Sunday, May 6, 2018

Talk: Lightweight Microservice Collaboration using HTTP

I had the pleasure of being at the DotNext conference in Sct. Petersburg a couple of weeks ago, and now the video of the talk I did there is out. Enjoy!

Saturday, January 13, 2018

Event Sourced Aggregates Part 6: Smarter Events

In this 6th and final post in my series about event sourced aggregates, I will make the events a little bit smarter. So far events have been completely stupid object that just carry some data around, but has no behavior. In this post I give every event a little bit of behavior by moving the 'When' methods from the aggregate to the events. The result is that the aggregate becomes anemic (that is, no behavior, just data), does not violate Open/Closed principle anymore, and that the events become more self contained.

In the 5th post I made an attempt at moving the 'When' methods out of the aggregate to get to a design where the aggregate does not violate Open/Closed. I did so by introducing a new abstraction - an aggregate projector - but that just ended up with the same Open/Closed violation that the aggregate suffered from originally. Therefore I take another approach in this post.

Smarter events

Let's, once again, see how the aggregate looks after domain logic was moved from the aggregate to the command handlers in post 4:


And the 'UsernameChangedEvent' looks like this:


In order to keep the aggregate from growing and growing as features are added to the system, I will move the 'When(UsernameChangedEvent e)` to a `When` method on the event itself, like this:


Now the event holds the data of the event and is responsible for applying the state changes to the aggregate that the event implies. That is: A domain event - like the UsernameChangedEvent - is an indication that something happened to the aggregate, i.e. there was a state change to the aggregate. The 'When' method on the event applies that state change to aggregate that it gets passed in as an argument.
When moving the 'When' method from the aggregate to the event the signature of the method must change a bit to 'void When(UserAggregate aggregate)'. Notice that this signature is not specific to the 'UsernameChangedEvent', but will be the same for all events. That turns out to be a quite handy side effect of moving the `When` methods. More on that in the next section. Since the `When` signature is the same for all events I'll go ahead and add it to the event interface:


Before the 'Event' interface was just a marker interface. Now it shows that all events have a 'When' method.

Event replay revisited

Moving the 'When' methods impact how event replay is done. Remember from the first post that what is stored in the database are the events. When we need an aggregate all the events emitted on that aggregate are read from the database, and then the 'When' method for each one is called. Since the 'When' methods each apply the state changes to aggregate implied by the event the end result is an aggregate object in the correct current state of that aggregate. The replay process goes like this:


Where the event replay is done by the 'Replay' method on the abstract class 'Aggregate'. The special sauce in this is in the implementation of the 'Play' method which - as shown in the first post of the series - involves using reflection to find a suitable 'When' method. This becomes a lot simpler now that all events implement an interface with a 'When' method on it:


This simplification was not the goal of the refactoring done in this post, but a nice side effect, and as such an indication that this is indeed a good road to follow.

The anemic aggregate

With the `When` methods moved to the events the aggregate has become anemic. And that is a good thing in this case. The UserAggregate is reduced to this:


which is simply a representation of the current state of a user. That is the essence of what the 'UserAggregate' is. Moreover this only changes if we have reason to change how the current state of a user looks, which I consider a good reason to change that class. Moreover the 'UserAggregate' no longer violates the Open/Closed principle since new domain behavior can be added by adding new commands, command handlers and events, but without changing the 'UserAggregate'.
Often an anemics domain model is seen as an anti pattern in objec oriented code. I agree. But only when looking at the domain model as a whole, not when looking at just one class - like the 'UserAggregate'. My point here is, that looking a the domain model as a whole includes commands, command handlers and events. In that perspective the domain model is not anemic - only the user aggregate is anemic.

Wrapping up

In the first post of this series I outlined what I see as a typical C# implementation of event sourced aggregates. I also argued that, that implementation leads to the aggregates violating the Open/Closed principle. In the third and fourth posts I solved half of the problem by making the command handlers smarter, and in this post I solved the second half of the problem by making events smarter.

The final code is on Github, as are the intermediate steps (see other branches on that same repository).

Wednesday, November 22, 2017

Event Sourced Aggregates Part 5: Anemic aggregate

In this 5th part in my series on event sourced aggregates I continue moving code out of the aggregate. In the last post I moved domain logic out of the aggregate and into the command handlers, making them smart enough to actually handle commands by themselves. In this post I will continue along the path of moving stuff out of the aggregate: I will move the remaining methods, namely the 'When' methods, out from the aggregate to a new abstraction - an aggregate projector. While this will achieve the goal set out in the first post of getting past the aggregate growing and growing over time, the new aggregate projector unfortunately will suffer from the same problem. In the next post I will take another approach moving the 'When' methods out and arrive at a better design, but first let's follow what I think is the most obvious path and see why that leads a bad design.

The aggregate is a projection

Taking a step back, what is the aggregate? At the datastore level it is a list of events. Together the events represent everything that has happened to the aggregate and, as we have seen, the current state of the aggregate can be recreated from the list of events. At the code level the aggregate is an object - it has some state and it has some behavior. At this point the only behavior it has left is the 'When' methods. The important bit is that the aggregate is an object. It's just an object. Likewise, in the code, different read models are just objects that result from projections over events. In that sense the aggregate is not different from a read model: It is an object that is the result of a projection over events.

Introducing the aggregate projector

Before I start refactoring lets take a look at how the aggregate looks right now:



The aggregate has some state represented by the properties on lines 3 and 4, and then some 'When' methods that make up the logic needed to perform the projection from the aggregates events to its current state.

Seeing that a new 'When' method will be added to the aggregate every time a new event is introduced - and new features will usually result in new events, in my experience - the aggregate still has the problem of growing big and unwieldy over time. So let's introduce another class that can do the projections:



This doesn't just work. First off the new 'UserAggregateProjector' cannot set the properties on the aggregate to anything. That can be fixed by adding internal setters to the aggregate, allowing the projector to access the setters, but disallowing access from outside the same project as the 'UserAggregate', which I expect to mean anything beyond commands, command handlers and events.
Furthermore the event replay done when fetching an aggregate must also change from calling 'When' methods on the aggregate to calling them on the 'UserAggregateProjector'. That means changing 'Aggregate' base class to this:



The changes are the introduction of the 'GetProjector' method on line 30 and the use of that new method in the 'Play' method, which now does reflection of the projector class to find the 'When' methods instead of doing it over the aggregate. The end result is the same: An aggregate object with the current state of the aggregate recreated by replaying all events.

Moving the 'When' methods has obviously also changed the aggregate, which now only contains state:



This is what is known as an anemic domain model, because it has no behavior. That's usually considered an anti-pattern, but I don't necessarily agree that it is; as argued above the aggregate is essentially a projection of the events, so I do not see why that object has to be where the domain behavior goes. As we saw in the 4th post of the series command handlers is a nice place to put domain behavior.

The projector violates Open/Closed principle


As a stated at the beginning of this post the design I've arrived at now is not good: The new 'UserAggregateProjector' suffers just as much from perpetual growth as the aggregate did before I moved the 'When' methods out of it. In other words the new projector violates the Open/Closed principle, which is what I am trying to get away from. So I have not solved anything, just moved the problem to a new abstraction :( Seems like I need to take another iteration, which I will in the next post.

The code for this post is in this branch.