Re: What's goin on with the actors and DDD?

Hi,
Depends on what you mean by actor.
In UML parlance "actor" is synonymous or "role" and describe the behavior of some external active physical entity (user, device, or system). Because actors stand only for behaviors they may or may not be associated to a design object, e.g a proxy.
Remy.

--- In [email protected], "guterfluss" <guterfluss@...> wrote:
>
> Ok, so I'm watching Vaughn Vernon's keynonte on http://skillsmatter.com/podcast/agile-testing/vaughn-vernon about actors.
> I'm also listening to Rinat Abullin's talk about how actors could be used in beingtheworst on http://beingtheworst.com/2013/episode-29-acting-like-we-get-the-message.
> 
> The basic idea I get from all of this is that in the case of 2 aggregates needing to communicate to each other, we could use actors as aggregates and send messages (events & commands) directly to them instead of going through an eventbus/commandbus/application service/event handler/....
> 
> So how would that look like? 
> 
> Is every aggregate an actor and are all actors loaded in memory? If they are I assume without any state. Otherwise you would need something like coherence to distribute your memory over different nodes, just to keep all your aggregates in memory. 
> 
> Do they load and persist their own state like in the days when it was ok for aggregates to have their own repository injected? Or is the actor a wrapper around the aggregate that takes over the role that the application service used to have (=handle security, transaction mgmt, loading and persisting aggregates)?
> 
> Or is the value in using actors not in using them as aggregates, but rather as infrastructure and application/domain service components. For example as an implementation of some of the EAI patterns like shown in the much appreciated blogs on http://vaughnvernon.co/ ?
> 
> Any feedback is much appreciated...
> 
> Best regards
> Jan
>




------------------------------------