I'm planning to use "Specification pattern" to validate my domain objects in my solution.
Where is the "correct" place to put the "specification" classes in my solution? Should I create a dedicated project that contains the "specification" classes, or should I chuck them into Domain or Business project layer?
Wherever you feel is the right place to achieve functional cohesiveness i.e. keep functionally related artifacts together so they change together, change is localized, easy to find stuff
Related
I have started reading few chapters of the blue book and have read the first three chapters of red book (Implementing Domain Driven Design). I have a two questions:
(1) Can a sub-domain have more than one bounded context? I am particularly looking at the example in Implementing Domain Driven Design book where there is a forecasting sub-domain sort of coupled/overlap with inventory. (Apologies if you have not read the book, but the idea is that there is a strong overlap between the two bounded contexts).
(2) How do I organize my project solution structure (I am using .net), are there any examples of real world projects that I can look at? Should I create folders namely sub-domain, core-domain, generic-domain and then specify the modules under it? I am struggling on how best to define my structure so that it shows the onion/hexagonal layers is in place.
Thanks in advance.
Yes. The Domain is composed from multiple sub domains (if it is complex enough) and each are in fact a group of bounded contexts. The Domain itself can be considered a bounded context (BC) from the app point of view.
A BC doesn't mean that it contains an unique model, but a specific representation of the business concept. So you can have a Book definition in multiple BC but in each, the definition is slightly different, ranging from full details to just an id. So the Book from Inventory is different than a Book from Sales for example. It matters how that BC understands a concept.
The resulting model is valid only in that BC, although it can have the same name as the model from another BC. But that's what namespaces are for.
There isn't a recipe for that, everyone structure their projects how they see fit. But most of the time you'll have at least one Domain project and UI, Persistence, Infrastrcuture projects. I think that the best structure depends on the app and on how the developers thinks so the way I do things might not be the optimum way for you. In a nutshell, structure the app as it makes sense for you.
When comming accross concepts within a Domain Model where there exists something that has a name and sounds like an object but overlaps with the responsiblility of one of the 5 main DDD building blocks what is the best practice for naming this object and or dealing with design which may or may not include that name or phrase in the actual implementation?
To give a more concrete example lets say that we are designing a time tracking application in the spirit of DDD and encounter something that the domain experts refer to as a "time log" which is supposed to be the log which holds punch-in and corresponding punch-out times for all employees.
With this information my initial thought is that if there were a class written called TimeLog which allowed for querying existing time entries and also for persisting new or amended time log entries that such a class is really playing the role of a DDD repository. For simplicity sake, lets assume that after various discussions and refactoring that we come to a conclusion that each time log entry is essentially it's own aggregate root and thus has the need for a corresponding repository.
Now we are left with the option of either naming our repository as TimeLog which seems more in line with the DDD concept of ubiquitous language or we could call it TimeLogEntryRepository which seems to fit the more general convention for naming Repositories after the Aggregate root that they query/persist. I'm leaning more towards the the idea of using TimeLog since it is more descriptive of the actual role that it plays in the domain model which should in turn help in communicating design to domain experts. The choice of using TimeLogEntryRepository on the other hand follows existing DDD conventions and thus would make the design easier to follow for developers. A compromise could also be to go with the TimeLog naming but to have all repositories implement an IRepository interface or inherit from a common Repository base class to help developers locate and distinguish repository classes from others that make up the domain model. The main concern I have with using a base class is that it may encourage the use of marker interfaces or a weak unnecessary base class just for the purpose of organization and not due to behavioral factors.
What is the best practice in cases like this? I can see the same type of issue perhaps happening for services as they are another piece of the typical DDD building blocks that developers typically name using a "Service" suffix such as in SomeComplexActivityService but for Entities and Value Objects this is really a non-issue. I'm especially interested to see what others may have to say that have more DDD experience under their belt.
I personally prefer TimeLog.
It's actually amazing how much easier it becomes once you switch focus to business instead of technology. Proper naming is main weapon to keep that focus sharp.
The same goes for services - instead of ApplicationRegistrationService, I use ApplicationRegistrator.
Here's quite nice article about repositories.
I second #Arnis L. suggestion. I would also add that in respect to DDD your domain should reflect the actual UL (Ubiquitous Language) which you share with business analysist and other people that are often non technical people. So I think that you will talk with them about TimeLog and not TimeLogEntryRepository. Repository is just a pattern and it's name should not be in the naming conventions.
Over the years, I've investigated a lot of ways to use code generators and MDD. I've always felt that something is lacking: Patching and changes to the model at runtime.
Patching: If you have a code generator, all your classes should look the same. Now you have a single exception. All code generators so far would require that I modify the template or the template engine to make this work.
Wouldn't it be better if I could apply patches to the result of the code generation step to fix the exceptions?
Well, it depends on how you build your model. If fact, it depends on what code generator you are using, its approach, and what it lets you do.
Creating an exception to a rule (model) is more or less against the nature of MDD, unless the applied modeling approach allows you to add exceptions as modeling entities.
I think ABSE is the only modeling approach that accepts "custom code" as a first-class entity, just like a text or an integer. If you create a template that contains a "CustomCode" parameter, you can later add your exception code only when necessary, without breaking your model rules. This can be used to add or replace code. You just need to specify it in your template.
AtomWeaver is a free implementation of the ABSE modeling methodology.
MDD doesn't work because it is based on a view of the domain and not the entire domain. I mean that usually MDD take an XMI in entry coming from an UML diagram. The problem is that this diagram is only a view of the domain and therefore you have many alternative and the real world is a mot more complex specially at deployment stage.
The only company which has provided me real value in my project was Omondo with EclipseUML. EclipseUML doesn't try to do MDD but create UML at diagram level live synchronized with code. Deployment is made using stereotypes which are added in the java annotation in the code. I can therefore model and if I add deployment stereotypes then my application can be deployed immediately/ If I manually change my code, then my model is refactored and all my views updated. If I want to add a documentation then I just add notes in the metamodel. These notes are live available when I click on each element. No more printed documentation needed because live navigation, dynamic views creations etc...
My EclipseUML model is always up to date, and I can deploy it immediately because Java annotations are lived synchronized between the model, the metamodel, the diagrams and the code. Really cool :-) :-)
Does it make sense to make subsets of an Entity if you consider their usage in the application differently? IE. I take my entity and define a new entity with only some of the attributes of the first. Now I have 2 Entities that overlap but are used differently but ultimately persist in same datatable. These Entities will be accessed through different repositories...
I am only starting to learn about DDD myself, so if I am wrong please comment and let me know. Here are my thoughts though:
If the entity is going to be accessed through a different repository, I think it deserves its own class. Additionally, the bits that overlap now may not overlap in the future, and if you use a shared base class, you will probably be more likely to try adapting things at that point, which will dirty up your domain.
If the two classes are part of separate sub-domains, they probably should be separate. My thoughts are based around parts of an example I remember hearing in Rob Connery's interview on Hanselminutes. A product has several properties that are important to consumers (pricing, description, etc), and several properties that are important to warehouse personnel (location in the warehouse, weight, dimensions, etc). The implication to me in that episode was that the two products should be defined separately in the domain, instead of being defined once and shared.
If by "usage in the application" you mean you'll display different parts in different views, then I'd suggest you use a presentation pattern like Fowler describes in his Presentation Model (or if your developing a WPF app you can use the more WPF-specialized version called Model-View-ViewModel (MVVM)).
But if you by "usage" mean that you'll use different attributes of the entity in different sub-domains or part of your domain, then I agree with Chris; You'd probably be better off breaking them into different entities. The reason being that in your domain model you should reflect how the entity is used in that specific (sub)domain. And if you're using different parts of the entity under different circumstances, they probably have different meanings in these settings which again should be reflected in the naming of the entities. And if it were me, I'd probably make one repository for each of the entities. Having a 1:1 mapping between entities and repositories seems to make sense in most cases as far as I've experienced. But then again; just like Chris, Rob Conery and 90% of the developers trying to do DDD; I'm fairly new to the DDD-game and so my experiences might be overruled by someone more experienced :)
I've started learning about DDD and wanted to know how others have organised their projects.
I've started off by organising around my AggregateRoots:
MyApp.Domain (namespace for domain model)
MyApp.Domain.Product
- Product
- IProductService
- IProductRepository
- etc
MyApp.Domain.Comment
- Comment
- ICommentService
- ICommentRepository
- etc
MyApp.Infrastructure
- ...
MyApp.Repositories
- ProductRepository : IProductRepository
- etc
The problem i've bumped into with this is that i have to reference my domain product as MyApp.Domain.Product.Product or Product.Product. I also get a conflict with my linq data model for product....I have to use ugly lines of code to distiguish between the two such as MyApp.Domain.Product.Product and MyApp.Respoitories.Product.
I am really interested to see how others have organised their solutions for DDD...
I am using Visual Studio as my IDE.
Thanks alot.
I try to keep things very simple whenever I can, so usually something like this works for me:
Myapp.Domain - All domain specific classes share this namespace
Myapp.Data - Thin layer that abstracts the database from the domain.
Myapp.Application - All "support code", logging, shared utility code, service consumers etc
Myapp.Web - The web UI
So classes will be for example:
Myapp.Domain.Sales.Order
Myapp.Domain.Sales.Customer
Myapp.Domain.Pricelist
Myapp.Data.OrderManager
Myapp.Data.CustomerManager
Myapp.Application.Utils
Myapp.Application.CacheTools
Etc.
The idea I try to keep in mind as I go along is that the "domain" namespace is what captures the actual logic of the application. So what goes there is what you can talk to the "domain experts" (The dudes who will be using the application) about.
If I am coding something because of something that they have mentioned, it should be in the domain namespace, and whenever I code something that they have not mentioned (like logging, tracing errors etc) it should NOT be in the domain namespace.
Because of this I am also wary about making too complicated object hierarchies. Ideally a somewhat simplified drawing of the domain model should be intuitively understandable by non-coders.
To this end I don't normally start out by thinking about patterns in much detail. I try to model the domain as simple as I can get away with, following just standard object-oriented design guidelines. What needs to be an object? How are they related?
DDD in my mind is about handling complex software, but if your software is not itself very complex to begin with you could easily end up in a situation where the DDD way of doing things adds complexity rather than removes it.
Once you have a certain level of complexity in your model you will start to see how certain things should be organised, and then you will know which patterns to use, which classes are aggregates etc.
In my example, Myapp.Domain.Sales.Order would be an aggregate root in the sense that when it is instanced it will likely contain other objects, such as a customer object and collection of order lines, and you would only access the order lines for that particular order through the order object.
However, in order to keep things simple, I would not have a "master" object that only contains everything else and has no other purpose, so the order class will itself have values and properties that are useful in the application.
So I will reference things like:
Myapp.Domain.Sales.Order.TotalCost
Myapp.Domain.Sales.Order.OrderDate
Myapp.Domain.Sales.Order.Customer.PreferredInvoiceMethod
Myapp.Domain.Sales.Order.Customer.Address.Zip
etc.
I like having the domain in the root namespace of the application, in its own assembly:
Acme.Core.dll [root namespace: Acme]
This neatly represents the fact that the domain is in scope of all other portions of the application. (For more, see The Onion Architecture by Jeffrey Palermo).
Next, I have a data assembly (usually with NHibernate) that maps the domain objects to the database. This layer implements repository and service interfaces:
Acme.Data.dll [root namespace: Acme.Data]
Then, I have a presentation assembly declaring elements of my UI-pattern-of-choice:
Acme.Presentation.dll [root namespace: Acme.Presentation]
Finally, there is the UI project (assuming a web app here). This is where the composition of the elements in preceding layers takes place:
Acme.Web [root namespace: Acme.Web]
Although you're also a .Net developer, the Java implementation reference of the cargo app from DDD by Eric Evans and Citerus is a good resource.
In the doc'd code, you can see the DDD-organization into bounded contexts and aggregates in action, right in the Java packages.
Additionally, you might consider Billy McCafferty's Sharp Architecture. It's an ASP.Net MVC, NHibernate/Fluent NHibernate implementation that is built with DDD in mind.
Admittedly, you will still need to apply a folder/namespace solution to provide the contexts. But, couple the Evans approach with #Arch and you should be well on your way.
Let us know what you are going with. I am on the same path as well, and not far from you!
Happy coding,
Kurt Johnson
Your domain probably have a
name, so you should use this
name as namespace.
I usally put repository
implementation and data access
details in a namespace called
Persistance under the domain
namespace.
The application use its own name
as namespace.
I'd check out codecampserver since the setup there is quite common.
They have a core project in which they include both the application and domain layers. I.e. the insides of the onion (http://jeffreypalermo.com/blog/the-onion-architecture-part-1/).
I actually like to break the core apart into separate projects to control the direction of dependency. So typically I have:
MyNamespace.SomethingWeb <-- multiple UIs
MyNamespace.ExtranetWeb <-- multiple UIs
MyNamespace.Application <-- Evans' application layer with classes like CustomerService
MyNamespace.Domain
MyNamespace.Domain.Model <-- entities
MyNamespace.Domain.Services <-- doman services
MyNamespace.Domain.Repositories
MyNamespace.Infrastructure <-- repo implementation etc.
MyNamespace.Common <-- A project which all other projects have a dependency to which has things like a Logger, Util classes, etc.