I'm reading a book about DDD and i see an example domain that involves cars, engines, wheels and tires .
Above is the model as it is in the book . Customer is also aggregate root .
Having that model , there might be a case where the engine could have height, width and length attributes.
What happens when you need to attach a big engine on a small car ? The engine could not fit .
Is it a problem if the car checks for the engine attributes and allows it or not to be a part of the car ?
The engine has global identity (like you know each engine has a serial/manufacturer number). Maybe the engines need to be tracked by the manufacturer .
So I'm asking again , is it a problem if the car is using the engine's attributes to fit it inside (to allow it or not to be part of it) ?
Is it a problem if the car checks for the engine attributes and allows it or not to be a part of the car?
No.
That being said, your validation may be complex enough to introduce a domain service. Since two aggregates are involved you could have this:
car.Fit(engine)
Or this:
engine.Fit(car)
However, you probably want to be checking against a car model anyway :)
Since the rules are going to be somewhat more advanced and involve some data you probably want to introduce a domain service and possibly use double-dispatch on the objects:
So rather than car.Fit(engine) you could have this:
car.Fit(engine, IModelServiceImplementation)
And in the Fit method call:
if (!IModelServiceImplementation.CanFit(car, engine)) { throw new Exception(); }
The service could possibly load the correct model and rather check that against the engine. Depending on the domain one may even have modification levels and other rules to deal with.
Since a Car instance would not contain the actual Engine instance but only the EngineId or possibly some value object there would be no real assignment of engine to car. You could still pass the engine instance to the car and have it create the association however it sees fit.
The solution proposed by 'Enrico S.' is possibly more relevant to scenarios where changes are effected on the aggregate roots where one may not have all the aggregate roots available or even where aggregate roots live in separate bounded contexts. Even if Car and Engine were in separate BCs one would probably be able to query the validity somehow. Some things are fine for eventual consistency but others may not be.
As usual there are many things to consider :)
From DDD book, p128:
Any rule that spans AGGREGATES will not be expected to be up-to-date at all times. Through event processing, batch processing, or other update mechanisms, other dependencies can be resolved within some specific time.
So, it really depend on what Car aggregate is deigned for: if it requires strong consistency with the Engine, then the Engine should be part of the Car aggregate.
Other way, if it require only "eventual consistency", you might put that validation logic inside a Domain Event.
See this Udi Dahan's post
Related
Situation
Suppose you have Orders and Clients as entities in your application. In one aggregate, the Order entity is considered to be the root but you also want to make use of the Client entity for simple things. In another the Client is the root entity and the Order entity is touched ever so lightly.
An example:
Let's say that in the Order aggregate I use the Client only to read details like name, address, build order history and not to make the client do client specific business logic. (like persistence, passwords resets and back flips..).
On the other hand, in the Client aggregate I use the Order entity to report on the client's buying habbits, order totals, order counting, without requiring advanced order functionality like order processing, updating, status changes, etc.
Possible solution
I believe the better solution is to create the entities for each aggregate specific to the aggregate context, because making them full featured (general purpose) and ready for any situation and usage seems like overkill and could potentially become a maintenance nightmare. (and potentially memory intensive)
Question
What is the DDD recommended way of handling this situation?
What is your take on the matter?
The basic driver for these decisions should be the ubiquitous language, and consequently the real world domain you're modeling. If both works in a specific domain, I'd favor separation over god-classes for maintainability reasons.
Apart from separating behavior into different aggregates, you should also take care that you don't mix different bounded contexts. Depending on the requirements of your domain, it could make sense to separate the Purchase Context from the Reporting Context (to extend on your example).
To decide on a context design, context maps are a helpful tool.
You are one the right track. In DDD, entities are not merely containers encapsulating all attributes related to a "subject" (for example: a customer, or an order). This is a very important concept that eludes a lot of people. An entity in DDD represents an operation boundary, thus only the data necessary to perform the operation is considered to be a part of the entity. Exactly which data to include in an entity can be difficult to consider because some data is relevant in a different use-cases. Here are some tips when analyzing data:
Analyze invariants, things that must be considered when applying validation rules and that can not be out of sync should be in the same aggregate.
Drop the database-thinking, normalization is not a concern of DDD
Just because things look the same, it doesn't mean that they are. For example: the current shipping address registered on a customer is different from the shipping address which a specific order was shipped to.
Don't look at reads. Reading, like creating a report or populating av viewmodel/dto/whatever has nothing to do with operation boundaries and can typically be a 360 deg view of the data. In fact don't event use your domain model when returning reads, use a different architectural stack.
I have been trying to get started on Domain Driven Design (DDD) and therefore I've been studying it for a while now. I have a problem and I seek help around how I can solve it in a DDD fashion.
I have a Client class, which contains a hell lot of attributes - some of them are simple attributes, such as string contactName whereas others are complex ones, such as list addresses, list websites, etc.
DDD advocates that Client should be an Entity and it should also be an Aggregate root - ie, the client code should manipulate only the Client object itself and it's down to the Client object to perform operations on its inner objects (addresses, websites, names, etc.).
Here's the point where I get confused:
There are tons of business rules in the application that depend on the Client's inner objects - for instance:
Depending on the Client's country of birth or resident and her address, some FATCA (an US regulation) restrictions may be applicable.
I need to enrich some inner objects with data that comes from other systems, both internal to my organisation as well as external.
The application has to decide whether a Client is allowed to perform an operation and to that end, the app needs to scrutinize a lot of client details and make a decision - also, as the app scrutinizes the Client it needs to update many of its attributes to keep track of what led the application to that decision.
I could list hundreds of rules here - but you get the idea. My point is that I need to update many of the Client's inner attributes. From the domain perspective, the root is the Client - it's the Client that the user searches for in the GUI. The user cares only about the Client as a whole. Say, an isolated address is meaningless - it only exists if it's part of a Client.
Having said all that, my question is:
Eric Evans says it's OK for the root to return transient references to inner objects, preferably VOs (keyword here: VO) - but any manipulation on the inner objects should be performed by the root itself.
I have hundreds of manipulations that I need to perform on my clients - if I move all of them to the root, the root is going to become huge - it will have at least 10K lines of code!
According to Eric, a VO should be immutable - so if my root returns VOs, the client code won't be allowed to change them. So doing something like this would be unacceptable in a service: client.getExternalInfo().update(getDataFromExternalSystem())
So my question boils down to how on Earth I should update the inner objects without breaking the DDD rules?
I don't see any easy way out.
UPDATE I:
I've just come across Specifications, which seems to be the ideal DDD concept to my problem.
I'm still reading about it but I have decided to post this update anyway.
I have been studying DDD for awhile myself and am struggling to master it.
First, you're right: Specification is a fine pattern to use for validation or business rules in general, assuming the rules you are applying fit well with a predicate tree.
Of course, I don't know the specifics of your design, but I do wonder about the model itself. You mention that your Client class has "a hell lot of attributes". Are you sure your model is not somewhat anemic? Could your design benefit from some more analysis, perhaps breaking it out into other Aggregates? Is this a single Bounded Context? Should it be?
Specifications is definitely the way to go for complex business logic.
One question though - are you modeling the inner entities like addresses and names as ValueObjects? The best rule of thumb I can think of for those is if you can say they're equal, without an ID, they're likely value objects. Does your domain consider names to have a state?
If you're looking at a problem where few entities take in many types of change AND need an audit trail, you might want to also explore EventSourcing. Ideally the entity declares its reaction to an event, but you can also have the mutating code be held in the event for easy extensibility. There's pros and cons in that approach, of course.
Taking into consideration the domain events pattern and this post , why do people recomend keeping one aggregate per transaction model ? There are good cases when one aggregate could change the state of another one . Even by removing an aggregate (or altering it's identity) will lead to altering the state of other aggregates that reference it. Some people say that keeping one transaction per aggregates help scalability (keeping one aggregate per server) . But doesn't this type of thinking break the fundamental characteristic about DDD : technology agnostic ?
So based on the statements above and on your experience, is it bad to design aggregates, domain events, that lead to changes in other aggregates and this will lead to having 2 or more aggregates per transaction (ex. : when a new order is placed with 100 items change the customer's state from normal to V.I.P. )?
There are several things at play here and even more trade-offs to be made.
First and foremost, you are right, you should think about the model first. Afterall, the interplay of language, model and domain is what we're doing this all for: coming up with carefully designed abstractions as a solution to a problem.
The tactical patterns - from the DDD book - are a means to an end. In that respect we shouldn't overemphasize them, eventhough they have served us well (and caused major headaches for others). They help us find "units of consistency" in the model, things that change together, a transactional boundary. And therein lies the problem, I'm afraid. When something happens and when the side effects of it happening should be visible are two different things. Yet all too often they are treated as one, and thus cause this uncomfortable feeling, to which we respond by trying to squeeze everything within the boundary, without questioning. Still, we're left with that uncomfortable feeling. There are a lot of things that logically can be treated as a "whole change", whereas physically there are multiple small changes. It takes skill and experience, or even blunt trying to know when that is the case. Not everything can be solved this way mind you.
To scale or not to scale, that is often the question. If you don't need to scale, keep things on one box, be content with a certain backup/restore strategy, you can bend the rules and affect multiple aggregates in one go. But you have to be aware you're doing just that and not take it as a given, because inevitably change is going to come and it might mess with this particular way of handling things. So, fair warning. More subtle is the question as to why you're changing multiple aggregates in one go. People often respond to that with the "your aggregate boundaries are wrong" answer. In reality it means you have more domain and model exploration to do, to uncover the true motivation for those synchronous, multi-aggregate changes. Often a UI or service is the one that has this "unreasonable" expectation. But there might be other reasons and all it might take is a different set of abstractions to solve the same problem. This is a pretty essential aspect of DDD.
The example you gave seems like something I could handle as two separate transactions: an order was placed, and as a reaction to that, because the order was placed with a 100 items, the customer was made a VIP. As MikeSW hinted at in his answer (I started writing mine after he posted his), the question is when, who, how, and why should this customer status change be observed. Basically it's the "next" behavior that dictates the consistency requirements of the previous behavior(s).
An aggregate groups related business objects while an aggregate root (AR) is the 'representative' of that aggregate. Th AR itself is an entity modeling a (bigger, more complex) domain concept. In DDD a model is always relative to a context (the bounded context - BC) i.e that model is valid only in that BC.
This allows you to define a model representative of the specific business context and you don't need to shove everything in one model only. An Order is an AR in one context, while in another is just an id.
Since an AR pretty much encapsulates all the lower concepts and business rules, it acts as a whole i.e as a transaction/unit of work. A repository always works with AR because 1) a repo always deals with business objects and 2) the AR represents the business object for a given context.
When you have a use case involving 2 or more AR the business workflow and the correct modelling of that use case is paramount. In a lot of cases those AR can be modified independently (one doesn't care about other) or an AR changes as a result of other AR behaviour.
In your example, it's pretty trivial: when the customer places an order for 100 items, a domain event is generated and published. Then you have a handler which will check if the order complies with the customer promotions rules and if it does, a command is issued which will have the result of changing the client state to VIP.
Domain events are very powerful and allows you to implement transactions but in an eventual consistent environment. The old db transaction is an implementation detail and it's usually used when persisting one AR (remember AR are treated as a logical unit but persisting one may involve multiple tables hence db transaction).
Eventual consistency is a 'feature' of domain events which fits naturally a rich domain (and the real world actually). For some cases you might need instant consistency however those are particular cases and they are related to UI rather than how Domain works. Of course, it really depends from one domain to another. In your example, the customer won't mind it became a VIP 2 seconds or 2 minutes after the order was placed instead of the same milisecond.
Philosophical DDD question here...
I've seen a lot of Entity vs. Value Object discussions here, but mine is slightly different. Forgive me if this has been covered before.
I'm working in the financial domain at the moment. We have funds (hedge variety). Those funds often invest into other funds. This results in a tree structure of sorts with one fund at the top anchoring it all together.
Obviously, a fund is an Entity (Aggregate Root, even). Things like trades and positions are most likely Value Objects.
My question is: Should the tree structure itself be considered an Aggregate Root?
Some thoughts:
The tree structure is stored in the DB by storing the components and the posistions they have into each other. We currently have no coded concept of the tree. The domain is very weak.
The tree structure has no "uniqueness" or identifier.
There is logic needed in many places to "walk" the tree to find the relationships to each other, either top-down, or sometimes bottom-up. This logic needs to be encapsulated somewhere.
There is lots of logic to compute leverage, exposure, etc... and roll it up the tree.
Is it good enough to treat the Fund as a Composite Fund object and that is the Aggregate Root with in-built Invariants? Or is a more formal tree structure useful in this case?
I usually take a more functional/domain approach to designing my aggregates and aggregate roots.
This results in a tree structure of sorts
Maybe you can talk with your domain expert to see if that notion deserves to be a first-class citizen with a name of its own in the ubiquitous language (FundTree, FundComposition... ?)
Once that is done, making it an aggregate root will basically depend on whether you consider the entity to be one of the main entry points in the application, i.e. will you sometimes need a reference to a FundTree before even having any reference to a Fund, or if you can afford to obtain it only by traversal of a Fund.
This is more a decision of if you want to load full trees at all times really.
If you are anal about what you define as an aggregate root, then you will find a lot of bloat as you will be loading full object trees any time you load them.
There is no one size fits all approach to this, but in my opinion, you should have your relationships all mapped to your aggregate roots where possible, but in some cases a part of that tree can be treated as an aggregate root when needed.
If you're in a web environment, this is a different decision to a desktop application.
In the web, you are starting again every page load so I tend to have a good MODEL to map the relationships and a repository for pretty much every entity (as I always need to save just a small part of something from some popup somewhere) and pull it together with services that are done per aggregate root. It makes the code predictable and stops those... "umm.... is this a root" moments or repositories that become unmanagable.
Then I will have mappers that can give me summary and/or listitem views of large trees as needed and when needed.
On a desktop app, you keep things in memory a lot more, so you will write less code by just working out what your aggregate roots are and loading them when you need them.
There is no right or wrong to this. I doubt you could build a big app of any sort without making compromises on what is considered an aggregate root and you'll always end up in a sitation where 2 roots end up joining each other somewhere.
Hopefully, this fictitious example will illustrate my problem:
Suppose you are writing a system which tracks complaints for a software product, as well as many other attributes about the product. In this case the SoftwareProduct is our aggregate root and Complaints are entities that only can exist as a child of the product. In other words, if the software product is removed from the system, so shall the complaints.
In the system, there is a dashboard like web page which displays many different aspects of a single SoftwareProduct. One section in the dashboard, displays a list of Complaints in a grid like fashion, showing only some very high level information for each complaint. When an admin type user chooses one of these complaints, they are directed to an edit screen which allows them to edit the detail of a single Complaint.
The question is: what is the best way for the edit screen to retrieve the single Complaint, so that it can be displayed for editing purposes? Keep in mind we have already established the SoftwareProduct as an aggregate root, therefore direct access to a Complaint should not be allowed. Also, the system is using NHibernate, so eager loading is an option, but my understanding is that even if a single Complaint is eager loaded via the SoftwareProduct, as soon as the Complaints collection is accessed the rest of the collection is loaded. So, how do you get the single Complaint through the SoftwareProduct without incurring the overhead of loading the entire Complaints collection?
This gets a bit into semantics and religiosity, but within the context of editing a complaint, the complaint is the root object. When you are editing a complaint, the parent object (software product) is unimportant. It is obviously an entity with a unique identity. Therefore you would would have a service/repository devoted to saving the updated complaint, etc.
Also, i think you're being a bit too negative. Complaints? How about "Comments"? Or "ConstructiveCriticisms"?
#Josh,
I don't agree with what you are saying even though I have noticed some people design their "Web" applications this way just for the sake of performance, and not based on the domain model itself.
I'm not a DDD expert either, but I'm sure you have read the traditional Order and OrderItem example. All DDD books say OrderItem belongs to the Order aggregate with Order being the aggregate root.
Based on what you are saying, OrderItem doesn't belong to Order aggregate anymore since the user may want to directly edit an OrderItem with Order being unimportant (just like editing a Complaing with its parents Software Product being unimportant). And you know if this approach is followed, none of the Order invariants could be enforced, which are extremely important when it comes to e-commerce systems.
Anyone has any better approaches?
Mosh
To answer your question:
Aggregates are used for the purpose of consistency. For example, if adding/modifying/deleting a child object from a parent (aggregate root) causes an invariant to break, then you need an aggregate there.
However, in your problem, I believe SoftwareProduct and Compliant belong to two separate aggregates, each being the root of their own aggregates. You don't need to load the SoftwareProject and all N Complaints assigned to it, just to add a new Complaint. To me, it doesn't seem that you have any business rules to be evaluated when adding a new Complaint.
So, in summary, create 2 different Repositories: SoftwareProductRepository and ComplaintRepository.
Also, when you delete a SoftwareProduct, you can use database relationships to cascade deletes and remove the associated Complaints. This should be done in your database for the purpose of data integrity. You don't need to control that in your Domain Model, unless you had other invariants apart from deleting linked objects.
Hope this helps,
Mosh
I am using NH for another business context but similar entity relationships like yours. I do not understand why do you say:
Keep in mind we have already
established the SoftwareProduct as an
aggregate root, therefore direct
access to a Complaint should not be
allowed
I have this in mine, Article and Publisher entities, if Publisher cease to exist, so do all the dependent Artcle entities. I allow myself to have direct access to the Article collections of each Publisher and individual entities. In the DB/Mapping of the Article class, Publisher is one of the members and cannot accept Null.
Care to elaborate the difference between yours and mine?
Sorry this is not a direct answer but too long to be added as a comment.
I agree with Mosh. Each ones of these two entities has its own aggregate root. Let me to explain it in the real life. suppose that a company has developed a software. There are some bug in this software, that made you annoy. you are going to go to the company and aware them from this problem. this company gives you a form to be filled by you.
This form has a field - section - indicates to the software name and description. additionally, it has some parts for your complaint. Is this form the same as the software manual? No. It is a form related to the software. It is not the software. Does this form has any ID? yes. It has. In other words, you can call the company in the next day and ask the operator about your letter of complaint. It is obvious that the operator will ask you about the Id.
This evidence shows that this form has its own entity and it could not be confused with the software itself. Any relation between two different entity does not mean one of them belongs to the other.