Re: Assigning responsibility for cancelling an Order

Which is a result of which?

Is it decreasing the quantity cancels the order or canceling the order
decreases the quantity?

This sounds like a historical issue due to a poorly implemented crud system.

On Tuesday, August 19, 2014, [email protected] [domaindrivendesign] <
[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
> During a conversation with our Domain Expert we can across this feature:
>
> "A Customer service agent can cancel an Order by decreasing its quantity.
> To cancel an Order we decrease its quantity by the specified quantity,
> change its status to either partially cancelled or fully cancelled and log
> the CS agent who issued the cancellation."
>
>
> We are currently split between several solutions (assuming we have the
> `agentId`, `orderId` and `cancelledQty` from the request):
>
>
> **Solution 1:**
>
>
>     CSAgent agent= (CSAgent) EmployeeRepository.getById(agentId);
>
>     Order order= OrderRepository.getById(orderId);
>
>     agent.cancel(order,cancelledQty);
>
>
> vs
>
> **Solution 2:**
>
>
>     CSAgent agent= (CSAgent) EmployeeRepository.getById(agentId);
>
>     Order order= OrderRepository.getById(orderId);
>
>     order.cancel(cancelledQty,agent);
>
>
> **Solution 1** really captures what the requirements is conveying and
> reads really well; however, **solution 2** seems more natural when coding
> the implementation of the cancel() method as I'll mostly update fields in
> the `Order` class itself which I hope to keep `private` with no public
> setters.
>
> The only thing I need from the `CSAgnet` class is a snapshot of its data
> to be stored with the `Order`.
>
>
> So how should I determine the best course of action from a DDD perspective?
>
>  
>


-- 
Studying for the Turing test