Chapter 2 - The Aggregate does not fit the storytelling

-

continues from  Chapter 1 - I am here to kill the aggregate

......

One of the most powerful elements of DDD is that it has broken down the barriers between technicians and domain experts, thanks to tools capable of exploiting the immense potential of storytelling, first of all Event Storming.

Storytelling is at the heart of human communication. Storytelling does not require any special competence or skill. It helps break down the barriers between technicians and business experts.

In my experience, the usage of storytelling ensures an exceptional fluidity in the domain discovery process, but it hits a snag when we try to introduce the aggregate into the story.

Indeed, by definition, the aggregate is the boundary of consistency. The aggregate is the component responsible for ensuring strong consistency constraints within an ecosystem that is, by nature, eventually consistent. But, at the same time, it tries to represent the business entity acting as the guardian of a set of business rules. 

It is complex to explain to business experts what it really represents.
Obviously, we cannot provide business experts with a technical explanation of the aggregate.
However I need to admit that, to design the aggregate, I always start grouping together all data that shares consistency constraints.

In our example, the rules were related to the course. That's why I'd choose the Course as an aggregate.

Translating this idea into non-technical terms to explain it to business experts is not trivial. We can use metaphors, by asking questions like this:
  • Who guarantees me that this rule will not be violated?
  • In which box would you put this information?
  • Who would you address this command to?
These tricks are not always effective. So here is the first bad guy in our story.

The Aggregate does not fit the storytelling


The introduction of the aggregate in storytelling breaks the fluidity of the discovery process.
It is an element that does not emerge naturally from the story; the story teller is forced to talk about it.
Business experts should absolutely not worry about understanding the technical aspects of our architecture. Nevertheless, they are somehow asked to identify precisely these elements, technical by definition.

Besides, the aggregate leads back to the old modelling-first/data centric approach. It moves the focus from the behavior to the model.

The story continues to the next chapter
Chapter 3 - The aggregate mixes technical and business aspects

... or watch the full story on youtube

Location: Parma PR, Italia

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Chapter 1 - I am here to kill the aggregate

-
Image
The aggregate has always been, for me, one of the most controversial and weakest elements of Domain Driven Design. During my consultancy activity, I have been able to verify that the full understanding of the aggregate concept remains difficult for many. It is easy to make mistakes in the modeling phase, which will be very complex to fix in more advanced stages of development. As a result, some developers feel that the whole architecture is excessively difficult and complicated. I want to show you another world, where there is no aggregate. I am here to kill the aggregate. For those unfamiliar with it, let me introduce it to you. The Aggregate Its definition is, in my opinion, is quite vague: An aggregate is a cluster of associated objects  that we treat as a unit for the purpose of data changes. From blue book - Domain-Driven Design: Tackling Complexity in the Heart of Software - Eric Evans If you are confused by this definition, let's try to read what the blue book recommends for...
Read more

Chapter 10 - The Aggregate is dead

-
Image
continues from  Chapter 9 - An event is just a fact, pure ...... The aggregate is finally dead, together with its negative aspects. This new approach, which focuses on the decision block, has several benefits: Perfect match with storytelling Focus on behavior instead of model Less contention Less complexity  Simpler to refactor But be careful: this does not mean having to organize the system in order to have hundreds of completely unrelated command handlers. Absolutely not! Clustering commands into logical groups and delegating their execution to the same model is and remains a correct programming approach. The difference lies in the fact that before, by the very definition of aggregate, these models necessarily had to be isolated from each other. Killing the aggregate means admitting the possibility of contamination between these models without renouncing consistency. A less dogmatic approach, which in any case must not disregard good programming practices, but which, thanks ...
Read more