Skip to main content

No one owns the Domain Model...

May be I should be more precise, and say 'No one developer owns the Domain Model...'. We all share the 'code ownership' and no one coder is responsible for the state of the domain model. Now you're probably thinking I'm going to elaborate on the fact the team I'm currently working with don't take code ownership seriously - they don't - but I'm not going to mention that. I'm talking about when you're a tech lead\coach you don't have 'first dibs' on the structure of the model and how it's implemented. To be honest in a DDD environment we don't have control over the structure of the domain model, the business do!

So this week I realised I was living up to my pseudonym, I've been being awkward about other coders adding to the domain model, I've been worrying about what they're going to add or change. Now this is just my hang-up and I realised, how are they going to improve at modelling & design if they aren't allowed to fail. Just because other developers & management recognise you're the best coder they've got doesn't give you the right to stamp the domain model as yours.

To put it another, way by acting as the only person who can change the domain model you're creating a single point of failure and you're lowering the standards required by your team. Now this is an anti-pattern in the making and has no place on in an emerging Agile environment.


Popular posts from this blog

Showing a message box from a ViewModel in MVVM

I was doing a code review with a client last week for a WPF app using MVVM and they asked ' How can I show a message from the ViewModel? '. What follows is how I would (and have) solved the problem in the past. When I hear the words ' show a message... ' I instantly think you mean show a transient modal message box that requires the user input before continuing ' with something else ' - once the user has interacted with the message box it will disappear. The following solution only applies to this scenario. The first solution is the easiest but is very wrong from a separation perspective. It violates the ideas behind the Model-View-Controller pattern because it places View concerns inside the ViewModel - the ViewModel now knows about the type of the View and specifically it knows how to show a message box window: The second approach addresses this concern by introducing the idea of messaging\events between the ViewModel and the View. In the example below

Implementing a busy indicator using a visual overlay in MVVM

This is a technique we use at work to lock the UI whilst some long running process is happening - preventing the user clicking on stuff whilst it's retrieving or rendering data. Now we could have done this by launching a child dialog window but that feels rather out of date and clumsy, we wanted a more modern pattern similar to the way <div> overlays are done on the web. Imagine we have the following simple WPF app and when 'Click' is pressed a busy waiting overlay is shown for the duration entered into the text box. What I'm interested in here is not the actual UI element of the busy indicator but how I go about getting this to show & hide from when using MVVM. The actual UI elements are the standard Busy Indicator coming from the WPF Toolkit : The XAML behind this window is very simple, the important part is the ViewHost. As you can see the ViewHost uses a ContentPresenter element which is bound to the view model, IMainViewModel, it contains 3 child v

Custom AuthorizationHandler for SignalR Hubs

How to implement IAuthorizationRequirement for SignalR in Asp.Net Core v5.0 Been battling this for a couple of days, and eventually ended up raising an issue on Asp.Net Core gitHub  to find the answer. Wanting to do some custom authorization on a SignalR Hub when the client makes a connection (Hub is created) and when an endpoint (Hub method) is called:  I was assuming I could use the same Policy for both class & method attributes, but it ain't so - not because you can't, because you need the signatures to be different. Method implementation has a resource type of HubInnovationContext: I assumed class implementation would have a resource type of HubConnectionContext - client connects etc... This isn't the case, it's infact of type DefaultHttpContext . For me I don't even need that, it can be removed completely  from the inheritence signature and override implementation. Only other thing to note, and this could be a biggy, is the ordering of the statements in th