In DDD, a UoW per Repository or Bounded Context or Transaction?

Question

In DDD, an aggregate root can have a repository. Let us take an Order aggregate and it's non-persistant counterpart OrderRepository and persistent counterpart OrderUoW. We have also ProductVariant aggregate which tracks the inventory of the products in the order. It can have a ProductVariantRepository and ProductVariantUoW.

The way the Order and the ProductVariant work is that before the order is persisted, the inventory is checked. If there is inventory, the order will be persisted by calling OrderUoW.Commit(). Yes, the ProductVariantUoW.Commit() will be called next to update the inventory of the products.

UNFORTUNATELY things can go bad, a user bought the same products in that short time (Consider this as a web app where two users are buying the same products). Now the whole transaction for the second user should fail by reverting the order that just created. Should I call the OrderUoW to rollback the changes (the order should be deleted from the db)? Or should I put both UoW.Commit() operations in a transaction scope, so failing of one commit() will rollback the changes? Or both the repositories (Order, ProductVariant) should have only UoW and it needs to have only one transaction scope?

I may be able to make the story short by saying, how the transaction is handled where there are multiple repositories involved?

Answer 1

A question we could ask is who is doing the following:

The way the Order and the ProductVariant work is that before the order is persisted, the inventory is checked. If there is inventory, the order will be persisted by calling OrderUoW.Commit(). Yes, the ProductVariantUoW.Commit() will be called next to update the inventory of the products.

Some argue that this kind of work belongs in the service layer, which allows the service layer to put things crossing aggregate objects into a single transaction.

According to http://www.infoq.com/articles/ddd-in-practice:

Some developers prefer managing the transactions in the DAO classes which is a poor design. This results in too fine-grained transaction control which doesn't give the flexibility of managing the use cases where the transactions span multiple domain objects. Service classes should handle transactions; this way even if the transaction spans multiple domain objects, the service class can manage the transaction since in most of the use cases the Service class handles the control flow.

I think as an alternative to using a single transaction, you can claim the inventory using ProductVariant, and, if all the inventory items necessary are available then you can commit the order. Otherwise (i.e. you can't claim all the products you need for the order) you have to return the inventory that was successfully claimed using compensating transactions. The results it that in the case of unsuccessfull commit of an order, some of the inventory will temporarily appear unavailable for other orders, but the advantage is that you can work without a distributed transaction.

None the less, this logic still belongs in the service layer, not the DAO classes.

Answer 2

The way you are using unit of work seems a bit fine-grained. Just in case you haven't read Martin Fowler's take: http://martinfowler.com/eaaCatalog/unitOfWork.html

That being said you want to handle the transaction at the use-case level. The fact that the inventory is checked up-front is simply a convenience (UX) and the stock level should be checked when persisting the various bits also. An exception can be raised for insufficient stock.

The transaction isolation level should be set such that the two 'simultaneous' parts are performed serially. So whichever one gets to update the stock levels first is going to 'win'. The second will then raise the exception.