It just so happens that your bounded context is mapped to your subdomain exactly. Underneath the carpet, say the cement, is your subdomain. This carpet represents your bounded context. The carpet covers every inch of the floor. It may have a closet or some different length walls which makes it not totally uniform. I heard Eric Evans gave a great example that I will paraphrase, which should help you visualize the difference. Over the years I’ve realized this not to be the case, but always had a tough time giving an explanation that others could visualize. I do not remember actually ever reading how a subdomain and a bounded context don’t map directly one to one. It may be due examples or just the assumption I made. I’m not entirely sure why I had this perception early on. When I was first introduced to the concept many years ago, I was under the impression that they mapped directly one to one. To take that further, you may get the impression that they are indeed the same thing. I’ve often thought of a bounded context as being a one-to-one relationship with a subdomain. With more thoughts and insights, I wanted to extend that post by discussion bounded contexts and how they fit within subdomains.
In a previous blog, I discussed how I recently discovered through eventual consistency that I had poor business alignment.
Sponsor: Do you build complex software systems? See how NServiceBus makes it easier to design, build, and manage software systems that use message queues to achieve loose coupling.
0 kommentar(er)
