Search Results

Search found 2 results on 1 pages for 'edvrusj'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

• Vernon's book Implementing DDD and modeling of underlying concepts

  - by EdvRusj

  Following questions all refer to examples presented in Implementing DDD In article we can see from Figure 6 that both BankingAccount and PayeeAccount represent the same underlying concept of Banking Account BA 1. On page 64 author gives an example of a publishing organization, where the life-cycle of a book goes through several stages ( proposing a book, editorial process, translation of the book ... ) and at each of those stages this book has a different definition. Each stage of the book is defined in a different Bounded Context, but do all these different definitions still represent the same underlying concept of a Book, just like both BankingAccount and PayeeAccount represent the same underlying concept of a BA? 2. a) I understand why User shouldn't exist in Collaboration Context ( CC ), but instead should be defined within Identity and Access Context IAC ( page 65 ). But still, do User ( IAC ), Moderator ( CC ), Author ( CC ),Owner ( CC ) and Participant ( CC ) all represent different aspects of the same underlying concept? b) If yes, then this means that CC contains several model elements ( Moderator, Author, Owner and Participant ), each representing different aspect of the same underlying concept ( just like both BankingAccount and PayeeAccount represent the same underlying concept of a BA ). But isn't this considered a duplication of concepts ( Evan's book, page 339 ), since several model elements in CC represent the same underlying concept? c) If Moderator, Author ... don't represent the same underlying concept, then what underlying concept does each represent? 3. In an e-commerce system, the term Customer has multiple meanings ( page 49 ): When user is browsing the Catalog, Customer has different meaning than when user is placing an Order. But do these two different definitions of a Customer represent the same underlying concept, just like both BankingAccount and PayeeAccount represent the same underlying concept of a BA? thanks

  Read the article

• Ubiquitous Language and Custom types

  - by EdvRusj

  Note that my question is referring to those attributes that even on their own already represent a concept ( ie on their own provide a cohesive meaning ). Thus such attribute needs no additional functional support and as such is self-contained. I'm also well-aware that even with self-contained attributes the custom types may prove beneficial ( for example, they give the ability to add new behavior later, when business requirements change ). Thus, my question focuses only on whether custom types for self-contained attributes really enrich Ubiquitous Language UL a) I've read that in most cases, even simple, self-contained attributes should have custom, more descriptive types rather than basic value types ( double, string ... ), because among other things, descriptive types add to the UL, while the use of basic types instead weakens the language. I understand the importance of UL, but how does having a basic type for a self-contained attribute weaken the language, since with self-contained attributes the name of the attribute already adequately describes the concept and thus contributes to the UL vocabulary? For example, the term person_age already adequately explains the concept of quantifying the number of years a person has: class Person { string person_age; } so what could we possibly gain by also introducing the term ThingAge to the UL: class person { ThingAge person_age; } thanks

  Read the article

1