DDD - bounded contexts sharing/communication

Question

I am trying to utilize some DDD approaches in the app that allows guest purchase. While it looks easy, I got a bit confused and asking for your DDD advice.

The app has several bounded contexts and we are looking at 3 of them:

1. Customers (customers manage their user settings here, authentication, also admin can potentially create users)

2. Sales (orders)

3. Billing (charging customers for one-off payments and subscriptions)

The user story: As a guest I want to order the product to do something.

This is one form and on checkout he/she will be asked for email and password. We need to create account on this step, but based on business logic this fits to Sales context - guest makes an order. We actually need to do simple steps:

1. Create user with ACTIVE status
2. Store billing details
3. Create order
4. Charge user later (event handled by Billing)

The confusion here is that it requires creating a user first. It looks more naturally to create it in customers, but probably it’s wrong? User can not sign up in any other way - only by placing an order, but admin can create a user manually. Based on different system events(from different contexts), the Customer context may change the user status based on special logic that is placed into Customer domain. Is there any safe way for sharing this User status logic between different contexts (while creating User in Sales we need that status enum class)? Does this logic for placing order look ok? Could you please recommend another approach if you think that this one is wrong?

Answer 1

It's a bit late, but it's worth noting that the sales context is not responsible for keeping customers' data consistent. And it doesn't need to call the customer context directly to create a user. All these steps you mentioned must be orchestrated by the presentation layer or an API gateway (in some scenarios you can use Saga).

Answer 2

You probably should ask yourself first whether you got the Bounded Contexts right.

In my opinion you have the following BCs

• Identity and Users
• Sales and Billing

consider this: the same person is a User in the first context but a Customer in the latter. so you have two views on the same real world entity which suggests that you have two bounded contexts where this entity means different things.

your bcs sound more like modules in the Sales and Billing context.

If you agree, then the control flow for your problem may be simplified where an entity in one context is created and the creation is propagated via event into the other. so the initial request could be handled by the Sales bc and the guest user handling would be propagated to Identity.

Answer 3

Status is DDD at its worst. Including a status field is 1) lazy, and yet 2) very convenient. Yes, one of those design trade offs.

When you assign a status or read a status you are ignoring or sublimating significant business logic and structure for your domain. When “status” changes some very significant changes could occur in your domain... way beyond changing a status property.

Throw status out and instead consider some concepts: a CasualShopper or Guest (no purchases, browsing for products), a PotentialNewShopper (someone adding things in their basket who you’ve never seen before), and your usual Customer (which should probably be subdivided based on their current activity).

With this modeled, you can attach behaviors directly to each of these objects and “status” itself is sublimated into a richer DDD model. A common DDD mistake is not creating a transactionally-significant object (e.g. a Potential Shopper role) for some static/non-temporal object (e.g. a person).

From here you may decide you need a few bounded contexts; perhaps PotentialCustomers and EstablishedCustomers. In each the set of domain transitions are different and can be encapsulated rather than externalized.

So...

With that out of the way it looks like you have a Customer BC and a PossibleCustomer BC. You can safely do what you need to do in the latter now that it is self-contained.

Oh, but that may affect billing! and ordering!

True. That may mean new BCs or new objects in those BCs such as ProvisionalPayment and UnauthenticatedOrder. I’m spitballing a bit now...

My point is you have events that can transition between states rather than encoding those states, and as such you can attach the behaviors you need and persist them as needed in some physical store, that is likely partitioned in a way suitable to your DDD.

Doing all this work means not sharing unsafe status but sharing safe projections of relevant objects only.

Jumping into implementation briefly and anecdotally, developers are loath to store “temporary” state. “Temporary” state is OK to store and necessary when you’re modeling a domain without that cruddy status field.