Think Before Coding

To content | To menu | To search

Domain Driven Design

Entries feed - Comments feed

Monday, July 29, 2013

Command Events and Context

A remark by @serialseb after my previous post :


First, here is some the distinction between a Command and an Event.

A command express what you want to do. Usually expressed with a verb in the present tense:

A event express what actually happened. Usually expressed with a verb in the past tense;

As you can anticipate, what you request is not always what actually happens:

A Command is still an Event ?

Let’s go a bit meta.

The fact that you decide you want to do something is something that happens in time. So it can also be considered as an event !

True… but what’s the usefulness of this ?

Someone who would like to study the correlation between your desires and their realizations will model both as events..

This can be the same in a tracking context. Track both causes and effects..

Should we just ignore the distinction then ?

Surely not !

It’s here again a matter of context. Of Bounded Context.

Let’s take a sample with different kind of concepts, Value Object and Entities, to highlight how the same thing can take different modeling forms in different contexts:

Money is usually modeled as a Value Object, which implies equality by Value. I give you $10 you give me $10, we’re even, even if I give you a bill and you give me some coins.

In the context of fraud tracking, this can be very different. Bills have a tracking number, and you can model it as entity.

If you make both context work together you’ll go through an Anti Corruption Layer for context mapping. You’ll not model all your accounting with entities for money because some other context models it this way !

In the case of Command and Events, some contexts can be interested in the fact that a decision was made, so this will be modeled as an event. But in the context where this decision happens, the decision is different from the actual outcome, and not being clear about this difference can lead to several issues..

For example if you model a withdrawal with  a Withdrawal concept: It is not clear whether it represe,ts the fact that you asked it to happen or the fact that is has actually been done.

Being explicit on it with WithdrawMoney / MoneyWithdrawn removes the ambiguity.

In the context of event sourcing, this distinction is very important as the previous article showed. As is the distinction between upstream events and internal events, since upstream events is input and will only produce things you’d like to happen, so are closer to commands from the system point of view.

Of course if your context is not about time and decision, don’t use these concepts that would be useless. You’re writing a compiler ? Forget about all this.

Should I have Command DTOs ?

not necessarily, a command can be modeled as a function/method call. So creating Command object is not mandatory.

It can still be useful for dispatch, storage for diagnostics, functional test etc.

Sunday, March 3, 2013

Entities and Repository injection - follow up


I have still new comments and there are some Stack Overflow questions on the subject that show the response to the question is still unclear…


Should you inject, or even use repositories in you entities ?

The response is two fold, and both go in the same direction, you shouldn’t.


Of course, we’re discussing design here, so if in your specific case you find reasons more important than those invoked here, there’s always a possibility to decide to go as you wish…


Injection and DDD patterns

Where talking Injection and Entities/Repositories here, so the first reason concerns what injection means in a Domain Driven Design environement.


The wikipedia definition of the dependency injection pattern only makes references to objects or components without defining explicitly which kind of object or which kind of component…


But a famous injection anti pattern can give use more information on what are injected components.

I call the Service Locator anti pattern.


This make it clear that what we are looking for is a way to find service in a supple and configurable way.

I won’t explain here why the service locator is an anti pattern, but it makes it obvious that the use of injection is to provide access to services in the code.


Since services are supposed to be stateless, their lifecycles are usually quite flexible. A service could be instanciated on each call, on each request or as a single instance without much difference. The injected service dependencies enable to compose services to replace implementations by configuration or for tests..

But even at runtime. A live configuration change could indicates to replace an injected service on next instantiation.


Services and repositories are quite obviously not injected with Entities/Aggregates:

  • A repository is here to instantiate entities, it’s its own job, it doesn’t need to be injected with entities…
  • When a service needs an entity, it can be injected with a repository, and get the entity through it.

But could entities be injected with services or repositories ?


An aggregate or an entity is not stateless as a service, it is statefull, and its member fields are here to maintain current state.

It seems quite odd to use those fields to store references to services that are obviously not part of the state.

It also links the referenced service lifecycle to the lifecycle of the entity itself.


Most entities instanciation schemes in web applications are on a per call basis, and since most web application don’t do anything between calls, the response to the lifecycle problem is simply that everything in created and destroyed on each call.

But it is only a specific simplistic way to consider object lifecycle. What if you kept your entities longer in memory and reused them on next call to avoid roundtrips with the data storage ?

Having a reference to a service inside an entity state would make the live reconfiguration far harder to achieve : You would have to trash all current state and reload everything. There is no such problem with services since they’re meant to be stateless.


Entities fields are meant to store state, no to reference services. Their lifecycles should not be coupled.


Consistency boundary


The second reason is about the aggregate consistency boundary.


Why would you typically need a reference to a repository inside an aggregate ?


First reason would be to load sub entities when needed. It’s also called delay load.


You shouldn’t need delay load in aggregates

The reason comes from the aggregate definitions. From wikipedia:

Aggregate: A collection of objects that are bound together by a root entity, otherwise known as an aggregate root. The aggregate root guarantees the consistency of changes being made within the aggregate by forbidding external objects from holding references to its members.


The definition talks about object being bound together. Those objects – entities – have strong relationships, or grouping them in an aggregate makes little sense. When the relation is strong, you will need for each

aggregate method to change all objects in coordination, or none. If not, parts of your aggregate should not be here.

If an aggregate needs all its state for each operation, there is strictly no reason to use delay load.

Load all, use all, save all.


The second reason would be to load entities in other aggregates.

You shouldn’t need references to entities in other aggregates

or at least not directly. The service calling the method on the aggregate will find information needed to call the method (which can contain information coming from other aggregates), but if you need a direct reference to another entity, it’s a clear indication that the aggregated boundary is wrong ! Put that other entity in the aggregate !


Thus once your aggregate modeling is ok, there is really no reason to use a repository inside an entity.

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Event Sourcing and CQRS, Dispatch options 2

In the part one comments, Clement suggested a more efficient solution than registering handler in constructor.


The proposed solution is to have a RegisterAllEvents virtual method in which event handler registration would occur. This method is a method instance to have access to this but will be called only once per class. The registration use Expression<Action<T>> to access the expression tree and extract the method info of the handler. This enables type checking, make R# happy – no unused methods – and make reflection not too painful.


Good solution.


I didn't go that far because with Event Sourcing, you usually keep aggregates in memory, so aggregates are instantiated once per service lifetime.
I just crafted a small performance test :



using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Diagnostics;

namespace AggregatePerfTest
class Program
static void Main(string[] args)
var watch = new Stopwatch();

const int count = 10000000;
Guid id = Guid.NewGuid();

for (int i = 0; i < count; i++)
new AggregateRegisteredOncePerInstance(id);




for (int i = 0; i < count; i++)
new AggregateRegisteredOncePerClass(id);




public class AggregateRegisteredOncePerClass
private readonly Guid id;

private static readonly object ClassInitLock = new object();
private static bool initialized;

public AggregateRegisteredOncePerClass(Guid id)
{ = id;

lock (ClassInitLock)
if (!initialized)
initialized = true;
// registration happens only once here

public Guid Id
get { return id; }

public class AggregateRegisteredOncePerInstance
private readonly Guid id;
private readonly Dictionary<Type, dynamic> handlers =
new Dictionary<Type, dynamic>(5);
public AggregateRegisteredOncePerInstance(Guid id)
{ = id;

public Guid Id
get { return id; }

public void DoSomething()

private void OnSomethingHappened(int message) { }
private void OnSomethingHappened(double message){ }
private void OnSomethingHappened(float message) { }
private void OnSomethingHappened(long message) { }

protected void Apply<T>(T @event)
handlers[typeof (T)](@event);

protected void Register<T>(Action<T> handler)
handlers.Add(typeof(T), handler);

The code is straight forward, I just created two aggregate classes :

  • one with registration in .ctor based on this post code
  • one without any registration at all, considering that doing it once is the same as not doing it for large numbers, but I added a lock section with a boolean check to simulate what will done on each instance creation.

I created 10.000.000 instances for each, and you get:

  • 3978ms for the one with .ctor registrations,
  • 377 ms for the one without.

It's true that it makes a difference. But how many aggregates do you have in your system ?


With 10.000 aggregate you're still under 8ms. I think you can afford that.


This is then a trade-off between performance and simplicity :

  • If you have very large numbers, go for expression tree parsing, class lock management etc.
  • In any other situation I recommend using registration in .ctor that makes the code easy to implement in approximately 5min.

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

DDDx 2011

I’m just back from DDDx 2011, and it was great !

The event happened Friday 10 at Skills Matter in London, with great speakers, coffee and food.


You can see all the talks on Skills Matter website. Congratulation to the team that released the videos on the web in less that an hour.


It was also the occasion to meet IRL DDD practitioners I usually find on twitter.


You can also register for next year now for only 50£.


So Hurry up !

Thursday, June 9, 2011



How do we usually manage time in applications ?

Timers, threads, concurrency locks…

If we want to practice Domain Driven Design, we’re surely at the wrong level of abstraction.


What is time, btw ?

Tricky question. We know what time is, but… giving a definition is not that easy.

What defines time ? The second ?

Not really. It is used as a measure of time, but it doesn’t seem sufficient.


Let’s have a look at Wikipedia’s definition of time  :

Time is a part of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change such as the motions of objects. […]

Now we have something interesting : Time is what happens between events.

But what is this thing between events.

The definition of the measure unit surely can give us further insight.

Lest have a look at Wikipedia’s definition of the second :

[…] Since 1967, the second has been defined to be

the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.

The second is defined as a count of transitions between states of an atom of cesium.

We measure time by considering that the ~time~ between those state transitions is constant.

What if it’s not ?

It’s not that important if other events seem synchronized with those events. Will come back to this later.



Let’s step back a bit.


How do you feel time passing ?

By looking at your watch ?


Maybe, but how could you explain that an hour sometimes seems so long, and sometimes passes in a flash ?


Time seems slow and empty when you’re bored.

Times seems fast and full when you’re busy with interesting things.

When you’re bored, it’s because few interesting things happen.


You can deduce from this that your personal state transitions are those interesting things that happen.

These are meaningful events. Things that happens and change you deeply.


Of course a lot of things happen between those meaningful events, you’re moving, thinking. Your blood flows through your body, but it is just maintenance move. You don’t change deeply.

Maybe some things happen between state transition of a cesium atom, but since we cannot notice it and give it a meaning for now, it has no influence.


But when when a meaningful event happens, you change. You’re not the same before and after.

This is what time is about, and this is why it’s one way.

Before –> Event –> After

Events define time by causality

This perception of meaningful events is surely a reason why people say the time pass faster when old. In your 6 first years any event around you is meaningful. Any event make you change since you have no previous knowledge. Then has time goes by, you integrate knowledge and filter things you already know, you’ve already seen. When old, a year can more easily seem the same than the year before.

But some people continue to enjoy and learn as much as they can to still have a long now.


When do your system change ?

Your system never change for no reason.

It’s always because a meaningful event happened.

This event can be a user interaction, a call from an external system, a sensor trigger…

And when things change because it’s midnight ?

It simply means that midnight is a meaningful event in your system.


Where are those meaningful events in your code ? Hidden in infrastructure code ?


I hear Greg Young say :

Make the implicit explicit !

And it’s simple :

Use Domain Events.


Once you’ve introduced Domain Events in your domain model, you have made Events and so Time explicit in your domain.

There is no change in the domain that is not due to an Event.

The events appear everywhere in the Ubiquitous Language :

  • When the client HasMoved to a new location, send him a welcome kit.
  • When a RoomHasBeenOverbooked try to relocate the customer
  • Every day at midnight = MidnightOccured, change last minute prices.

I’m sure you can find examples in your own domain. If your domain is business related, it has to deal with time because business is about time and money.


Time is now part of your Ubiquitous language and you have an implementation for it.

And that’s huge.

Monday, June 14, 2010

DDD Exchange 2010

I could not attend to this year’s edition that seemed really great with Eric Evans, Greg Young, Udi Dahan, Ian Cooper and Gojko Adzic.

The videos from the events should be soon somewhere around here.

And you can already find transcripts of the talks on Gojko ‘I post faster than people talk’s blog :

Eric Evans: Domain driven design redefined

Udi Dahan: the biggest mistakes teams make when applying DDD

Greg Young :Evolution of DDD: CQRS and Event Sourcing


If you also missed it, don’t make the same mistake next year, and register now for £50.00 (instead of £250.00) until the end of the week.

Sunday, April 25, 2010

Event Sourcing and CQRS, Events Deserialization

So we have our events serialized in our event store. Deserializing events is not an issue, until we start to make them evolve and need to manage several versions.

Since we never modify what has been log, we’ll have to deal with old versions anyway.

A simple way to do it is to maintain every versions of the events in the projects, and make the aggregate root accept all of them. But it will soon charge the aggregate root with a lot of code and will make it bloated rapidly.

This is why you can usually introduce a converter that will convert any version of the event to the last one (usually you provide methods to update to next version, and iterate until last version so that this part of the code is incremental). This is a convenient way to address the problem, but you still have classes v1, v2 … vn that you keep in your project only for versioning purpose even if you don’t use it anymore in your production code.

Events as documents

519485340_1a83117720_o[1]It is easy do deserialize an event as an object or a document, you only need to split two responsibilities in you deserialization process :

  • Stream reading
  • Object building

The deserializer will be in charge of reading the data, it reads the bits, and get the meaning from context, it will tell the Object Builder about objects types, fields names and value.

On its side, the ob ject builder will instantiate the objects, set fields values depending on names.

You can provides two distinct Object Builders. The strongly typed one will instantiate concrete .net types and set fields using reflection. The document builder one, will instantiate objects that will only be property bags.

When deserializing an event in its last version, you can use directly the strongly typed one, but when reading an previous version of the event, you can deserialize it as a document and give it to the converter.

The converter will then add/remove properties from the document to make it up to date, and the document will be used to create a concrete .net type of the last event version.

Here the process is quite the same, you should provide a document reader that will use the strongly typed object builder to instantiate the event.

There’s no need to keep every version of you Event Classes now since you can manipulate old versions as documents.

Using dynamic in C#4

Document manipulation can make things a bit messy since it can be hard to understand the original structure of the object. This is where you can use the DLR DynamicObject class to make the property bag (the document) a dynamic object that you’ll be able to use as any standard .net object.

This way, in the converter you can manipulate old versions of the events as .net objects without having to keep all those old classes that won’t be used anymore.

Saturday, April 17, 2010

Event Sourcing and CQRS, Bounded Contexts

Once again, I prefer a new post that a long comment reply. This one is about a important concept of Domain Driven Design, Bounded Contexts.

Hendry Luk asked :

Just 1 question, you represent borrower in events as a simple full-name string.
Is there any reason or just for sake of simplicity for example?
Supposed I'm using borrowerId, how would that work in other BC, say
LateBookNotifier (let's assume its a separate BC). How does this BC shows the
name of the borrower? Does it communicate directly with command BC using ACL?
Or does it also subscribe to BorrowerRegistered event as well (hence every BC
would have duplicate data of each of the borrowers, just like they do each of
the books)?

The short answer is ‘Yes, it was just for sake of simplicity’. In a real world scenario, borrowers would probably be entities, and thus would have an identity. I would even probably be an Aggregate Root.

The Borrower Aggregate Root would encapsulate state needed to perform commands on this Aggregate.

Bounded Contexts CommunicationsBooks

I can see the following contexts here :

  • Inventory : Manage books availability and state (the book has been damaged, there a notes written on it etc..)
  • Relationships : Manage contact by email, phone with borrowers, and tracks the care they take to your books, if they return it on schedule.

Since we are using CQRS (and even more, Event Sourcing), aggregates in these context don’t need more state that what’s needed to take decisions,

So a Book in the Inventory Context will probably not need more that the Id of the borrower and the date a witch it was borrowed.
We can then call the ReturnToShelf command on the Book that will publish a ReturnedLateToShelf { Book : bookId, By : borrowerId, After : 20 days, LateBy : 6 days  }.

A Handler at the Relationships Boundary will catch the event, and call a CheckExcuseForLateReturn on the Borrower Aggregate Root (based on its id). The command will check the borrower’ss record to see if its acceptable. It will simply publish a LateReturnGentlyAccepted if the borrower is usually in time, but will publish a KindnessLimitReached in the other case.

Another handler will catch it, and call SendAngryMessage on the Messaging Service. The role of the Messaging Service is to tweet borrowers to let them know they should not forget to return your books. How does this service know the twitter account of the borrower ? When the handler (the one that call SendAngryMessage) catches a BorrowerRegistered event or a BorrowerTwitterAccountChanged message, it says so to the service that can maintain a list of accounts in any desired storage (SLQ, NoSql, in memory.. ?). The SendAngryMessage can now tweet ‘Hey you filthy @borrower, you better return my book today or I shall share all the pics from your last party…’


Where does data live ?

There’s usually a huge concern about data duplication in all contexts. Is the info duplicated in so many places ?

There will be two main places :

  • The Persistent View Model used to see and edit borrower’s details
  • The Persistent View Model used by the messaging service to Query borrower’s twitter accounts. Here, no other borrower’s data is needed except its id and account name.

The Borrower Aggregate Root and Book Aggregate Root in the two main Domain Bounded Contexts will not need to keep track of this kind of data. They won’t need it in their decision process.

If you pursue this idea, to answer further to Leonardo, you’ll notice that strings will probably never been used as state inside Domain Bounded Context. They can appear as identity key, or just pass through a command and be republished in the following event. But since strings are rarely – if never – a good way to represent information on which you’ll have to take a decision, it should almost never be stored in an aggregate root current state. This is another reason why most domain models can fit in memory, because names, descriptions and other documents usually represent the biggest part of the data in a system, the remaining data is usually small. These documents and names are useless to run domain  internal logic (except validation rules, but not state change rules) so they can simply be logged in events and persisted in the Query’s View Models. Only state needed to take state change decisions will stay in memory.

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Event Sourcing and CQRS, Snapshots !

Leonardo had a question about reloading huge amounts of events.

It’s true that some Aggregate Roots have very long lifetimes with lots of events, and it can become a problem.


There are two things involved to resolve this problem :


Ok, the philosophy of event sourcing is to store changes instead of state, but we’ll still need state in our Aggregate Roots, and getting it from scratch can be long.

Take a snapshot every n events (you’ll see that n can be quite high), and store it alongside events, with the version of the aggregate root.


To reload the Aggregate Root, simply find the snapshot, give it to the Aggregate root, the replay events that happened after the snapshot.


You only need the last snapshot for each Aggregate Root, no need to log all passed snapshots.


When you want to change stored state in an Aggregate Root, you won’t be able to used last snapshot since it will not contains expected state. But you can still replay events from scratch when it happens, so you have no loss, and simply take a new snapshot with the new state.


In memory domain

Usually with an ORM, you reload entities from the storage on every unit of work.


But in the case of Event Sourcing, your Aggregate Roots only need to retain state that will be used to take business decisions. You’ll never query state from Aggregate Roots. A large part of the entity state and especially the part that has the biggest memory footprint is usually stored only for queries, like names, descriptions and things like that.


In an Aggregate Root in an Event Sourcing environment, a name or description can simply be checked for validity, put in an event, but don’t need to be kipped in the in memory entity state – the Aggregate Root fields.


You’ll notice that your big domain state can fit in memory once you’ve trimmed it this way.


Now that your model is in memory, no need to reload every events on each unit of work. It happens only once when the Aggregate Root is needed the first time.


Well see soon how you can use this to make your event serialization even faster to have very high business peak throughput.

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Business Errors are Just Ordinary Events

Error handling has always been something quite difficult to grasp in software design and still is.

Exceptions are now widespread in languages, and it helps a lot to manage corner case where something fails badly.

But should we use Exceptions to manage business errors ?

The business errors

What do we call business errors actually ?

Broken Invariants

What if an invariance rule is broken ?

The situation should never happen : There is a bug. A bug is not a business error, correct it and deploy.

The situation can happens sometimes : This is not an invariant, but a rare state. It should be handled as any other state change.

Invalid commands

What if we receive an invalid command ?

The command data is meaningless : There’s a bug, you should always validate that command data is not just garbage.

The command leads to an invalid state : The user nonetheless requested to perform the command.

In this case the event will be ‘the request was rejected’. The event can be handled by sending an email back to the customer, or a support request can be started so that the support can call the customer and manage the problem. All this is part of the business process anyway.

Corner cases create business opportunities

I can often see discussions around account validation for credit, to make the transaction fail when your account goes below zero.

But it’s not what’s happening in real life. Transaction is accepted, then the bank charges you because your account is in the red zone.

I’m currently working in the hotel business. When a booking is received and  there’s no room left, should I reject the booking ? Another client can cancel soon, or I can move the customer to another hotel nearby, but just saying ‘there’s no room left’ is not a good business answer ! Overbooking management has even become a strategic practice in the business.

To fully manage your customers you should embrace the whole business lifecycle in your system. This includes support and corner case management. Part of it will be done by hand, other part automatically, but you should not just report an exception is a trace log.

These critical situations are usually the one in which you customer needs you more than in any other case, you should design your fault handling strategy with care and make it a full concern of you business.

Udi Dahan's post on CQRS

Udi Dahan wrote a new post on CQRS today : Clarified CQRS

It is essentially the content of the presentation he gave here in Paris and in other places.

You should read it I you want to understand the deep reasons to use CQRS and see how to change your mind to use it.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Udi Dahan talks on CQRS in Paris

Udi Dahan gave a very good talk yesterday evening at Zenika, there was only few attendees… perhaps because it was on a Monday evening. Whatever, there was barely not enough place already in the Italian restaurant where we moved after.

I won’t make a full report, just talk about some interesting points.

First of all, the session focused mainly on why you should do CQRS and not how. Second point, the talk was not about event sourcing, but you already now that you can do CQRS without event sourcing.

Something we should accept : Stale Data

The paradigm of usual architecture’s best practice has a serious flow : when you show data to your users, it’s already stale.

Is it important ? Yes.

Is it a problem ? Not really.

The world have worked with stale data for years, and it was handled rather gracefully until now. Computers have reduced the time span, but when the data appear on the screen, it’s stale.

Tel it to your users, they will accept it. Find with them what is acceptable. 1 second, 10 seconds, 1 minute, 1 hour, 1 day ? The users are used to it in there own business. Do it too.


What’s the purpose of queries ? To show data. Not objects.

So why should the data from the database come across 5 layers through 3 model transformations ? It’s a bit overkill to display data.

Why not just this : The UI read data from the database and displays it ?

No DTOs, no ORM, not business rules executed on each query.

You simply define a Persistent ViewModel (thank’s Udi, I like this description of the Q side), and display it directly to screen. It should be as simple as one database table per UI view.

Of course you need a way to keep the Persistent ViewModel up to date, but we’ll see that later.


On the other side, there are commands.

It should be done in 3 phases :


Is the input potentially good ? Structured correctly, no missing field, everything fit in ranges ?

This can be done without knowing current state, and be done outside of entities command handling.


Should we do this ?

Here, the decision is taken using current state.

It leads to a discussion about UI design. In order to handle the user command as well as you can, you have to capture the user intent in the command.

In CRUD applications, the new data is sent by the UI layer. You have to extract the user intent from that data to know if you can process the data.

There is a huge difference between UserMovesToNewAddress and CorrectTheMisspellingInUserAddress from a business point, but in a CRUD application you would probably end with the same Update data…

State change

What’s the new state ?

It’s the easy part once the rules are applied.

Domain Model

What aren’t they for ?

Validation : commands are validated before the model is called. Do not bloat your domain model with this.

Queries : entity relationships for reading are unnecessary. You can do eager loading on your Aggregate Roots safely, they’ll never be used for queries that need only partial information.

What are they for ?

Answer to the question : should we do what this valid command is asking ?

If the answer is yes, change the state !

Maintain the query model up to date

There are two main ways to maintain query model up to date.

You can use something like views or ETL to transform data from the domain data to the shape required by the query side.

If you prefer, or when your domain persistence is not compatible with this option (OODB, Event Storage..), you can publish events from you command side, and provides handler’s on the query side that will maintain the views state in the relational database (or a cube… or whatever). A denormalization will happen here.

What do we gain from this ?

Asynchronous model

The model is deeply asynchronous, it’s not a matter of tweaking things with threads. It’s asynchronous from the ground up, at domain level.

Your user sends a command, and your design is good if you can answer : “thank you, we will come back to you soon…”. Take the time needed to fulfill your user wish, he will be happy !


By relaxing the rules, the system becomes more scalable.

Domain persistence choice

The domain is accessed only to process rules and state changes. There is no need to join tables, filter rows. So you can easily use an non relational database.

Possible options are a OODB or an Event Storage (for event sourcing).

You can still use a RDBMS with or without an ORM if you’re more familiar with these technologies.

But the persistence mechanism becomes an implementation detail from from Command side that will not interfere with your queries.


Ooops, I said it was not a complete report… but it actually is. Every point was interesting ?

After the talk we had a discussion about forecasting and other interesting subjects. Perhaps more on this later.

There was a video camera in the room, so I think the guys from Zenika will try to put it on the internet when they have time. I’ll add the link when available.

If you was here and have a picture of the event, I would be glad to put it in the blog :D

Monday, November 16, 2009

Udi Dahan talks on CQRS at Zenika

I’ll be at Udi Dahan’s talk this evening (19h) at Zenika in Paris.

Tell me if you’re planning to be there too !

I’ll surely post about it in the following days.

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Event Sourcing and CQRS, Serialization

Be sure to read the three preceding parts of the series:

Event Sourcing and CQRS, Now !  
Event Sourcing and CQRS, Let’s use it
Event Sourcing and CQRS; Dispatch-options

Today, we’ll study to a required part of the event storage : Serialization/Deserialization

The easy way

The .Net framework as several serialization technologies that can be used here, Binary serialization, XML serialization or even DataContract serialization introduced with WCF.

The penalty

The particularity of Event Sourcing is that we will never delete or update stored events. They’ll be logged, insert only, once and forever.

So the log grows. grows. grows.

Event storage size will influence greatly the growth rate of the log.

Xml Serialization

If your system processes frequently lots of events, forget about XML. Far to verbose, you’ll pay the Angle Bracket Tax.

Binary Serialization

But the binary serialization still cost much, even if compact, it will contain type names and field names…

Raw Serialization

You could write serialization/deserialization code into your type.

The type can chose a format, so no extra type/field name is needed. This kind of serialization is very compact – it contains only required bits – but you cannot read data back without the deserialization code.

It can be ok if you plan to have a definite small number of well documented events. Unmanageable if your event type count will grow with time and versions.

Avoid it

Let’s consider how data are stored in a database.

A database contains tables. Tables have a schema. When storing a row, no need to repeat column names on each cell. The data layout is defined by the table schema and will be the same on each row.

We cannot do the same since events have different schemas, but we work with a limited set of events that will occur many times.

Split schema and data

We can thus store schemas aside, and specify the row data schema on each row. The event data will the be stored as raw bits corresponding to specified schema.

This way you can design tools to explore your log file with complete event representation without needing the original event class, and you got a very compact serialization. Have your cake and eat it too !

Stay tuned, the code comes tomorrow…

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Event Sourcing and CQRS, Dispatch options.

As seen in previous post, I used dynamic to replay events.

The main reason to use it was to avoid long code using reflection in the infrastructure that would have made it hard to read.

I’ll show several ways to do this dispatch with pros and cons in each cases.


The proposed solution was using dynamic.

+ Pros : there is no reflection code involved, code is very simple.
- Cons : all state change (Apply) methods must have the same name.

I made no performance test, so I cannot judge if perf is better or not. It seems that the DLR has a rather good cache when the same type is encountered several time, but only measures can tell.

Handlers registration

This is the current implementation in Mark Nijhof’s sample.

The base class maintains a dictionary of Type/Action<T> association to dispatch events based on type.

Since an Action<T> delegate must have a target instance, the delegate must be constructed from within the instance, in the .ctor.

    public class AggregateRoot<TId>


        readonly Dictionary<Type, Action<object>> handlers =

              new Dictionary<Type, Action<object>>();


        protected void Register<T>(Action<T> handler)


            handlers.Add(typeof(T),e => handler((T)e));



        protected void Replay(IEnumerable<object> events)


            foreach (var @event in events)



        // rest of the aggregate root class


Here is code that use it :


    public class Book : AggregateRoot<BookId>


        private readonly BookId id;

        public Book(BookId id,IEnumerable<object> events) : this(id)





        public Book(BookId id,string title, string isbn) : this(id)


            var @event = new BookRegistered(id, title, isbn);





        private Book(BookId id)


   = id;






        private void OnBookRegistered(BookRegistered @event) { /**/ }

        private void OnBookLent(BookLent @event) { /**/ }

        private void OnBookReturned(BookReturned @event) { /**/ }


+Pros : Still no reflection,
            Meaningful method names
-Cons : Additional plumbing code, 
            Private constructor to avoid repetition
            Registration occurs at each instantiation

Convention Based Method Naming

This is the way advocated by Greg Young.

If your event is called BookRegistered, assume the method will be called OnBookRegistered, and find it by reflection. You can implement a cache at class level to avoid reflection on each dispatch.


    public abstract class AggregateRoot<TId> : IAggregateRoot<TId>


        private static readonly Dictionary<Type, IEventDispatcher> Handlers =

               new Dictionary<Type, IEventDispatcher>();

        private static readonly object HandlersLock = new object();



        protected void Replay(IEnumerable<object> events)


            var dispatcher = GetDispatcher();

            dispatcher.Dispatch(this, @events);



        private IEventDispatcher GetDispatcher()


            IEventDispatcher handlers;

            var type = GetType();

            lock (HandlersLock)


                if (!Handlers.TryGetValue(type, out handlers))


                    handlers = EventDispatcher.Create(type);

                    Handlers.Add(type, handlers);



            return handlers;


        ... rest of the code here


The dispatcher code :

    internal interface IEventDispatcher


        void Dispatch(object target, IEnumerable<object>events);


    internal class EventDispatcher<T> : IEventDispatcher


        private readonly Dictionary<Type, IEventHandler<T>> handlers;


        public EventDispatcher()


            var h = from m in typeof(T)

              .GetMethods(BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.NonPublic)

                    let parameters = m.GetParameters()

                    where parameters.Length ==1

                    && m.Name == "On" + parameters[0].ParameterType.Name

                    select EventHandler.Create<T>(m);


            handlers = h.ToDictionary(i => i.EventType);



        public void Dispatch(object target, IEnumerable<object> events)


            var typedTarget = (T)target;

            foreach (var @event in events)


                var handler = handlers[@event.GetType()];

                handler.Call(typedTarget, @event);





    internal static class EventDispatcher


        public static IEventDispatcher Create(Type type)



            return (IEventDispatcher)Activator.CreateInstance(




and the event handler :

    internal interface IEventHandler<T>


        void Call(T target, object argument);

        Type EventType { get; }


    internal class EventHandler<TEntity, TEvent> : IEventHandler<TEntity>


        private readonly Action<TEntity, TEvent> handler;


        public EventHandler(MethodInfo methodInfo)


            handler = (Action<TEntity, TEvent>)Delegate.CreateDelegate(

                  typeof(Action<TEntity, TEvent>), methodInfo, true);




        public void Call(TEntity target, object argument)


            handler(target, (TEvent)argument);



        public Type EventType


            get { return typeof(TEvent); }




    internal static class EventHandler


        public static IEventHandler<T> Create<T>(MethodInfo methodInfo)


            var eventType = methodInfo.GetParameters()[0].ParameterType;


            return (IEventHandler<T>)Activator.CreateInstance(


                  .MakeGenericType(typeof(T), eventType),





The trick here is to create a static delegate with two parameters from an instance method info that take one parameter (and one implicit this target).

This way, the delegate is not tied to a specific instance and can be used on any target.

As you can see, this option requires more code ! I did not want to start with that.

+Pros : Convention base names mean no manual mapping, mapping is implicit
            Binding is made a class level instead of instance level

-Cons : Only unit tests can tell when you mess with names
            Not immune to event name change, should have good unit tests !

Apply then Append

I also had a remark that if I forget Append after Apply, I’ll get in trouble.

In Handler Registration option and Convention base method naming, the dispatch can be done by the base class, so I could tell the base class to dispatch then Append then event to UncommittedEvents.

This way you end with something like :

            var @event = new BookLent(/**/);


where play dispatches the event to the right method and appends.

This way you cannot forget.

My problem with this, especially in the Convention base method naming scenario is that nobody references the event application methods anymore. Resharper will report them as unused methods, and you won’t know unless you run unit tests.

Moreover, you pay the cost of a dynamic dispatch when you know your event type.

Perhaps something like this could be better :

            var @event = new BookLent(/**/);


the implementation is not very complicated :

    public class AggregateRoot<TId>


        private readonly UncommittedEvents uncommittedEents;


        protected EventPlayer<TEvent> Play<TEvent>(TEvent @event)


            return new EventPlayer<TEvent>(@event, uncommitedEvents);


        ... rest of the code here



    public struct EventPlayer<TEvent>


        private readonly TEvent @event;

        private readonly UncommittedEvents uncommittedEvents;

        internal EventPlayer(TEvent @event, UncommittedEvents uncommittedEvents)


            this.@event = @event;

            this.uncommittedEvents = uncommittedEvents;



        public void With(Action<TEvent> handler)






This way, methods are referenced at least once with type check.

My mind is still not set… What do you prefer ?

Monday, November 2, 2009

Event Sourcing and CQRS, Let's use it.

Last time, we started a very basic Event Sourcing/Domain Events/CQRS framework. Be careful, I made an edit in the nested DomainEvents+Handler<T>.Handles<E>() method, the AggregateRoot.Replay method will not work as is, but we won’t need it.

We’ll build an equally simplistic application for personal library management.

The Ubiquitous Language will be minimal.

A Book can be Registered with a Title and an ISBN.

A Book can be Lent to a Borrower at some Date for an Expected Time Span.

A Book can then be Returned. If it is Returned after Expected Time Span, the return is Late.

That’s enough for our first try.

The Command Context

The State Change Events

Here is the code for the three events that we found in the Ubiquitous language:

    public class BookRegistered


        public readonly BookId Id;

        public readonly string Title;

        public readonly string Isbn;


        public BookRegistered(BookId id, string title, string isbn)


            Id = id;

            Title = title;

            Isbn = isbn;




    public class BookLent


        public readonly BookId Id;

        public readonly string Borrower;

        public readonly DateTime Date;

        public readonly TimeSpan ExpectedDuration;


        public BookLent(BookId id, string borrower, DateTime date,

               TimeSpan expectedDuration)


            Id = id;

            Borrower = borrower;

            Date = date;

            ExpectedDuration = expectedDuration;




    public class BookReturned


        public readonly BookId Id;

        public readonly string By;

        public readonly TimeSpan After;

        public readonly bool Late;


        public BookReturned(BookId id, string @by, TimeSpan after,

             bool late)


            Id = id;

            By = by;

            After = after;

            Late = late;



These events will usually be serialized to the event storage and on a service bus, but here everything runs in memory.

The Book Aggregate Root

The book will need to be referenced by an identity in our system. We’ll hide a Guid behind a BookId struct :

    public struct BookId : IEquatable<BookId>


        private Guid id;


        private BookId(Guid id) { = id; }


        public static BookId NewBookId() { return new BookId(Guid.NewGuid()); }


        public bool Equals(BookId other) { return; }


        public override bool Equals(object obj)


            if (ReferenceEquals(null, obj)) return false;

            if (obj.GetType() != typeof(BookId)) return false;

            return Equals((BookId)obj);



        public override int GetHashCode() { return id.GetHashCode(); }


Now, the Book class itself :

  public class Book : AggregateRoot<BookId>


      private readonly BookId id;

      private string title;

      private string isbn;

      private string borrower;

      private DateTime date;

      private TimeSpan expectedDuration;


      public Book(BookId id, IEnumerable<object> events)


 = id;

          foreach (dynamic @event in events)




      public Book(BookId id, string title, string isbn)


 = id;

          var @event = new BookRegistered(id, title, isbn);





      public override BookId Id { get { return id; } }


      public void Lend(string borrower, DateTime date,

                              TimeSpan expectedDuration)


          if (this.borrower != null)

              throw new InvalidOperationException("The book is already lent.");

          var @event =

                new BookLent(id, borrower, date, expectedDuration);





      public void Return(DateTime returnDate)


          if (borrower == null)

              throw new InvalidOperationException("The book has not been lent.");

          if (returnDate < date)

              throw new ArgumentException(

                "The book cannot be returned before being lent.");

          var actualDuration = returnDate - date;

          var @event = new BookReturned(




                         actualDuration > expectedDuration);





      private void Apply(BookRegistered @event)


          title = @event.Title;

          isbn = @event.Isbn;



      private void Apply(BookLent @event)


          borrower = @event.Borrower;

          date = @event.Date;

          expectedDuration = @event.ExpectedDuration;



      private void Apply(BookReturned @event)


          borrower = null;



The class implements AggregateRoot<BookId> and so provides an explicitly implemented UncommittedEvents property.

The first .ctor is used to load the Aggregate Root, the second one is used to build a new Aggregate Root.

The public methods (Lend and Return) are the commands on the Aggregate Root as defined in the Ubiquitous Language.

The structure is always the same :

  1. Validate arguments and state
  2. Prepare state transition using domain logic
  3. Apply state transition (no domain logic should happen here)
  4. Append state transition to uncommitted events

The first .ctor uses dynamic to dispatch each event object on the corresponding specific Apply method. In case you implement the pattern is previous C# version, it is advised to provide a Replay method in the base class that will perform the dynamic dispatch based on reflection.

That’s all for the entity. No ORM, no mapping… easy.

The Repository

It is often clearer to provide a specific repository interface that exposes only available methods. With event sourcing, it’s not that useful… we’ll write it anyway in case you’d like to use dependency injection. The interface is part of the domain and should be in the same assembly as the entity and the events.

    public interface IBookRepository


        void Add(Book book);

        Book this[BookId id] { get; }


The implementation will simply derive from the Repository base class, it can be in the application assembly.

    internal class BookRepository :

        Repository<BookId, Book>,



        protected override Book CreateInstance(BookId id,

            IEnumerable<object> events)


            return new Book(id, events);



Add and the indexer are implemented by the base class. The only thing to provide is a way to instantiate the class with expected parameters.

We could use Activator.CreateInstance or reflection to provide a generic implementation. I choose to make it simpler to read.

The Query context

The Report Database

We’ll mimic a reporting table of book lent state :

This would be the data returned from table rows :

    public class BookState


        public BookId Id { get; set; }

        public string Title { get; set; }

        public bool Lent { get; set; }


And this will hide the data table implementation :

    public interface IBookStateQuery


        IEnumerable<BookState> GetBookStates();

        BookState GetBookState(BookId id);

        IEnumerable<BookState> GetLentBooks();


        void AddBookState(BookId id, string title);

        void SetLent(BookId id, bool lent);


We can simply query data to report in the UI, and update data state.

Implementation will be in memory for now :

    class BookStateQuery : IBookStateQuery


        private readonly Dictionary<BookId, BookState> states =

                     new Dictionary<BookId, BookState>();


        public IEnumerable<BookState> GetBookStates()


            return states.Values;



        public BookState GetBookState(BookId id)


            return states[id];



        public IEnumerable<BookState> GetLentBooks()


            return states.Values.Where(b => b.Lent);



        public void AddBookState(BookId id, string title)


            var state = new BookState { Id = id, Title = title };

            states.Add(id, state);



        public void SetLent(BookId id, bool lent)


            states[id].Lent = lent;



The important point here is that no domain logic occurs.

A RDBMS implementation could use an ORM or simply build DTOs from a DataReader.

The event handlers

We can now denormalize domain states to the reporting database using an event handler :

    class BookStateHandler :





        private readonly IBookStateQuery stateQuery;


        public BookStateHandler(IBookStateQuery stateQuery)


            this.stateQuery = stateQuery;



        public void Handle(BookRegistered @event)


            stateQuery.AddBookState(@event.Id, @event.Title);




        public void Handle(BookLent @event)


            Console.WriteLine("Book lent to {0}", @event.Borrower);

            stateQuery.SetLent(@event.Id, true);



        public void Handle(BookReturned @event)


            Console.WriteLine("Book returned by {0}", @event.By);

            stateQuery.SetLent(@event.Id, false);



The Console.WriteLine are here to view when things happen, you would usually not use it in your production code. Logging this would not provide much benefits since all the events are already stored in the EventStorage.

Using this handler, the IBookStateQuery will be up to date with current Command Context state. In an asynchronous environment, this is where eventual consistency is introduced.

We will also add a service that will notify when a user returned a book too late :

    class LateReturnNotifier :



        public void Handle(BookReturned @event)


            if (@event.Late)


                Console.WriteLine("{0} was late", @event.By);




Here again, no domain logic, we just do the infrastructure stuff, usually sending an email or a SMS.

View it in Action

    class Program


        static void Main(string[] args)


            ISessionFactory factory = new SessionFactory(new EventStorage());                IBookStateQuery query = new BookStateQuery();


            DomainEvents.RegisterHanlder(() => new BookStateHandler(query));

            DomainEvents.RegisterHanlder(() => new LateReturnNotifier());


            var bookId = BookId.NewBookId();

            using (var session = factory.OpenSession())


                var books = new BookRepository();

                books.Add(new Book(bookId,

                   "The Lord of the Rings",







            using (var session = factory.OpenSession())


                var books = new BookRepository();

                var book = books[bookId];


                     new DateTime(2009, 11, 2),









            using (var session = factory.OpenSession())


                var books = new BookRepository();

                var book = books[bookId];

                book.Return(new DateTime(2009, 11, 8));








            using (var session = factory.OpenSession())


                var books = new BookRepository();

                var book = books[bookId];


                      new DateTime(2009, 11, 9),









            using (var session = factory.OpenSession())


                var books = new BookRepository();

                var book = books[bookId];

                book.Return(new DateTime(2010, 03, 1));







        private static void ShowBooks(IBookStateQuery query)


            foreach (var state in query.GetBookStates())

                Console.WriteLine("{0} is {1}.",


                       state.Lent ? "lent" : "home");



We start by instantiating storage for the command context (the ISessionFactory) and the query context (the IBookStateQuery). In production you’ll use persistent storages (a persistent event storage and a RDBMS). I highly recommend using a Dependency Injection Container for real size projects.

Then we wire the handlers on domain events.

The application can start.

  • We register a book in the library.
  • We lend it to Alice on 2009-11-02 for 14 days
  • She returns it on 2009-11-08, she’s on time
  • We lend it to Bob on 2009-11-09 for 14 days,
  • He returns it on 2010-03-01, he’s late

The output is the following :

The Lord of the Rings is home.    // written from state

Book lent to Alice                // written by the book state handler

The Lord of the Rings is lent.    // written from state

Book returned by Alice            // written by the book state handler

The Lord of the Rings is home.    // written from state

Book lent to Bob                  // written by the book state handler

The Lord of the Rings is lent.    // written from state

Book returned by Bob              // written by the book state handler

Bob was late                      // written by the late return notifier

The Lord of the Rings is home.    // written from state

We have here a clear separation between Command that handles the domain logic and Query that handles presentation logic.

Have fun. Questions and remarks expected !

Friday, October 30, 2009

Event Sourcing and CQRS, Now !

Enough talking, Action !

Today, we will build a basic event sourcing infrastructure. Get the beta 2 of Visual Studio 2010, we’ll be using C# dynamic features to go straight to our goal.

Then Event Storage

Let’s hide the ugly details of the event storage behind two simple interfaces :

    public interface IEventStorage : IDisposable


        IAggregateRootStorage<TId> GetAggregateRootStore<TAggregateRoot, TId>()

            where TAggregateRoot : AggregateRoot<TId>;



    public interface IAggregateRootStorage<in TId>


        void Append(TId id, IEnumerable<object> events);

        IEnumerable<object> this[TId id] { get; }


And we start with a minimal in memory implementation, the event storage first :

    public class EventStorage : IEventStorage


        private readonly Dictionary<Type, dynamic> stores = new Dictionary<Type, dynamic>();


        public IAggregateRootStorage<TId> GetAggregateRootStorage<TAggregateRoot, TId>()

           where TAggregateRoot : AggregateRoot<TId>



            dynamic store;

            if (!stores.TryGetValue(typeof(TAggregateRoot), out store))


                store = new AggregateRootStorage<TId>();

                stores.Add(typeof (TAggregateRoot), store);


            return store;



        public void Dispose()





Here I could replace dynamic by object, and cast to requested type on return. I use dynamic because this kind of code is not compile time safe anyway. There’s a specific storage for each Aggregate Root type, especially depending on identifier type, for type safety.

Then the AggregateRootStorage :

    class AggregateRootStorage<TId> : IAggregateRootStorage<TId>


        private readonly Dictionary<TId, List<object>> store = new Dictionary<TId, List<object>>();


        public void Append(TId id, IEnumerable<object> events)


            List<object> aggregateRootEvents;

            if (!store.TryGetValue(id, out aggregateRootEvents))


                aggregateRootEvents = new List<object>();

                store.Add(id, aggregateRootEvents);






        public IEnumerable<object> this[TId id]


            get { return store[id]; }



It simply stores list of events associated with aggregate root identifier.

The Aggregate Root

Aggregate roots manage uncommitted events :

    public interface IUncommittedEvents : IEnumerable<object>


        bool HasEvents { get; }

        void Commit();


The interface can indicates whether there are events, returns the events, and clears the uncommitted events by committing.

Quick implementation :

    internal class UncommittedEvents : IUncommittedEvents


        private readonly List<object> events = new List<object>();


        public void Append(object @event)





        IEnumerator<object> IEnumerable<object>.GetEnumerator()


            return events.GetEnumerator();



        public bool HasEvents


            get { return events.Count != 0; }



        void IUncommittedEvents.Commit()





        IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()


            return events.GetEnumerator();



Nothing tricky here neither.

Now, the IAggregateRoot interface used by the repository gives access to the uncommitted events:

    public interface IAggregateRoot<out TId>


        TId Id { get; }

        IUncommittedEvents UncommittedEvents { get; }


The AggregateRoot class will maintain the uncommitted events :

    public abstract class AggregateRoot<TId> : IAggregateRoot<TId>


        private readonly UncommittedEvents uncommittedEvents = new UncommittedEvents();


        protected void Replay(IEnumerable<object> events)


            dynamic me = this;

            foreach (var @event in events)




        protected void Append(object @event)





        public abstract TId Id { get; }


        IUncommittedEvents IAggregateRoot<TId>.UncommittedEvents


            get { return uncommittedEvents; }



The Append method will be use by child class to append events after they are applied.

The Replay method is used in the child class constructor to rebuild the Aggregate Root state from events.

Here I use a dynamic me variable to dispatch events on specific child class Apply methods. A .Net 2 or 3.5 implementation would use reflection to dispatch events on Apply methods.

The UncommittedEvents property is implemented explicitly so that it does not appear in standard class use.

The Repository

The repository is just very slightly longer. I added a session concept so that several repositories can submit changes in a single transaction :

    internal interface ISessionItem


        void SubmitChanges();



     public abstract class Repository<TId, TAggregateRoot> : ISessionItem

        where TAggregateRoot : AggregateRoot<TId>


        private readonly Dictionary<TId, TAggregateRoot> users = new Dictionary<TId, TAggregateRoot>();

        private readonly IAggregateRootStorage<TId> aggregateRootStorage;


        protected Repository()


            aggregateRootStorage = Session.Enlist(this);



        public void Add(TAggregateRoot user)


            users.Add(user.Id, user);



        public TAggregateRoot this[TId id]


            get { return Find(id) ?? Load(id); }



        private TAggregateRoot Find(TId id)


            TAggregateRoot user;

            return users.TryGetValue(id, out user) ? user : null;



        private TAggregateRoot Load(TId id)


            var events = aggregateRootStorage[id];

            var user = CreateInstance(id, events);


            users.Add(id, user);


            return user;



        protected abstract TAggregateRoot CreateInstance(TId id, IEnumerable<object> events);


        public void SubmitChanges()


            foreach (IAggregateRoot<TId> user in users.Values)


                var uncomitedEvents = user.UncommittedEvents;

                if (uncomitedEvents.HasEvents)


                    aggregateRootStorage.Append(user.Id, uncomitedEvents);








        protected void PublishEvents(IUncommittedEvents uncommittedEvents)


            foreach (dynamic @event in uncommittedEvents)





The constructor enlist the repository in current session.

The Add method registers the aggregate root in the repository, its events will be persisted in SubmitChanges()

The indexer finds an entity already in memory or loads it from the event store. The abstract CreateInstance method implementation will be responsible for instantiation.

Submit changes does what is expected, and also publish committed events. Will see the trick with dynamic @events when we analyze domain events.

The Session and its Factory

Just to group the SubmitChanges on several repositories :

    public interface ISessionFactory : IDisposable


        ISession OpenSession();



    public class SessionFactory : ISessionFactory


        private readonly IEventStorage eventStorage;


        public SessionFactory(IEventStorage eventStorage)


            this.eventStorage = eventStorage;



        public ISession OpenSession()


            return new Session(eventStorage);



        public void Dispose()






    public interface ISession : IDisposable


        void SubmitChanges();



    public class Session : ISession


        private readonly IEventStorage eventStorage;

        private readonly HashSet<ISessionItem> enlistedItems = new HashSet<ISessionItem>();


        [ThreadStatic] private static Session current;


        internal Session(IEventStorage eventStorage)


            this.eventStorage = eventStorage;

            if (current != null)

                throw new InvalidOperationException("Cannot nest unit of work");


            current = this;



        private static Session Current


            get { return current; }



        public void SubmitChanges()


            foreach (var enlisted in enlistedItems)






        public void Dispose()


            current = null;



        internal static IAggregateRootStorage<TId> Enlist<TId, TAggregateRoot>

                        (Repository<TId, TAggregateRoot> repository)

            where TAggregateRoot : AggregateRoot<TId>


            var unitOfWork = Current;


            return unitOfWork.eventStorage.GetAggregateRootStorage<TAggregateRoot, TId>();



Ok almost everything is here. The last part, for events to be used by other parts of the system, needed to go CQRS.

Domain Events

Here, I made a minor variation on Udi Dahan’s DomainEvents implementation :

public static class DomainEvents


        [ThreadStatic] private static List<Delegate> actions;


        private static List<Handler> handlers;


        public static void Register<T>(Action<T> callback)


            if (actions == null) actions = new List<Delegate>();




        public static void RegisterHanlder<T>(Func<T> factory)


            if (handlers == null) handlers = new List<Handler>();

            handlers.Add(new Handler<T>(factory));



        //Raises the given domain event      

        public static void Raise<T>(T @event)


            if (actions != null)

                foreach (Delegate action in actions)

                    if (action is Action<T>)

                        ((Action<T>) action)(@event);


            if (handlers != null)

                foreach (var h in handlers)


                    if (h.Handles<T>())


                        var handler= h.CreateInstance<T>();






        private abstract class Handler


            public abstract bool Handles<E>();

            public abstract Handles<E> CreateInstance<E>();



        private class Handler<T> : Handler



            private readonly Func<T> factory;


            public Handler(Func<T> factory)


                this.factory = factory;



            public override bool Handles<E>()


                return typeof (Handles<E>)

                   .IsAssignableFrom(typeof (T));



            public override Handles<E> CreateInstance<E>()


                return (Handles<E>)factory();





    public interface Handles<in T>


        void Handle(T @event);


Edit : Changed the Handles<E>, T should be casted as Handles<E>, not as E, of course.

Event handlers can be registerd as Action<T> delegates or as class that implements once or more Handles<T>.

The private Handler and Handler<T> classes are used to find handlers that handles a specific message and dispatch it, without using a Dependency Injection Container like Udi’s implementation.

The simple dynamic-fu in the repository was to call DomainEvents.Raise<T> using a dynamic dispatch. This way, Raise is always called with the actual event type in T. No tricky reflection is needed for the dispatch. inside Raise<T>, we can the rely on T as being the actual event type. Funky !

Next Time…

There’s already a lot of code for a single post, every thing is in place at infrastructure level. You can already try it for yourself if you can figure how to.

The sample will come in the next post, stay tuned.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Uniqueness validation in CQRS Architecture

This is a short follow up on Bjarte’s Post.

There’s an important thing to consider when needing set validation : why ?

Why do these things need to be considered together and cannot just be handled separately ?

We can distinct two different parameters in uniqueness, Cardinality and Scope.


There are mainly two types of cardinality :

1 Cardinality

Only one employee can be the boss.

The model could provide a IsBoss property on every employee… But constancy would be very hard to achieve, especially in a CQRS architecture.

We should read the preceding rule as :

The company has only one boss. The boss is an employee.

Now, we can model a Boss property on the Company Aggregate Root that will reference the employee that is the boss. Changing the boss can now be an atomic and consistent operation.

We can see that we had to introduce a upper level to manage it (we’ll se it in the Scope section).

n Cardinality

Employee should have different user names.

We can clearly see here that user names must be different because they’ll act as identifiers. This is the goal of almost any uniqueness constraint. The property will be used as a key in a lookup.

The 1 (or 2 or 3) cardinality also act this way. It’s a way to tag an entity. You can ask “who is the boss ?” and get the answer by a simple lookup at the Boss property that acts like a bucket in a hash table.


There is no such thing as global scope

Even when we say, “Employee should have different user names”, there is a implicit scope, the Company.

Even when we say, “You Id Card number should be unique”, understand, “at the Country scope”.

Even when we say, “Your DNA should be unique”, understand, “At our life understanding scope”.

Find the scope and see the volume of data whose uniqueness should be enforced.

As we said, properties that have a uniqueness constraint are usually used as lookup values to find those entities. As such they rarely take part in the child entity domain logic.

Instead of having a UserName property on the Employee entity, why not have a UserNames key/value collection on the Company that will give the Employee for a given user name ?

If the expected Employee count is expected to be in a limited range, this is the most appropriate solution.

If the number can grow, loading it in memory on each Company hydratation is a bit heavy, so keep the directory on disk (using a table with a unique key in a RDBMS as suggested by Bjarte) or any other way that provide the expected performance.


In every case, when a uniqueness constraint appear on a property, the property does not belong the the entity itself but should be viewed as a key to access the entity from the upper level scope.

Do you have examples that cannot be solved this way ?

Friday, July 24, 2009

DDD and Code ReUse

I read several discussions against Code ReUse and layered architectures recently :recycle-logo

Different kinds of Code ReUse

You can split your code with different concern :

  • Object model extensions
  • Technical Infrastructure
  • Application code

The first two are good candidates for Code ReUse.

By Object model extensions I’m talking about things that make your code writing less tedious at language level or object model level.

Example of such code are :

  • IEnumerable and Enumerable
  • Collections
  • Reflection helpers
  • Dependency Injection framework

By Technical Infrastructure I mean things that make your code run in its environment :

  • Generic Service Host,
  • ORM, Data Layer
  • Format serializers / deserializers
  • Configuration helpers
  • Communication frameworks (WCF, Service Buses)
  • UI frameworks (MVC, WPF)

The last part is Application code, and here, things are really different.

Application Code ReUse

For long I’ve been writing business code in libraries. I began then to notice problems concerning code and data locality.

When you have a single application (process), no problem.

But if two applications need to modify the same entities, the solution would be to use the same library in both applications so that there is no code duplication. It seems good practice but you quickly stumble on several problems – I’m sure you already experienced it :

  • Synchronization : the same data will be accessed in the same db from two application, how do you manage conflicts
  • Deployment : when you fix bugs or add features, you must redeploy every application that has a dependency on the library. It slows down the release cycle and make it more risky, changes have more impact.
  • Code locality : when a problem arises, you have to find which application it comes from.

Let’s examine DDD patterns to see how they fit with reuse :


Let’s start easy. Services are stateless, they should deliver simple action. But to preserve encapsulation the better is to put services as true services in their own process (web service, windows service, service on a service bus..).

This way, synchronization is managed in process, deployment is a breeze, and no problem with code locality – code executes in one place.


Entities are retrieved through a Repository Service, hence, they should follow the same rules as Services.

This way, the implementation of a repository that access the database is truly an implementation details. Anyone who wants to talk to an entity sends a command to it, a handler service get the entity from the repository, and pass the command to the entity. The configuration to access the database is local the to the process.

Here again, same benefits.

Moreover entities should always have different meanings in different bounded contexts, the should have different implementations, so there is no real reason for reuse.

Value Objects

Value objects are a bit different.

Some object are very specific to a bounded context and don’t need to be reuse outside.

Some other can be a good way to encapsulate some shared concepts. Money is usually a good example, but there can also be concepts more specific to the domain (you will find them as words that come in the Ubiquitous Language of different Bounded Contexts).

They can be shared among different contexts, but rarely between different domains. There are exceptions for very very generic concept like money, but even money often needs to be tweaked a bit for each domain…


Service Bus to the rescue

Once each bounded context is split, you need to organize communications between parts. Here comes the Service Bus and Messages, but now, the only shared parts in the application are :

  • Object model extensions (to code faster and cleaner)
  • Technical infrastructure (so that each process is fully equipped, and there’s not much technical fuss in the application code)
  • General use Value Objects (to manipulate domain concepts instead of int and decimal)
  • Messages (to communicate between contexts)

You could also use web services, but it makes the overall structure less fault tolerant, harder to deploy, and more tightly coupled.

Once you’ve decoupled bounded context using messages, the rest is just an internal implementation detail, why would you want to reuse it !

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Distributed Domain Driven Design and Aggregates

Once again, Gojko Adzic comes with an excellent post : Improving performance and scalability with DDD.

Aggregates are often a bit underused in DDD because they’re difficult to grasp. They’re often seen as a solution to a technical problem. Gojko shows here how to understand them at a domain level. This post gives a clear vision of the role of Aggregates in DDD by placing it in the context of distributed environments.

You should read it !

- page 1 of 2