I'm kind of stuck at modeling this problem in the right way applying Domain Driven Design way. I want to model travelling group in a traveling agency.
We have concepts like passenger, group, and group member in one bounded context. This passenger is a large AR that holds all sorts of information, like name, job, address, bank account, religion, ANYTHING. But not all of them are necessary for all kinds of travels and their invariants differ based on the type of the trip. For example in travel type A, we don't need passengers' phone numbers. In travel type B we do. So when a person goes to create a group to go on travel type B, I will have an invariant on passenger AR to have a valid data for phone.
So basically there are two challenges here: How can I break this huge AR and how should I handle enforcing these conditional invariants? Is it OK if I enforce invariants on passenger AR inside handlers - application service- while creating group AR?
(Besides, the passenger AR and the group AR are in the same bounded context but they have the potential to be separated in the future).
I would say the constraint here should be not on passenger, but on the group.
At the end you may create passengers for different type of travels with or without phone numbers.
The actual constraint should be enforced like a passenger without a phone should not be added to that particular group as a group member.
Regarding the implementation side:
public void addPassengerToGroup(PassengerInformation passenger) {
//original code omitted
this.assertArgumentTrue(passenger.isPhoneInformationProvided(), "Passenger doesn't have contact information.");
this.groupMembers().add(passenger);
}
Somethink like this may solve your problem problem for constraint checks.
There is also some addition explanation for a similar situation:
https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/319602/how-to-treat-validation-of-references-between-aggregates
This passenger is a large AR that holds all sorts of information, like name, job, address, bank account, religion, ANYTHING.
Well, to be honest, that sounds wrong as an aggregate. Consider why would you have this aggregate in the first place? What sort of business logic does this aggregate that involves the religion and bank account? or name? or address?
So, in short, this doesn't look like a Passenger aggregate. It looks more like a Customer record on a CRM without following DDD.
The first thing I would suggest is to consider your bounded contexts. I don't know your domain nor the specifics of your application, but most likely, you need bank account information for Finance reasons. So you'll have a Finance Bounded Context with Customers, their bank accounts, the invoices that you sent to them, and so on. You might also have a Bounded Context like Traveling or similar. Here, you might have a Passenger. A passenger could have a CustomerId and a TripId, plus other information, like ContactInformation and so on. You can also have Groups, with a list of Members and each Member could have a PassengerId and other information needed for the group management.
Obviously this is just an example from the limited information I have, but it seems to me, as I said, that a Customer becomes a Passenger when she signs up for a Trip. If the same Customer signs up for another trip, you'll create a new Passenger. There is no reason to reuse the same Passenger aggregate for multiple trips, because, as you said, even if it's the same person going to multiple Trips, the requirements for each are different, so trying to model a single Passenger that will fit all present and future types of Trips is creating an artificial coupling in my opinion.
Also, as I said previously, consider what information do you need on each aggregate. Even if across the whole application you know a lot of things from a single "person", it doesn't mean that you have to store them in a single place. That is the main point of DDD, in my opinion, finding where each piece of information belongs to and put it together with the business logic that needs it.
Related
After reading dozens of articles and watching hours of videos, I don't seem to get an answer to a simple question:
Should static data be included in the events of the write/read models?
Let's take the oh-so-common "orders" example.
In all examples you'll likely see something like:
class OrderCreated(Event):
....
class LineAdded(Event):
itemID
itemCount
itemPrice
But in practice, you will also have lots of "static" data (products, locations, categories, vendors, etc).
For example, we have a STATIC products table, with their SKUs, description, etc. But in all examples, the STATIC data is never part of the event.
What I don't understand is this:
Command side: should the STATIC data be included in the event? If so, which data? Should the entire "product" record be included? But a product also has a category and a vendor. Should their data be in the event as well?
Query side: should the STATIC data be included in the model/view? Or can/should it be JOINED with the static table when an actual query is executed.
If static data is NOT part of the event, then the projector cannot add it to the read model, which implies that the query MUST use joins.
If static data IS part of the event, then let's say we change something in the products table (e.g. typo in the item description), this change will not be reflected in the read model.
So, what's the right approach to using static data with ES/CQRS?
Should static data be included in the events of the write/read models?
"It depends".
First thing to note is that ES/CQRS are a distraction from this question.
CQRS is simply the creation of two objects where there was previously only one. -- Greg Young
In other words, CQRS is a response to the idea that we want to make different trade offs when reading information out of a system than when writing information into the system.
Similarly, ES just means that the data model should be an append only sequence of immutable documents that describe changes of information.
Storing snapshots of your domain entities (be that a single document in a document store, or rows in a relational database, or whatever) has to solve the same problems with "static" data.
For data that is truly immutable (the ratio of a circle's circumference and diameter is the same today as it was a billion years ago), pretty much anything works.
When you are dealing with information that changes over time, you need to be aware of the fact that that the answer changes depending on when you ask it.
Consider:
Monday: we accept an order from a customer
Tuesday: we update the prices in the product catalog
Wednesday: we invoice the customer
Thursday: we update the prices in the product catalog
Friday: we print a report for this order
What price should appear in the report? Does the answer change if the revised prices went down rather than up?
Recommended reading: Helland 2015
Roughly, if you are going to need now's information later, then you need to either (a) write the information down now or (b) write down the information you'll need later to look up now's information (ex: id + timestamp).
Furthermore, in a distributed system, you'll need to think about the implications when part of the system is unavailable (ex: what happens if we are trying to invoice, but the product catalog is unavailable? can we cache the data ahead of time?)
Sometimes, this sort of thing can turn into a complete tangle until you discover that you are missing some domain concept (the invoice depends on a price from a quote, not the catalog price) or that you have your service boundaries drawn incorrectly (Udi Dahan talks about this often).
So the "easy" part of the answer is that you should expect time to be a concept you model in your solution. After that, it gets context sensitive very quickly, and discovering the "right" answer may involve investigating subtle questions.
In CQRS when we need to create a custom-tailored projections for our read-models, we usually prefer a "denormalized" projections (assume we are talking about projecting onto a DB). It is not uncommon to have the information need by the application/UI come from different aggregates (possibly from different BCs).
Imagine we need a projected table to contain customer's information together with her full address and that Customer and Address are different aggregates in our system (possibly in different BCs). Meaning that, addresses are generated and maintained independently of customers. Or, in other words, when a new customer is created, there is no guarantee that there will be an AddressCreatedEvent subsequently produced by the system, this event may have already been processed prior to the creation of the customer. All we have at the time of CreateCustomerCommand is an UUID of an existing address.
We have several solutions here.
Enrich CreateCustomerCommand and the subsequent CustomerCreatedEvent to contain full address of the customer (looking up this information on the fly from the UI or the controller). This way the projection handler will just update the table directly upon receiving CustomerCreatedEvent.
Use the addrUuid provided in CustomerCreatedEvent to perform an ad-hoc query in the projection handler to get the missing part of the address information before updating the table.
These are commonly discussed solution to this problem. However, as noted by many others, there are problems with each approach. Enriching events can be difficult to justify as well described by Enrico Massone in this question, for example. Querying other views/projections (kind of JOINs) will work but introduces coupling (see the same link).
I would like describe another method here, which, as I believe, nicely addresses these concerns. I apologize beforehand for not giving a proper credit if this is a known technique. Sincerely, I have not seen it described elsewhere (at least not as explicitly).
"A picture speaks a thousand words", as they say:
The idea is that :
We keep CreateCustomerCommand and CustomerCreatedEvent simple with only addrUuid attribute (no enriching).
In API controller we send two commands to the command handler (aggregates): the first one, as usual, - CreateCustomerCommand to create customer and project customer information together with addrUuid to the table leaving other columns (full address, etc.) empty for time being. (Warning: See the update, we may have concurrency issue here and need to issue the probe command from a Saga.)
Right after this, and after we have obtained custUuid of the newly created customer, we issue a special ProbeAddrressCommand to Address aggregate triggering an AddressProbedEvent which will encapsulate the full state of the address together with the special attribute probeInitiatorUuid which is, of course our custUuid from the previous command.
The projection handler will then act upon AddressProbedEvent by simply filling in the missing pieces of the information in the table looking up the required row by matching the provided probeInitiatorUuid (i.e. custUuid) and addrUuid.
So we have two phases: create Customer and probe for the related Address. They are depicted in the diagram with (1) and (2) correspondingly.
Obviously, we can send as many such "probe" commands (in parallel) as needed by our projection: ProbeBillingCommand, ProbePreferencesCommand, etc. effectively populating or "filling in" the denormalized projection with missing data from each handled "probe" event.
The advantages of this method is that we keep the commands/events in the first phase simple (only UUIDs to other aggregates) all the while avoiding synchronous coupling (joining) of the projections. The whole approach has a nice EDA feeling about it.
My question is then: is this a known technique? Seems like I have not seen this... And what can go wrong with this approach?
I would be more then happy to update this question with any references to other sources which describe this method.
UPDATE 1:
There is one significant flaw with this approach that I can see already: command ProbeAddrressCommand cannot be issued before the projection handler had a chance to process CustomerCreatedEvent. But this is impossible to know from the API gateway (or controller).
The solution would probably involve a Saga, say CustomerAddressJoinProjectionSaga with will start upon receiving CustomerCreatedEvent and which will only then issue ProbeAddrressCommand. The Saga will end upon registering AddressProbedEvent. Or, if many other aggregates are involved in probing, when all such events have been received.
So here is the updated diagram.
UPDATE 2:
As noted by Levi Ramsey (see answer below) my example is rather convoluted with respect to the choice of aggregates. Indeed, Customer and Address are often conceptualized as belonging together (same Aggregate Root). So it is a better illustration of the problem to think of something like Student and Course instead, assuming for the sake of simplicity that there is a straightforward relation between the two: a student is taking a course. This way it is more obvious that Student and Course are independent aggregates (students and courses can be created and maintained at different times and different places in the system).
But the question still remains: how can we obtain a projection containing the full information about a student (full name, etc.) and the courses she is registered for (title, credits, the instructor's full name, prerequisites, etc.) all in the same table, if the UI requires it ?
A couple of thoughts:
I question why address needs to be a separate aggregate much less in a different bounded context, in view of the requirement that customers have an address. If in some other bounded context customer addresses are meaningful (e.g. you want to know "which addresses have more customers" etc.), then that context can subscribe to the events from the customer service.
As an alternative, if there's a particularly strong reason to model addresses separately from customers, why not have the read side prospectively listen for events from the address aggregate and store the latest address for a given address UUID in case there's a customer who ends up with that address. The reliability per unit effort of that approach is likely to be somewhat greater, I would expect.
I'm having some issues to correctly design the domain that I'm working on.
My straightforward use case is the following:
The user (~5000 users) can access to a list of ads (~5 millions)
He can choose to add/remove some of them as favorites.
He can decide to show/hide some of them.
I have a command which will mutate the aggregate state, to set Favorite to TRUE, let's say.
In terms of DDD, how should I design the aggregates?
How design the relationship between a user and his favorite's ads selection?
Considering the large numbers of ads, I cannot duplicate each ad inside a user aggregate root.
Can I design a Ads aggregateRoot containing a user "collection".
And finally, how to handle/perform the readmodels part?
Thanks in advance
Cheers
Two concepts may help you understand how to model this:
1. Aggregates are Transaction Boundaries.
An aggregate is a cluster of associated objects that are considered as a single unit. All parts of the aggregate are loaded and persisted together.
If you have an aggregate that encloses a 1000 entities, then you have to load all of them into memory. So it follows that you should preferably have small aggregates whenever possible.
2. Aggregates are Distinct Concepts.
An Aggregate represents a distinct concept in the domain. Behavior associated with more than one Aggregate (like Favoriting, in your case) is usually an aggregate by itself with its own set of attributes, domain objects, and behavior.
From your example, User is a clear aggregate.
An Ad has a distinct concept associated with it in the domain, so it is an aggregate too. There may be other entities that will be embedded within the Ad like valid_until, description, is_active, etc.
The concept of a favoriting an Ad links the User and the Ad aggregates. Your question seems to be centered around where this linkage should be preserved. Should it be in the User aggregate (a list of Ads), or should an Ad have a collection of User objects embedded within it?
While both are possibilities, IMHO, I think FavoriteAd is yet another aggregate, which holds references to both the User aggregate and the Ad aggregate. This way, you don't burden the concepts of User or the Ad with favoriting behavior.
Those aggregates will also not be required to load this additional data every time they are loaded into memory. For example, if you are loading an Ad object to edit its contents, you don't want the favorites collection to be loaded into memory by default.
These aggregate structures don't matter as far as read models are concerned. Aggregates only deal with the write side of the domain. You are free to rewire the data any way you want, in multiple forms, on the read side. You can have a subscriber just to listen to the Favorited event (raised after processing the Favorite command) and build a composite data structure containing data from both the User and the Ad aggregates.
I really like the answer given by Subhash Bhushan and I want to add another approach for you to consider.
If you look closely at your question you will see that you've made the assumption that an aggregate can 'see' everything that the user does when they are interacting with the UI. This doesn't need to be so.
Depending on the requirements of the domain you don't need to hold a list of any Ads in the aggregate to favourite them. Here's what I mean:
For this example, it doesn't matter where the the 'favourite' ad command sits. It could be on the user aggregate or a specific aggregate for handling the concept of Favouriting. The command just needs to hold the id of the User and the Ad they are favouriting.
You may need to handle what happens if a user or ad is deleted but that would just be a case of an event process manager listening to the appropriate events and issuing compensating commands.
This way you don't need to load up 5 million ads. That's a job for the read model and UI, not the domain.
Just a thought.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I’m starting a new web project and have to decide what database to use. I know, the question is very long but please bear with me on this.
I am very familiar with relational databases and have used frameworks like hibernate to get my data from the DB into Objects. But I have no experience with noSQL DBs. I am aware of the concepts of Document, Key-Value, etc. types.
While I do my research one question pops out every time and I don’t know how someone would handle this in noSQL DBs like MongoDB or any other Document-Typed noSQL DB where consistency takes top priority.
For example: let’s assume that we are creating a small shopping management system where customers can buy and sell stuff.
We have:
CUSTOMERs
ORDERs
PRODUCTs
A single CUSTOMER can have multiple ORDERs and an ORDER can have multiple PRODUCTs.
In a traditional RDBMS I would of course have 3 tables.
In the first version of our application, the front end for the customer should display his/her personal data, ORDERs and all the PRODUCTs he or she bought per order. Also which products are available for sale. So I guess in noSQL I would model the CUSTOMER class like this:
{
"id": 993784,
"firstname": "John",
"lastname": "Doe",
"orders": [
{
"id": 3234,
"quantity": 4,
"products": [
{
"id:" 378234,
"type": "TV",
"resolution": "1920x1080",
"screenSize":37,
"price": 999
}
]
}
],
"products": [
{
"id:" 7932,
"type": "car",
"sold": false,
"horsepower": 90
}
]
}
But later I want to extend my application to have 3 different UIs instead of only the first one:
The CUSTOMER Dashboard where a customer can view all his/her orders.
The PRODUCT Dashboard where a customer can add or remove products in his/her store.
THE SOLD Dashboard where a customer can view all sold PRODUCTs ready for shipping.
One very important thing to consider (the reason why I even bother asking this question): I want to be flexible with the classes like PRODUCT because products can have different properties. For Example: A TV has screen size and resolution while a car has horsepower and other properties. And if a user adds a new product, he or she should be able to dynamically add those properties depending on what he/she knows about it.
Now to some practical use cases of two fictional users Jane and John:
Let's say, Jane buys from John. Does that mean i have to create the PRODUCTs two times? One time as a child of Jane's ORDER and another time to stay in the "products" property of John?
Later Jane wants to view all products that are available from any user. Do i have to load every user to query the "products" property to generate a list of all products?
In version 2 of the application i want to enable John to view all outgoing orders (not orders he made but orders from other users who bought stuff from him) instead of viewing all sold products. How would this be done in noSQL? Would i now need to create an "outgoing" array of orders and duplicate them? (an outgoing order of Jane is an incoming order of John)
Some of you may say that noSQL is not right for this use case but isn’t that very common? Especially when we do not know what the future brings? If it does not fit for this use case, what use case would it fit into? Only baby applications (I guess not)? Wasn’t noSQL designed for more complex and flexible data?
Thank you very much for your advises and opinions!
EDIT 1:
Because this question was put on hold because of the unprecise question:
I made a very clear and simple example. So my question is not general about the use of noSQL but how to handle this specific example. How would a experienced noSQL user handle this use case? How to model this data? A recommendation to simply not use noSQL at all for this use case is also a valid answer to me.
I simply want to know how to use a noSQL database but still be able to manage entities and avoid redundancy.
For example: Are MongoDB's DBRefs/Manual refs a good way to achieve this? Performance issues because of multiple queries? What else to think about? I guess these questions can probably be answered quite well.
There probably isn't the one right answer to your question. But I'll make a start.
While it is technically possible in NoSQL to store some business entity together with all entities that are transitively linked with it (like Customer, Order, Product), it is't always clever to do so. The traditional reasons for separating entities, namely redundancies and therefore update and delete anomalies, don't just go away because a different platform is used.
So if you stored the product description with every customer who buys or sells this product, you will get update anomalies. If you have to change the screen size from 37 to 35, you'll have to find all customer records containing this product, which can be quite cumbersome.
Also, building up such a deep nested structure favors one direction of evaluating those structures over all other directions. If you put all orders and products into the customer document, this is very fine for getting a comprehensive view for a customer: whatever she bought throughout her lifetime. But if you want to query your database by orders (which orders need to be fulfilled tonight?) or products (who ordered product 1234?) you'll have to load tons of data that are of no interest to this query.
Similar questions are due to storing all orders with a customer. Old orders will sometimes still be of interest, so they may not be deleted. But do you want to load lots of orders everytime you load the customer?
This doesn't mean not to make use of the complex structuring made possible by a document store. As a rule of thumb, I would suggest: As long as the nested information belongs to the same business entity, put it into one document. If, e.g., the product description has some hierarchic structure, like nested sections consisting of text, pics, and videos, they may all go into one document. But entities with a totally different life cycle, like customers, orders, and suppliers, should be kept separate. Another indicator is references: A product will frequently be referenced as a whole, e.g. when it is ordered by a customer or ordered from a supplier. But the different parts of the product description may possibly never be referenced from the outside.
This rule of thumb wasn't completely precise, and it's not supposed to be. One person's business entity is another person's dumb attribute. Imagine the color of a car: For the car owner, it's just a piece of information describing a car. For the manufacturer, it's a business entity, having an availability, a price, one or more suppliers, a way of handling it, etc.
Your question also touches the aspect of dynamically adding attributes. This is often praised as one of the goodies of NoSQL, but it's no free lunch. Let's assume, as you mentioned, that the user may add attributes. That's technically possible, but how will these attributes be processed by the system? There won't be a specific view, nor specific business rules, for those attributes. So the best the system can do is offer some generic mechanism for displaying those attributes that were defined at runtime and never reflected in the program code.
This doesn't mean the feature is useless. Imagine your product description may be complex, as described above. You might build a generic mechanism to display (and edit) descriptions made up of sections, texts, images, etc., and afterwards the users may enter descriptions of unlimited width and depth. But in contrast, imagine your user will add a tiny delivery date attribute to the order. Unless the system knows specifically how to interpret this date, it will just be a dumb piece of information without any effect.
Now imagine not the user, but the developer adds new attributes. She has the opportunity to enhance the code at the same time, e.g. building some functionality around delivery dates. But this means that, although the database doesn't require it by its own, a new release of the software needs to be rolled out to make use of the new information.
The absence of a database scheme even makes the programmer's task more complicated. When a relational table has a certain column, you may be sure that each of its records has this column. If you want to make sure that it has a meaningful value, make it not null, and you may be sure that each record contains a value of the correct data type. Nothing like that is guaranteed by schemaless databases. So, when reading a record, defensive programming is needed to find out which parts are present, and whether they have the expected content. The same holds for database maintenance via administrative tools. Adding an attribute and initializing it with a default value is a 2-liner in SQL, or a couple of mouse clicks in pgadmin. For a schemaless database, you will write a short program on your own to achieve this.
This doesn't mean that I dislike NoSQL databases. But I think the "schemaless" characteristic is sometimes overestimated, and I wouldn't make it the main, or only, reason to employ such a database.
I'm building a delivery system, by now, my design looks like that:
The problem is, very frequently, I'll need a structure (array, json, objects...) that looks like that (very hierarchical):
The problem with this, is that it creates a lot of repetition of StreetAddress, DeliveryPoint and Customer, since each Itinerary would create lots of them and itineraries looks very much like others.
The good part is that everything would be pretty with just a few joins.
With the first schema, it would be very weird to create the second structure, but its possible.
Any ideas on how to control the repetition and still get an easy to query schema for the above structure?
I'm using:
PostgreSQL 9.1
PHP 5.5
Symfony Framework Standard Edition 2.4.0-BETA1 (With Doctrine)
[In case anyone wants to know how did I draw the schemas: www.gliffy.com]
Repetition and normalization are not always opposing questions.
Here's the basic problem:
Normalization doesn't care about repetition per se but about functional dependency
Repetition is the wrong question. Functional dependency is the right question. In some of your cases, addresses are remarkably hard to determine functional dependencies regarding because there are so many conventions out there, and even if you did, you'd still run into formatting issues.
A simple way to get to the bottom of this is asking about reasons why a given piece of data may change. Good, normalized design limits the reasons why a given piece of data may need to change. Now, with that in mind, it looks like you need to store historical locations for customers and it looks to me like you might want to do something slightly different.
Instead of:
Delivery -> customer -> street address -> itinerary
It looks to me like it would make more sense to:
Customer -> street address
And
delivery -> itinerary -> street address
In this model you may have duplicate information and you may need to have dates in the street address indicating when it is valid to and from, but that doesn't strike me as a normalization problem especially given the normalization problems that addresses already pose. But from there you can easily track the customer the delivery was made to, while in your model it isn't clear you can track the street address or itinerary of a given delivery.