Domain driven design: Avoiding anemic domains and modelling real world roles

Question

I'm looking for some advice on how much I should be concerned around avoiding the anemic domain model. We are just starting on DDD and are struggling with analysis paralysis regarding simple design decisions. The latest point we are sticking on is where certain business logic belongs, for example we have an Order object, which has properties like Status etc. Now say I have to perform a command like UndoLastStatus because someone made a mistake with an order, this is not as simple as just changing the Status as other information has to be logged and properties changed. Now in the real world this is a pure administration task. So the way I see it I have two options I can think of:

• Option 1: Add the method to order so something like Order.UndoLastStatus(), whilst this kinda make sense, it doesn't really reflect the domain. Also Order is the primary object in the system and if everything involving the order is placed in the order class things could get out of hand.

• Option 2: Create a Shop object, and with that have different services which represent differant roles. So I might have Shop.AdminService, Shop.DispatchService, and Shop.InventoryService. So in this case I would have Shop.AdminService.UndoLastStatus(Order).

Now the second option we have something which reflects the domain much more, and would allow developers to talk to business experts about similar roles that actually exists. But its also heading toward an anemic model. Which would be the better way to go in general?

Answer 1

Option 2 would lead to procedural code for sure.
Might be easier to develop, but much harder to maintain.

Now in the real world this is a pure administration task

"Administration" tasks should be private and invoked through public, fully "domain`ish" actions. Preferably - still written in easy to understand code that is driven from domain.

As I see it - problem is that UndoLastStatus makes little sense to domain expert.
More likely they are talking about making, canceling and filling orders.

Something along these lines might fit better:

class Order{
  void CancelOrder(){
    Status=Status.Canceled;
  }
  void FillOrder(){
    if(Status==Status.Canceled)
      throw Exception();
    Status=Status.Filled;
  }
  static void Make(){
    return new Order();
  }
  void Order(){
    Status=Status.Pending;
  }
}

I personally dislike usage of "statuses", they are automatically shared to everything that uses them - i see that as unnecessary coupling.

So I would have something like this:

class Order{
  void CancelOrder(){
    IsCanceled=true;
  }
  void FillOrder(){
    if(IsCanceled) throw Exception();
    IsFilled=true;
  }
  static Order Make(){
    return new Order();
  }
  void Order(){
    IsPending=true;
  }
}

For changing related things when order state changes, best bet is to use so called domain events.
My code would look along these lines:

class Order{
  void CancelOrder(){
    IsCanceled=true;
    Raise(new Canceled(this));
  }
  //usage of nested classes for events is my homemade convention
  class Canceled:Event<Order>{
    void Canceled(Order order):base(order){}
  }     
}

class Customer{
  private void BeHappy(){
    Console.WriteLine("hooraay!");
  }
  //nb: nested class can see privates of Customer
  class OnOrderCanceled:IEventHandler<Order.Canceled>{
   void Handle(Order.Canceled e){
    //caveat: this approach needs order->customer association
    var order=e.Source;
    order.Customer.BeHappy();
   }
  }
}

---

If Order grows too huge, You might want to check out what bounded contexts are (as Eric Evans says - if he had a chance to wrote his book again, he would move bounded contexts to the very beginning).

In short - it's a form of decomposition driven by domain.

Idea is relatively simple - it is OK to have multiple Orders from different viewpoints aka contexts.

E.g. - Order from Shopping context, Order from Accounting context.

namespace Shopping{
 class Order{
  //association with shopping cart
  //might be vital for shopping but completely irrelevant for accounting
  ShoppingCart Cart;
 }
}
namespace Accounting{
 class Order{
  //something specific only to accounting
 }
}

But usually enough domain itself avoids complexity and is easily decomposable if You listen to it closely enough. E.g. You might hear from experts terms like OrderLifeCycle, OrderHistory, OrderDescription that You can leverage as anchors for decomposition.

NB: Keep in mind - I got zero understanding about Your domain.
It's quite likely that those verbs I'm using are completely strange to it.