The One Question To Haunt Everyone: What is a DDD Aggregate? - Thomas Ploch - DDD Europe 2022
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 янв 2023
- Domain-Driven Design Europe 2022
dddeurope.com - / ddd_eu - newsletter.dddeurope.com/ / domain-driven-design-e...
Organised by Aardling (aardling.eu/)
There is one question that I am getting asked at almost every conference or meetup: What is and what isn't an Aggregate? How do we design an Aggregate? To be honest, it's not an easy answer, even for experienced practitioners.
In this session I am summarizing the current state of affairs regarding Aggregate design in the Domain-Driven Design community.
I am Thomas, and I design systems for people and computers for fun and profit!
My career has navigated me through various industries like Finance & Insurance, Medical, Automotive and Travel. I have been wearing many differently shaped hats over the last 15 years. From System Administration, Test Automation, Web Development, Software Architecture & Design, Product Design & Organisation Design, I can draw on a bit of experience that currently helps me every day as a Principal Solutions Architect FlixBus.
The biggest realization over the last few years is that the most important component of success is not running the latest distributed architecture in the cloud, but to enable people to work smart to manifest their ideas in helpful products. I want to share my experiences and hope that you can take away a bit of knowledge that can help you later.
It is impossible to design useful software without understanding the underlying forces driven by market conditions, competitors, business strategy and the actual people using or building the software. Hence, I firmly believe that a wider definition of system design is required to achieve an adaptive and evolvable environment of people, processes and technology that can react to changing conditions in our fast paced digital world. 
Наука
Best overview of aggregates and the reasoning behind it so far for me.
It's encapsulation (a Facade (AR) provides an interface to effect aggregate behaviors) & cohesion (the aggregate being a group of closely related coevolving objects) - it's just that it's applied beyond the level of a single object.
Great talk Thomas! Thanks DDD Europe for sharing!
What a wonderful explanation thanks
What an excellent talk, thank you very much for putting it out!
Insightful Talk on just what Aggregates are, a Deep, Revealing Dive. Thank you so much.
awesome talk, very clear explanation thanks
Fantastic explanation, very useful talk.
Brilliant lecture! Thank you.
the quote may come from Vaughn Vernon paper "Effective Aggregate Design". I quote the paper : "Therefore, it is just plain smart to limit aggregate size. When you occasionally encounter a true consistency rule, then add another few entities, or possibly a collection, as necessary, but continue to push yourself to keep the overall size as small as possible"
yes i had this paper in mind as well.
well, then CRUD is the ultimate aggregate :)))
reinventing the wheel is endless game
IMO, a fundamental flaw that involves the DDD aggregate concept is that persistence concerns leak into their design - eg: race conditions because big object graphs, load to the database due to lots of entities, etc. This might lead to designs dictated because of your infrastructure components, not your domain.
I guess that, like all engineering problems, we've to accept that we live in the real world. This reminds me the "fallacies of distributed computing" : sure everything would be easier and nicer if the network was reliable, without latency... but it's just not true and we've to deal with it
what if each entity has it local storage inside the aggregate and triggers another entity based on invariants (business rule)? essentially nodes and edges inside aggregate
Very engaging and informative presentation.
Thank you very much!
awesome!
My opinion based on months of exploration trying to understand this topic. No offense intended...
Q: "What does this picture represent? Why does it take 3 months to implement a small little change?"
A: Tight coupling and low cohesion caused by incorrect boundaries.
Suggesting that Aggregates, in and of themselves , can stop a system from spinning out of control is highly questionable. The boundaries need to be correct or coupling will take over. Everything will start breaking with even the most simple change, regardless of any Aggregate implementation.
Of course, Aggregates, just like any other software construct, are "artificial" and "invented", but the proper boundaries most certainly are not. I really think that this is a misinterpretation of the blue book. Evans effectively said the opposite, "Forcing the required domain functionality to be the responsibility of an ENTITY or VALUE either distorts the definition of model-based object or adds meaningless artificial objects".
Even in the cutlery metaphor, this becomes evident. Sure, cutlery is used together. So, keeping it in the same drawer (Aggregate) seems reasonable. However, the number of tines on a fork has absolutely nothing to do with knives or spoons. We have now coupled completely separate concerns and planted the seed for future disaster.
Q: Why should Aggregates "be as small as possible" ?
A: Because Vaughn Vernon said so!
Q: OK, maybe, but why did he say that?
Aggregates should be as small as possible because the immediate transactional consistency boundaries that they protect are relatively small by their very nature.
"Finding correct service boundaries is really, really hard." - Udi Dahan paraphrase circa 21st century earth, local time.
Awesome
if these things have to be explained the ddd book cant be so good
I heard so many people struggling with Aggregate term, but all I see is just a classic GoF Facade done right.
Very well explained! But there is one question left! how aggregates communicate with each other? do they "just" reference each other, for simplicity in the same bounded context?
it seems like fancy OO
composite: all functionality in one class.
aggregate: functionality spread over multiple classes and one (facade) aggregating them.
(mentioned in Ivar Jacobson‘s OOSE book 😁)
its fun to get there, but its not fun to be there
never been more accurate!
@3:33 il problema non è se il system arriva o no a questo livello di complessità, il problema è chi scrive una query che implica 1000 tabelle...
True.
what if you have huge data like 100000000comments in Post object. I don't think you can init a domain object with that much... looks useless to me when dealing with large chuncks of data. Thoughts?
Lol, zero real solutions given.
The first rule of distributed computing should be : don't do distributed computing (unless you really need to). Not "split your ACID boundaries early on" into various "agregates".
For instance, this talk doesn't explain all the inconsistent system states that can occur if that UserAccount is deleted on one side, the CRMAccount should react to it and a third system losely depends on the existence of the CRMAccount. Like billing a user that shouldn't exist in your system anymore. Stuff like that. Without the saga patterns to monitor such inconsistencies and try repairing them, offering cancellation or refund.
Premature distribution is a recipe for disaster. Agregates teached this way hence are a recipe for disaster.
Domain events can help here.
Very long way to explain plain old encapsulation of the object-oriented design
it seems like the rediscovery of hot water, e.g. the entity-relationship model..
is it more important to wear a cap with a visor and a floral shirt, or a fruit shirt with pears and oranges? ::
everything in the world ends up as entity and relationships.. a graph with active nodes might solve this problem
@@NaveenSiddareddy yes, I wonder if there's a real need for these ever new presumed "concepts", apart from selling books & colorful gadgets ;;
The idea that you can have two aggregates whose values are all identical other than some specific identity value, which makes them different, is fundamentally incorrect.
The "specific identity value" *does not exist in the world*. It is *not part of the domain*. It's completely artificial, and therefore represents nothing. From the point of view of the domain, or any actual user who is using the system, two aggregates whose values are all identical are the same aggregate, by definition.
To take a simple example, suppose I have a domain object representing a customer, and this customer happens to only have a single property - name. I create a customer "John". I then create another customer "John". How many customers do I have? ONE. You need proof? Suppose a customer calls up. You want to find them in the system. You ask them "what's your name". "John", they reply. Cool. Which "John" is THIS "John"? What are you going to do, say something like "Hey I have two Johns, one is ID 123 and the other is ID 124, which one are you?". The guy on the phone is going to ask what the heck you are talking about.
This is the same mistake as saying "you don't need natural keys in your relational database, just add surrogate keys to your tables". No, that's completely and fundamentally wrong.
If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.
And one should stop using fancy words (specialized terms)
So you want to teach DDD to a six year old? Good luck with that.