Re: IDs in the domain

I'll be frank.

I challenge anyone to come up with a valid use case for this nonsense that
has been spread around.

On Sunday, May 12, 2013, Michael Schuerig wrote:

> On Sunday 12 May 2013, Dan Haywood wrote:
> > On Saturday, 11 May 2013, Michael wrote:
> > > So, are there common opinions or even a consensus on IDs among DDD
> > > practitioners?
> >
> > I think the use of IDs like this is probably inevitable if one isn't
> > going to use an ORM, or if one is going to only use BCs as an
> > encapsulation mechanism and ignore modules as a lighter-weight
> > approach.
> >
> > So, no, there isn't consensus.
> >
> > > Is the approach in IDDD representative?
> >
> > It's a particular design.  It works.  Like any design, it has
> > trade-offs. It's not the only way.
>
> Well, that's the question, really. Are explicit IDs in the domain
> acceptable by the demanding standards, DDD otherwise imposes? I'd say
> that if IDs do not appear in the UL, they don't have a place domain
> code. Also, as they can be mapped to proper entities at the boundary,
> there is no pressing need for such IDs inside the Bounded Context.
>
> Before anyone objects to the presumed inefficiency: For the purposes of
> a specific BC, an entity may consist of nothing but its identity or it
> may load its attributes lazily.
>
> I'm not a long-time member of the DDD community and so I don't know what
> the actual practices are. Maybe nobody writes code like it is shown in
> Vernon's IDDD. But then I'd be surprised that apparently reviewers
> didn't object to it.
>
> Michael
>
> --
> Michael Schuerig
> mailto:[email protected] <javascript:;>
> http://www.schuerig.de/michael/
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

-- 
Le doute n'est pas une condition agréable, mais la certitude est absurde.