domain Model
DDD-Lite
Lack of isolation
Ubiquitous what?
Lack of refinement
Proxy Domain Expert (Business analyst)
Not using bounded contexts enough. It's toward the back of the the big blue book but Eric Evans has gone on record as saying that he believes that bounded contexts and ubiquitous language are THE most important concepts.
Similarly, people tend to focus too much on the patterns. Those aren't the meat of DDD.
Also, if you do not have a lot of access to domain experts you are probably not doing DDD, at best you are DDDish.
More concretely, if you end up with many-to-many relationships, you've probably designed something wrong and need to re-evaluate your aggregate roots/contexts
Only adding to what others have already said;
My personal experience is that people often end up with an anemic model and a single model instead of multiple context specific models.
Another problem is that many focus more on the infrastructure and patterns used in DDD.
Just because you have entities and repositoriesand are using (n)Hibernate it doesn't mean you are doing DDD.
It's not from my personal experience with subject, but it was mentioned for a couple of times in DDD books and it's what I've been thinking about recently: use Entities when you really need identity, in other cases use Value Object. I.e., Entity pattern often happens to be the default choice for any model noun, and it's not the way it should be.
Beware of the Big Ball of Mud.
One of the pitfalls of domain driven design is to introduce ambiguity into a model. As explained in the article Strategic Domain Driven Design with Context Mapping:
Ambiguity is the super-villain of our
Ubiquitous Language
This may happen when two distinct concepts share the same name, or when the same concept can have different uses. It may be necessary to
expose the domain structure in
terms of bounded contexts in a context
map
If a model is used in too many different ways, or has too many responsibilities, it may be a sign that it should be divided.