One deployment, one assembly, one project

Currently, I’m working with some pieces of a legacy code. There are good old-fashioned DAL, BLL layers which reside in separate projects. Additionally, there is a common
project with all the interfaces one could need elsewhere. The whole solution is deployed as one solid piece, without any of the projects used anywhere else. What is your opinion about this structure?

To my mind, splitting one solid piece into non-functional projects is not the best option you can get. Another approach which fits this scenario is using feature orientation and one project in solution to rule them all. An old, the deeper you get in namespace, the more internal you become, is the way to approach feature cross-referencing. So how would one could design a project:

  • /Project
    • /Admin
      • /Impl
        • PermissionService
        • InternalUtils.cs
      • Admin.cs (entity)
      • IPermissionService
    • Notifications
      • /Email
        • EmailPublisher.cs
      • /Sms
        • SmsPublisher.cs
      • IPublisher.cs
    • Registration

I see the following advantages:

  • If any of the features requires reference to another, it’s an easy thing to add one.
  • There’s no need of thinking where to put the interface, if it is going to be used in another project of this solution.
  • You don’t onionate all the things. Now, there are top-bottom pillars which one could later on transform into services if needed.

To sum up, you could deal with features oriented toward business or layers oriented toward programming layers. What would you choose?

Event Driven Architecture – feed your head

It’s been a few days since the last Warsaw .NET User Group meeting. The main presentation was provided by me & Tomasz Frydrychewicz. The title was: “Event Driven Architecture in practice”. Being given a high number of answers to the pool and the overall was very positive response I may call it one of my best presentations ever. Anyway, I was being asked many questions during these days, the main one is what/who should I read/watch to immerse into this event-based approach. The list below tries to answer it somehow, grouped by author:

  1. Martin Fowler
    1. – the top 1 Google search result. Martin provides a good intro, mixing a bit a concept of storying commands and events. Anyway, this is a must read if you starts with this topic
    2. – the article which one should become familiar with after spending some time with event modelling. Some domains are less prone to result in special cases for handling this kind of events, other may be very fragile and one should start with this
  2. Lokad, CQRS, Rinat Abdullin
    1. – a must-read if you want to choose the event way. Plenty of materials and tooling. To me some parts are a bit frameworkish, but still, it’s one of the best implementations I’ve seen. Understanding this might be your game changer.
      Additionally, it provides an Azure storage implementation.
  3. Rinat Abdullin & Kerry Street
    1. Being the worst – how to become a master? Immerse yourself in a new field as the worst. That’s how winning is done! Am amazing journey through learning about DDD, Event Sourcing and many paradigms.
  4. Microsoft Patterns and Practices:
    1. CQRS Journey – a free book about a group of developers using event driven approach with DDD in mind, to build a new system. I love the personas they use to drive dialogues between different opinions/minds/approaches. It’s not a guide. I’d rather consider it a diary of all the different cases you can meet when implementing solutions using these approaches.
  5. Event Store
    1. The whole Event Store database is an actual event store for storying events from the event sourced systems. I encourage you to spend a week or more on reading its code. It’s a good codebase.
    2. Event sourcing documentation is a short introduction to the ES world. After all these years, it still uses the Word generated pictures :) but this doesn’t diminish its value.
  6. NEventStore
    1. NEventStore is an open source library for storying and querying your events. It’s opinionated, for instance it stores all the events as one commit object. I’ve read it carefully, although I don’t like its approach still. One should read it though, it’s always worth to know what’s already provided.

It’s a bit long list but nobody said that you can learn a new paradigm over one weekend. So read, learn and apply it successfully :)

Local translation table

It’s quite to common to use GUIDs as a unique identifiers across systems as they are… unique :) The GUID generation algorithm has a very important property: it’s local. Your code doesn’t have to contact any service or a database. It just works. There’s one problem with GUIDs, they are pretty lengthy taking 16 bytes to be stored.
Consider following example: you want to provide a descriptor for a finite set of distinguishable items, like events in event sourcing. You can use:

  • an event type, a string description of it to make it right. That’s the idea behind event storage within EventStore.
  • GUIDs and generate them them on developers machines. They will be unique but still lengthy when it comes to storing them
  • assign integers, but you will need to divide integers sets between module and be very careful to do not step into another module area

There’s one additional thing you can do. You can easily combine 2 and 3. Just use GUIDs on contracts, providing uniqueness, but when it comes to storing provide a translation table, persistent, ensured of its existence during start up, mapping GUIDs to ints (4 bytes) or even shorts (2 bytes). You can easily create this kind of table locally, one for each module/service, just to embrace all the contracts used by this module. This will lower the storage cost and still let you use nice properties of Guids.

Simple, easy and powerful.

Processes and The Cone of Uncertainty

The Cone of Uncertainty is a management phrase describing the fact, that we cannot foresee the future of a project with a constant probability. The longer period we want to plan for, the less probable it’s going to be exact. That’s the reasoning behind sprints in Agile, to keep them short enough to be in the narrow part of the cone. But it isn’t only the planning! The shape of the cone can be modified by some good practices and reducing the manual labor. By modified I mean greatly narrowed.
The are plenty of processes and elements that can be introduced:

  • continues builds
  • proper db deployments
  • tests
  • continues deployments
  • promotion of application versions between environments

Each of them improves some parts of the development process making it less manual and more repeatable. Additionally, as you introduce tooling for majority of these cases, the tools run with a similar speed so you can greatly lower the uncertainty of some aspects of development. Then again, if some of aspects are constant, only the real development will affect the cone and your team with a manager get what you wanted: a more predictable process and a smaller cone of uncertainty.

I think therefore I haven’t written a test

It seems to me that veryfing one’s thesis is one of the most important aspects of software engineer work. Quite often phrases started with ‘it seems to me…’ or ‘think that…’ are said in a way, that the listener takes for granted truthfulness of the sentence. Meanwhile it hasn’t been proven or covered by a replicating test. I find it as a part of some kind of a social contract that ‘if I say maybe and you partially confirm this then it’s ok’. It isn’t.

I’m not a TDD bigot, I use either TDD or tests themselves as a tool. But when a bisection is needed, when I have to search for a bug or simply verify my thesis, then the test provides a verifiable and repeatable way of answering a question with yes/no without all this hesitation. Just take a look at protobuf-net cases named after StackOverflow questions.

I’m wishing you and myself truly binary answers with a high test coverage.

From domain to code

Currently I’m helping to model one domain with Event Sourcing. A few days ago we spent ~15 minutes on modelling some cases on the whiteboard. The result of the first phase was distilling a few aggregates with events. Later on, we described some processes as we needed to react to some events. At first to much behavior was put in a process manager, to finally be moved to a separate aggregate – a process itself. The process manager was left as a simple router. Because of the strong foundations (a library) providing us at-least-once semantics with a idempotent receivers and handling process managers, the whole discussion was on a much higher level. No imperative programming, just declarative pieces of the domain itself!
A few hours later an implementation was finished. The most important thing was that there was no mapping!. The code was a simple representation of the model being discussed and agreed on. No ORM magic, no enterprise onion with tons of layers and mappings. It was just a simple model of this piece of a domain. And it’s been working like a charm.

Values, principles, then processes

The presentation of Pawel Brodzinski published on Infoq here is a must see. Whether you’re into Kanban or not, it shows a few simple cases and discusses the three important aspects of a company:

  1. values
  2. principles
  3. processes

and interactions between them. Additionally, some problems with visualizations are shown. One can show you all of his/her processes but is it possible to steal this know-how?