domaindrivendesign at Yahoo! Groups

EventSourcing sample - .net 4

rogeralsing — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:54:48 GMT

I've created a small framework for eventsourcing (.net 4) http://www.puzzleframework.com/eventsourcer.rar Nothing serious, just wanted to play around with

Re: CQRS cross aggregate interaction + private state

sebaszipp — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:17:52 GMT

Nice observation :) As I've seen this is the Assembly-Part collaboration pattern. Since a product can be in at most 1 order or none, my question is how to keep

Re: Serializing Events .NET

JÃ©rÃ©mie — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:44:00 GMT

I made a post about different options : http://thinkbeforecoding.com/post/2009/11/05/Event-Sourcing-and-CQRS-Serialization The thing to optimize further

Re: CQRS cross aggregate interaction + private state

Nuno Lopes — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:34:06 GMT

HI Dan, What if the name of the product changed? You would get a different name on the Order or Receipt. That is not legal in some countries. On another note

Re: CQRS cross aggregate interaction + private state

Nuno Lopes — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 08:47:55 GMT

Let me expand a littlebit. Working with two collaborators is a trivial. We get more fun we three or more. You you may ask, what is the point of passing the

Re: CQRS cross aggregate interaction + private state

Dan Haywood — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 08:33:52 GMT

The "tell not ask" approach would be to delegate the responsibility to the product, along with double-dispatch: product = GetProduct(123); product.addTo(order,

Re: CQRS cross aggregate interaction + private state

Nuno Lopes — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 08:25:42 GMT

Hi Roger, Just checking if you are awake :) You are absolutely correct. The other arguments should also be passed to the test. In this way the product can

Re: CQRS cross aggregate interaction + private state

rogeralsing — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 08:03:49 GMT

... We do a TestAddOrder against the first argument, but then continues to add the other information. You could pretty much call order.AddItem from the outside

Re: Domain rules versus access control

vvernon_shiftmethod — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 05:41:15 GMT

... In the example numbered as (2) the Domain Service first uses the CandidateModerator attribute(s) to go out to the I&A BC to check for the User in a Role of

Re: Serializing Events .NET

Frederic Marceau — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 03:40:51 GMT

protobuf? F. On 2010-02-09 15:13, Greg Young wrote: custom binary. due to quantity On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 9:55 AM, rogeralsing < roger.alsing@ precio.se >

Re: Domain rules versus access control

jps737 — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:44:44 GMT

... Yes, I agree. ... I don't see the reason for the domain service here. What does it do other than call forum.assignModerator(moderator)? Thank you for the

Re: Domain rules versus access control

vvernon_shiftmethod — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 23:27:25 GMT

... I meant to write (but got bit by copying code from above!): public Moderator(String aModeratorIdentity) {...} That way there is no trace of User-anything

Re: Domain rules versus access control

vvernon_shiftmethod — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 23:19:50 GMT

... That's the difference. In the case I am describing the domain would not have the ability to authorize, or at least not like I&A would. Using my approach,

Re: Domain rules versus access control

jps737 — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:41:01 GMT

... Maybe it's not! My inexperience makes things SEEM wrong sometimes :) ... I guess I'm having trouble seeing how roles that must be authorized by domain

Re: Domain rules versus access control

vvernon_shiftmethod — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:27:16 GMT

... Thanks, and I am glad to help! ... Sometimes because of the business you are in, the I&A roles are already established. If that's the case you can turn a