CODEWITHSUNDEEP
domain-driven-design
morleyc
morleyc

Reputation: 2451

Rules to guide when to stick with CRUD ORM or switch to DDD event store

I have seen ORM use a unit of work to commit multiple repositories in a single step.

I have also seen DDD and the use of aggregate roots saved via repositories, when using event stores persistence conceptually becomes quite clear to understand.

I always need to write data access code and whilst I am familiar with ORM, I am new to domain driven design and event sourcing - event sourcing is great, but does come with a lot of infrastructure.

Ultimately I would like to some rules to help decide at what point (code size, number of database entities) when DDD+ES becomes worth the extra effort over CRUD systems.

To help decide my questions are as follows:

  1. I haven't seen aggregate roots combined in to a single unit of work, is this avoided? If so what problems can this cause?

  2. In DDD a customer entity may have addresses and phones embedded within it (value objects), whereas in ORM there is a unit of work with customer, phone and address repositories. What is the best way to explain and understand these different approaches?

  3. Can ORM use multiple different unit of works (each referencing relevant and related repositories/tables) to represent an aggregate root?

  4. What are the pain/warning signs to look out for with impedance mismatch from my domain to ORM, at which point we may consider switching to an event store?

Upvotes: 0

Views: 471

Answers (1)

eulerfx
eulerfx

Reputation: 37739

  1. An aggregate defines a consistency boundary. In NoSQL databases, it is usually not possible to commit multiple entities per transaction. Therefore, in DDD with NoSQL, it is desirable to only have a single aggregate in a unit of work while updates to entities external to the aggregate at hand are delivered in an eventually consistent manner.

  2. If addresses and phones are value objects then they shouldn't have repositories. In the ORM, they would be mapped as components of a parent entity not a separate mapping.

  3. I'm not sure what you'd achieve this way?

  4. One pain point that naturally leads to event sourcing is the need to preserve all state changes in an aggregate. Furthermore, event sourcing and the concept of domain events in general provide a different domain modelling methodology focused on behavior rather than state. I'd consider ES when there is potential business value in preserving all state changes. If you are willing to make the initial infrastructure investment, ES can in many ways be simpler by avoiding ORM madness. Think of CRUD as event sourcing with only 4 event types, or even 2 (read, update). Beyond the most basic domains, it is desirable to have more context beyond changes to data which leads you to ES.

Upvotes: 2

Related Questions