helps discover the top-level architecture and inform about the mechanics and dynamics of the domain that the software needs to replicate. Concretely, it means that a well done DDD analysis minimizes misunderstandings between domain experts and software architects, and it reduces the subsequent number of expensive requests for change. By splitting the domain complexity in smaller contexts, DDD avoids forcing project architects to design a bloated object model, which is where a lot of time is lost in working out implementation details — in part because the number of entities to deal with often grows beyond the size of conference-room white boards.
Domain Driven Design (DDD) is about mapping business domain concepts into software artifacts. Most of the writings and articles on this topic have been based on Eric Evans' book "Domain Driven Design", covering the domain modeling and design aspects mainly from a conceptual and design stand-point. These writings discuss the main elements of DDD such as Entity, Value Object, Service etc or they talk about concepts like Ubiquitous Language, Bounded Context and Anti-Corruption Layer.
The objective of this article is to cover the domain modeling and design from a practical stand-point on how one would go about taking a domain model and actually implementing it. We will look at the guidelines, best practices, frameworks and tools that the technical leads and architects can use in the implementation effort. Domain Driven Design and Development is also influenced by several architectural, design, and implementation aspects such as:
Test Driven Development
This article talks about how these different factors affect the implementation project throughout its lifecycle and what the architects should look for in realizing a successful DDD implementation. I will start off with a list of characteristics a typical domain model should have, and when to use a domain model in an enterprise (versus not using a domain model at all or using an anemic domain model).
The Agile Movement
What Is Agile?
Not a methodology! The Agile movement seeks alternatives to traditional project management. Agile approaches help teams respond to unpredictability through incremental, iterative work cadences and empirical feedback. Agilists propose alternatives to waterfall, or traditional sequential development.
What is Scrum?
Scrum is the most popular way of introducing Agility due to its simplicity and flexibility. Because of this popularity, many organizations claim to be “doing Scrum” but aren’t doing anything close to Scrum’s actual definition. Scrum emphasizes empirical feedback, team self management, and striving to build properly tested product increments within short iterations. Doing Scrum as it’s actually defined usually comes into conflict with existing habits at established non-Agile organizations.
Scrum has only three roles: Product Owner, Team, and Scrum Master. These are described in detail by the Scrum Training Series. The responsibilities of the traditional project manager role are split up among these three Scrum roles. Scrum has five meetings: Backlog Grooming (aka Backlog Refinement), Sprint Planning, Daily Scrum (aka 15-minute standup), the Sprint Review Meeting, and the Sprint Retrospective Meeting.