there would be users with different privilages and as a consequence there would be a lot of conditions, so how can i model the conditions in the use case diagrams? for example, the forum manager may create a post or update a post or even delete a post, create a threads or update avialable threads, delete threads, etc.
1- should i have different "use case" elements for each task? i mean add an oval/circle element for each task?? like creating an oval for "create a post", an oval for "updating the post",.....
2- is it correct to have one actor for each privilage?? like one for anonymuse user, one for logged in user, .....
thanks.
You shouldn't get into conditions and ifs and buts in use cases diagrams. A set of use cases is intended to provide an overview of the system's functionality, and each use case describes an interaction between the system and one or more actors. You want to keep that description simple and succinct.
Each use case should in some way make sense to the actor. To a person using a forum, it does make sense that creating a post is a separate activity from updating one (or responding to one), so that seems like a sensible start to me. You should not be overly concerned with the number of use cases at this stage. The number of use cases does not translate directly into system complexity, and a large number of clearly defined use cases is better than a small number of large, ambiguous ones.
The next step is to elaborate your use cases, and that's where you can start talking about conditions. Elaboration is typically done using an activity diagram which describes how the interaction between the actor and the system proceeds, eg Poster initiates post; System checks poster's privileges; System rejects post if privileges are insufficient; etc.
There is of course no right or wrong, but generally speaking it's a bad idea to use actors such as "logged in user" etc, and in fact you should avoid employing a "user" actor at all. Why? Because the interaction is actually between the system and a person, whereas a user (account) is an in-system representation of a person's privileges.
In other words, if you find yourself using actors which are in fact concepts from within the system, you've taken a wrong turn somewhere. Every use case must involve a system-external actor, otherwise you're not describing the system from the outside.
A better set of actors for a forum system would probably be Poster, Reader and Manager (and possibly a System Administrator as well).
Related
I know that one can utilize multiple KieBases and multiple KieSessions, but I don't understand under what scenarios one would use one approach vs the other (I am having some trouble in general understanding the definitions and relationships between KieContainer, KieBase, KieModule, and KieSession). Can someone clarify this?
You use multiple KieBases when you have multiple sets of rules doing different things.
KieSessions are the actual session for rule execution -- that is, they hold your data and some metadata and are what actually executes the rules.
Let's say I have an application for a school. One part of my application monitors students' attendance. The other part of my application tracks their grades. I have a set of rules which decides if students are truant and we need to talk to their parents. I have a completely unrelated set of rules which determines whether a student is having trouble academically and needs to be put on probation/a performance plan.
These rules have nothing to do with one another. They have completely separate concerns, different rule inputs, and are triggered in different parts of the application. The part of the application that is tracking attendance doesn't need to trigger the rules that monitor student performance.
For this application, I would have two different KieBases: one for attendance, and one for academics. When I need to fire the rules, I fire one or the other -- there is no use case for firing both at the same time.
The KieSession is the runtime for when we fire those rules. We add to it the data we need to trigger the rules, and it also tracks some other metadata that's really not relevant to this discussion. When firing the academics rules, I would be adding to it the student's grades, their classes, and maybe some information about the student (eg the grade level, whether they're an "honors" student, tec.). For the attendance rules, we would need the student information, plus historical tardiness/absence records. Those distinct pieces of data get added to the sessions.
When we decide to fire rules, we first get the appropriate KieBase -- academics or attendance. Then we get a session for that rule set, populate the data, and fire it. We technically "execute" the session, not the rules (and definitely not the rule base.) The rule base is just the collection of the rules; the session is how we actually execute it.
There are two kinds of sessions -- stateful and stateless. As their names imply, they differ with how data is stored and tracked. In most cases, people use stateful sessions because they want their rules to do iterative work on the inputs. You can read more about the specific differences in the documentation.
For low-volume applications, there's generally little need to reuse your KieSessions. Create, use, and dispose of them as needed. There is, however, some inherent overhead in this process, so there comes a point in which reuse does become something that you should consider. The documentation discusses the solution provided out-of-the box for Drools, which is session pooling.
(When trying to wrap your head around this, I like to use an analogy of databases. A session is like a JDBC connection: for small applications you can create them, use them, then close them as you need them. But as you scale you'll quickly find that you need to look into connection pooling to minimize this overhead. In this particular analogy, the rule base would be the database that the rules are executing against -- not the tables!)
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.
We leverage AxonIQ Framework in our system. We've faced a problem implementing composite uniq constraint based on aggregate business fields.
Consider following Aggregate:
#Aggregate
public class PersonnelCardAggregate {
#AggregateIdentifier
private UUID personnelCardId;
private String personnelNumber;
private Boolean archived;
}
We want to avoid personnelNumber duplicates in the scope of NOT-archived (archived == false) records. At the same time personnelNumber duplicates may exist in the scope of archived records.
Query Side check seems NOT to be an option. Taking into account Eventual Consistency nature of our system, more than one creation request with the same personnelNumber may exist at the same time and the Query Side may be behind.
What the solution would be?
What you're asking is an issue that can occur as soon as you start implementing an application along the CQRS paradigm and DDD modeling techniques.
The PersonnelCardAggregate in your scenario maintains the consistency boundary of a single "Personnel Card". You are however looking to expand this scope to achieve a uniqueness constraints among all Personnel Cards in your system.
I feel that this blog explains the problem of "Set Based Consistency Validation" you are encountering quite nicely.
I will not iterate his entire blog, but he sums it up as having four options to resolving the problem:
Introduce locking, transactions and database constraints for your Personnel Card
Use a hybrid locking field prior to issuing your command
Really on the eventually consistent Query Model
Re-examine the domain model
To be fair, option 1 wont do if your using the Event-Driven approach to updating your Command and Query Model.
Option 3 has been pushed back by you in the original question.
Option 4 is something I cannot deduce for you given that I am not a domain expert, but I am guessing that the PersonnelCardAggregate does not belong to a larger encapsulating Aggregate Root. Maybe the business constraint you've stated, thus the option to reuse personalNumbers, could be dropped or adjusted? Like I said though, I cannot state this as a factual answer for you, as I am not the domain expert.
That leaves option 2, which in my eyes would be the most pragmatic approach too.
I feel this would require a combination of a cache at your command dispatching side to deal with quick successions of commands to resolve the eventual consistency issue. To capture the occurs that an update still comes through accidentally, I'd introduce some form of Event Handler that (1) knows the entire set of "PersonnelCards" from a personalNumber/archived point of view and (2) can react on a faulty introduction by dispatching a compensating action.
You'd thus introduce some business logic on the event handling side of your application, which I'd strongly recommend to segregate from the application part which updates your query models (as the use cases are entirely different).
Concluding though, this is a difficult topic with several ways around it.
It's not so much an Axon specific problem by the way, but more an occurrence of modeling your application through DDD and CQRS.
I understand the difference between commands and events but in a lot of cases you end up with redundancy and mapping between 2 classes that are essentially the same (ThingNameUpdateCommand, ThingNameUpdatedEvent). For these simple cases can you / do you use the event also as a command? Do people serialise to a store all commands as well as all events? Just seems to be a little redundant to me.
All lot of this redundancy is for a reason in general and you want to avoid using the same message for two different purposes for a number of reasons:
Sourced events must be versioned when they change since they are stored and re-used (deserialized) when you hydrate an aggregate root. It will make things a bit awkward if the class is also being used as a message.
Coupling is increased, the same class is now being used by command handlers, the domain model and event handlers now. De-coupling the command side from the event can simplify life for you down the road.
Finally clarity. Commands are issued in a language that asks something to be done (imperative generally). Events are representations of what has happened (past-tense generally). This language gets muddled if you use the same class for both.
In the end these are just data classes, it isn't like this is "hard" code. There are ways to actually avoid some of the typing for simple scenarios like code-gen. For example, I know Greg has used XML and XSD transforms to create all the classes needed for a given domain in the past.
I'd say for a lot of simple cases you may want to question if this is really domain (i.e. modeling behavior) or just data. If it is just data consider not using event sourcing here. Below is a link to a talk by Udi Dahan about breaking up your domain model so that not all of it requires event-sourcing. I'm kind of in line with this way of thinking now myself.
http://skillsmatter.com/podcast/design-architecture/talk-from-udi-dahan
After working through some examples and especially the Greg Young presentation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHGkaShoyNs) I've come to the conclusion that commands are redundant. They are simply events from your user, they did press that button. You should store these in exactly the same way as other events because it is data you don't know if you will want to use it in a future view. Your user did add and then later remove that item from the basket or at least attempt to. You may later want to use this information to remind the user of this at later date.
I am writing a Product requirements specification. In this document I must describe the ways that the user can interact with the system in a very high level. Several of these operations are "Create-Read-Update-Delete" on some objects.
The question is, when writing use cases for these operations, what is the right way to do so? Can I write only one Use Case called "Manage Object x" and then have these operations as included Use Cases? Or do I have to create one use case per operation, per object? The problem I see with the last approach is that I would be writing quite a few pages that I feel do not really contribute to the understanding of the problem.
What is the best practice?
The original concept for use cases was that they, like actors, and class definitions, and -- frankly everything -- enjoy inheritance, as well as <<uses>> and <<extends>> relationships.
A Use Case superclass ("CRUD") makes sense. A lot of use cases are trivial extensions to "CRUD" with an entity type plugged into the use case.
A few use cases will be interesting extensions to "CRUD" with variant processing scenarios for -- maybe -- a fancy search as part of Retrieve, or a multi-step process for Create or Update, or a complex confirmation for Delete.
Feel free to use inheritance to simplify and normalize your use cases. If you use a UML tool, you'll notice that Use Cases have an "inheritance" arrow available to them.
The answer really depends on how complex the interactions are and how many variations are possible from object to object. There are two real reasons why I suggest that you develop specific use cases for each CRUD
(a) If you really are only doing a high-level summary of the interaction then the overhead is very small
(b) I've found it useful to specify a set of generic Use Cases for modifying 'Resources' and then extending / overriding particular steps for particular objects. Obviously the common behaviour is captured in the generic 'Resource' use cases.
As your understanding of the domain develops (i.e. as business users dump more requirements on you), you are more likely to add to the CRUD rather than remove it.
It makes sense to distinguish between workflow cases and resource/object lifecycles.
They interact but they are not the same; it makes sense to specify them both.
Use case scenarios or more extended workflow specifications typically describe how a case may proceed through the system's workflow. This will typically include interaction with various different resources. These interactions can often be characterized as C,R,U or D.
Resource lifecycles provide the process model of what may happen to a particular (type of) resource (object). They are often trivial "flower" models that say: any of C,R,U,D may happen to this resource in any order, so they are not very interesting by themselves.
The link between the two is that steps from the workflow and from the lifecycles coincide.
I feel representation - as long as it makes sense and is readable - does not matter. Conforming to the UML spec in all details is especially irrelevant.
What does matter, that you spec clearly states the operations and operation types the implementaton requires.
C: What form of insert operations exists. Can you insert rows not fully populated? Can you insert rows without an ID? Can you retrieve the ID last inserted? Can you cancel an insert selectively? What happens on duplicate keys or constraints failure? Is there a REPLACE INTO equivalent?
R: By what fields can you select? Can you do arbitrary grouping, orders? Can you create aggregate fields, aliases? How can you retrieve embedded (has many etc.) data? How do you specify depth of recursion, limits?
U, D: see R + C