Re: Sharing Aggregate Roots between Bounded Contexts

Why not just make a call trydeductpointsforcstomer or get/remove points for
customer to points management?

Or better make them all raise events?

On Monday, May 27, 2013, wonderfulworldofpingpong wrote:

> **
>
>
> Paul, thanks for clarifying on the aggregates.
>
> Here is an example I'm talking about. You are going to a County fair. You
> can pay cash and get points. With those points you can visit the game area,
> food stalls, buy products etc... For example, you buy 100 points for $100.
> You take the points to the game area and play poker. Then you go to the
> food area and have some food.
>
> Every time you visit a section in the County fair, the staff will ask you
> how many points you have. Getting to the DDD, we can consider the game area
> as one BC, food management as one BC and products selling area as one BC.
> The visitor is the same. All the BCs are concerned about only one thing,
> that is how many points the visitor has. They are not concerned about his
> name, address or how much money he has. As long as he has points, he can
> visit that section. So, an entity called 'visitor' is the same for all the
> BCs. The Repository to read the points from the datastore is also the same.
> In this case, do you prefer to put that visitor in a shared kernel?
> Probably not, the same visitor will be concern for the security BC which
> needs his name, address and phone etc...
>
> Hope that explains a scenario of the topic we are talking about.
>
> --- In [email protected] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'domaindrivendesign%40yahoogroups.com');>, Paul Rayner <paul@...> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 5:29 PM, wonderfulworldofpingpong <
> > varghese.pallathu@...> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks Paul.
> > >
> > > So, even though it causes code duplication but it is required that two
> BCs
> > > need to have it's own aggregates else it needs to be in a shared
> kernel. Am
> > > I right?
> > >
> > Right. Bounded contexts have different models. There is nothing to share,
> > concept-wise. Start with the model. I get the sense you are thinking
> > implementation-only.
> >
> > And avoid shared kernels, if you can.
> >
> > >
> > > Is it okay to share the implementation of a repository?
> > >
> > Generally, no. Why would you want to do this, since it would couple two
> > bounded contexts tightly together? I would need to see an example.
>
>  
>


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