Skip to main content

CQRS - The Simplest Introduction

CQRS or Command Query Responsibility Separation is easy to understand but it can become complex due to various levels to which developers take the principle behind it. Simply - CQRS is two models, where the used to be one. Nothing more at its heart.

Take the Customer aggregate below. This exposes both commands as void methods and queries as methods with return types. Public state is leaked, but needed in order to display or persist the data. Many frameworks or libraries require public accessibility in order to function.

CQRS states we split commands from queries. This means we end up with a pure Customer aggregate root that exposes behaviour only. Likewise we end up with a basic application service that simply returns data.

Benefits

Commands
  • Domain model is purely behaviour.
  • No data is exposed, public fields/methods gone (no getters/setters)
  • Only way to modify customers is via the commands - encapsulation is preserved.
  • Less relationships simply for querying/persistence (has-a relationships)
  • Testing is easier, check event raised/command issued rather than state
  • Allows task based UI's, rather than CRUD focused interactions.
  • If you use repositories, you only need a GetById method.
Queries
  • Queries can be simplified - in many cases by a huge amount. Just read from the data store, no need to create relationships between models.
  • You can use direct data access, rather than repositories or other abstractions. This has a lot of benefit.
  • It's easy to develop, less layers and moving parts.
  • You can independently replace persistent storage mechanisms per query based on use cases.

Complexity

CQRS is an easy concept, that introduces many benefits. However implementation of this pattern can vary from simple, to complicated. The extent to which CQRS is implemented should be judged on a case by case basis. Many systems can get away without separating read and write stores, yet still enjoy the benefits that this pattern provides.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Constant Object Anti Pattern

Most constants are used to remove magic numbers or variables that lack context. A classic example would be code littered with the number 7. What does this refer to exactly? If this was replaced with DaysInWeek or similar, much clarity is provided. You can determine that code performing offsets would be adding days, rather than a mysterious number seven.Sadly a common pattern which uses constants is the use of a single constant file or object. The beauty of constants is clarity, and the obvious fact such variables are fixed. When a constant container is used, constants are simply lumped together. These can grow in size and often become a dumping ground for all values within the application.A disadvantage of this pattern is the actual value is hidden. While a friendly variable name is great, there will come a time where you will want to know the actual value. This forces you to navigate, if only to peek at the value within the constant object. A solution is to simple perform a refactor …

Three Steps to Code Quality via TDD

Common complaints and problems that I've both encountered and hear other developers raise when it comes to the practice of Test Driven Development are: Impossible to refactor without all the tests breakingMinor changes require hours of changes to test codeTest setup is huge, slow to write and difficult to understandThe use of test doubles (mocks, stubs and fakes is confusing)Over the next three posts I will demonstrate three easy steps that can resolve the problems above. In turn this will allow developers to gain one of the benefits that TDD promises - the ability to refactor your code mercifully in order to improve code quality.StepsStop Making Everything PublicLimit the Amount of Dependencies you Use A Unit is Not Always a Method or ClassCode quality is a tricky subject and highly subjective, however if you follow the three guidelines above you should have the ability to radically change implementation details and therefore improve code quality when needed.

DRY vs DAMP in Tests

In the previous post I mentioned that duplication in tests is not always bad. Sometimes duplication becomes a problem. Tests can become large or virtually identically excluding a few lines. Changes to these tests can take a while and increase the maintenance overhead. At this point, DRY violations need to be resolved.SolutionsTest HelpersA common solution is to extract common functionality into setup methods or other helper utilities. While this will remove and reduce duplication this can make tests a bit harder to read as the test is now split amongst unrelated components. There is a limit to how useful such extractions can help as each test may need to do something slightly differently.DAMP - Descriptive and Meaningful PhrasesDescriptive and Meaningful Phrases is the alter ego of DRY. DAMP tests often use the builder pattern to construct the System Under Test. This allows calls to be chained in a fluent API style, similar to the Page Object Pattern. Internally the implementation wil…