You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hi, thanks for this repo, really useful.
I wanted to ask about something that has caught my attention:
MeetingGroupProposal entity exists both in ApplicationContext and MeetingContext and I'm wondering whether that's correct from a DDD perspective?
I mean, shouldn't each entity be owned by one (and only one) module? Is it ok to have more than one module accessing to the same entity directly? With that approach, nothing prevents us from starting use the same entity in more modules, ending up with all modules been able to access all entities? also, how would that work if we wanted to separate modules in different databases?
Let's say this was a microservices architecture rather than a modular monolith: in that case only one of the microservices would have access to the entity, the other one should get that data differently (maybe by caching it via integration events). Is it not he same idea here?
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi, thanks for this repo, really useful.
I wanted to ask about something that has caught my attention:
MeetingGroupProposal
entity exists both in ApplicationContext and MeetingContext and I'm wondering whether that's correct from a DDD perspective?I mean, shouldn't each entity be owned by one (and only one) module? Is it ok to have more than one module accessing to the same entity directly? With that approach, nothing prevents us from starting use the same entity in more modules, ending up with all modules been able to access all entities? also, how would that work if we wanted to separate modules in different databases?
Let's say this was a microservices architecture rather than a modular monolith: in that case only one of the microservices would have access to the entity, the other one should get that data differently (maybe by caching it via integration events). Is it not he same idea here?
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: