search

ddd-crew / ddd-starter-modelling-process

If you're new to DDD and not sure where to start, this process will guide you step-by-step
Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 4.0 International
4.64k stars 426 forks source link

Missing bounded context distillation #46

Open Baasie opened 5 months ago

Baasie commented 5 months ago

I was going through the process again, and when we get to connect we start talking about subdomains, and then doing domain message flow modelling we use Bounded Context but never about distilling/decomposing bounded contexts. Only decompose subdomains.

Then at Organise we introduce context mapping and teams. But no explicit steps in distilling bounded context right?

Should we add that during decompose? Make it more clear? Alberto in his book talks about decompose/distill into emerging bounded context. What do you think?

NTCoding commented 5 months ago

I believe that in Alberto's book he doesn't talk about subdomains and skips straight to bounded contexts? Are you proposing that here or do you mean add an extra step to distill subdomains into bounded contexts (after decompose)?

Baasie commented 5 months ago

Alberto mentioned he goes straight to emerging bounded context, which is also the concept I use at this stage.

I would propose adding it to decompose, and rename it to decompose & Distill. IMO we decompose subdomains, and distill emerging bounded contexts

NTCoding commented 5 months ago

I'm the opposite, I use subdomain because I want to emphasise the team is responsible for business and IT - discovery and delivery. I haven't really used bounded context over the last few years and no problems have occured.

So it's a bit of a personal preference choice about what words are used to describe the activity. We could just highlight this conflict and say some people refer to this as decomposing the domain and some people don't use the concept of a subdomain and instead refer to it as distilling bounded contexts.

In practice all of the activities and heuristics are the same so there are no deeper changes needed here.

On Wed, 3 Jan 2024, 13:37 Kenny Baas-Schwegler, @.***> wrote:

Alberto mentioned he goes straight to emerging bounded context, which is also the concept I use at this stage.

I would propose adding it to decompose, and rename it to decompose & Distill. IMO we decompose subdomains, and distill emerging bounded contexts

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ddd-crew/ddd-starter-modelling-process/issues/46#issuecomment-1875383953, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAFI67SWKF3HFRCVDNHO5DTYMVNJBAVCNFSM6AAAAABBLIEXRCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQNZVGM4DGOJVGM . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: @.***>

Baasie commented 5 months ago

Ah we are close to jumping rabbit holes :D....

The problem however IC is that in domain message flow modelling bounded contexts is mentioned and not subdomains. And the litarature out there makes the distinction between the two, which there is. I find it important to teach, but I might not use it during workshops because they have both seperate purposes in my honest opinion.

Now I agree that the focus during Collaborative modellings should not be on the dogmatic. And it is all about the concepts of grouping and taking ownership and responsbiliy so we agree there.

However problems might not be noticible, but there might be confusion because of the ambiguity when people read this and the litarature. So your proposal of highlighting it would be a good first step. And perhaps then see if we need to go further.

NTCoding commented 5 months ago

There's a lot of confusion out there already. People are always asking me what's the difference between a subdomain and a bounded context and I've seen lots of varying definitions for both, sometimes even with business capabilities thrown in as well.

Based on my experience, the words are mostly interchangeable and it's mostly a matter of preference. I use subdomains on message flows and I've seen people who skip subodmains using bouned contexts on core domain charts.

So I simply advise people to use which ever terminology they prefer or suits their context for any particular reason. What I find is that the activities and the principles and outcomes are the same regardless of the words.

This is just my personal experience based on how I work with clients. Each to their own.

On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 2:27 PM Kenny Baas-Schwegler < @.***> wrote:

Ah we are close to jumping rabbit holes :D....

The problem however IC is that in domain message flow modelling bounded contexts is mentioned and not subdomains. And the litarature out there makes the distinction between the two, which there is. I find it important to teach, but I might not use it during workshops because they have both seperate purposes in my honest opinion.

Now I agree that the focus during Collaborative modellings should not be on the dogmatic. And it is all about the concepts of grouping and taking ownership and responsbiliy so we agree there.

However problems might not be noticible, but there might be confusion because of the ambiguity when people read this and the litarature. So your proposal of highlighting it would be a good first step. And perhaps then see if we need to go further.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ddd-crew/ddd-starter-modelling-process/issues/46#issuecomment-1875457936, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAFI67Q4YOFSJVQ4SE6N3M3YMVTEPAVCNFSM6AAAAABBLIEXRCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQNZVGQ2TOOJTGY . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: @.***>