This post originated from an RSS feed registered with .NET Buzz
by Udi Dahan.
Original Post: Was I unclear about DDD?
Feed Title: Udi Dahan - The Software Simplist
Feed URL: http://feeds.feedburner.com/UdiDahan-TheSoftwareSimplist
Feed Description: I am a software simplist. I make this beast of architecting, analysing, designing, developing, testing, managing, deploying software systems simple.
This blog is about how I do it.
Thomas Wagner gave me some apparently undue props around my recent post "DDD - why bother?". If I wasn't clear about the bottom line around DDD, here it is again:
"if you are the one tasked with building the right system, you just won���t be able to do it unless you build the system right ��� DDD won���t be a bother, but a necessity."
I read the entire "rant" on Thomas' site and can't say that I disagree with a lot of it. On the other hand, that doesn't mean it's the whole truth - if there even is such a thing. As one of the co-authors of Jimmy's book, ���Applying Domain Driven Design and Patterns���, as well as a technical reviewer on it, I came away with a very different view on DDD than Thomas did.
Finally, I think that it's good that we have names for things. DDD makes a point of naming and connecting various patterns - new and existing. The value comes in being able to identify a practice as well as have meaningful discussions about it. How would our conversations sound without named patterns?
"That thing where you got objects that aren't dependent on persistence - no, the one where they don't have the save method on them..."
Also, patterns are meant to evolve. I hope that Thomas will be able to take his considerable experience and move forwards the level of conversations we are having around large-scale systems design.
Previous Topic
