Sometimes you'll find data in a single table that needs to be split across two or more service boundaries.
A single table that bridges two bounded contexts being split. We want to split out Catalog and Warehouse as new services, but the data for both is mixed into this single table.
In the spirit of incremental migration, sometimes it makes sense to split the tables apart in the exiting schema, before separating the schemas.
Both Customer Management and Finance code can change the status in the Customer table. The column is updated during the customer sign-up process to indicate that a given person has (or hasn't) verified their email, with the value going from
NOT_VERIFIEDtoVERIFIED. Once a customer isVERIFIED, they are able to shop. Our finance code handles suspending customers if their bills are unpaid, so they will on ocassion change the status of a customer toSUSPENDED. In instance, a customer's status still feels like it should be part of the customer domain model, and as such it should be managed by the soon-to-be-created Customer service.
What happens when multiple pieces of code update the same column? We want, where possible, to keep state machines for our domain entities inside a single service boundary, and updating a Status certainly feels like part of the state machine for a customer. This means that when the service split has been made, our new Finance service will need to make a service call to update this status.
A big problem with splitting tables like this is that we lose the safety given to us by database transactions.
-
When a table is owned by two or more bounded contexts in your current monolith.
-
(!) If you find specific columns in that table that seem to be updated by multiple parts of your codebase, you need to make a judgment call as to who should "own" that data.