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

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 开发者_开发知识库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?

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.

I would be guided by the GRASP principles. Apply the Information Expert design principle, that is you should assign the responsibility to the class that naturally has the most information required to fulfill the change.

In this case, since changing the order status involves other entities, I would make each of these low-level domain objects support a method to apply the change with respect to itself. Then also use a domain service layer as you describe in option 2, that abstracts the whole operation, spanning multiple domain objects as needed.

Also see the Facade pattern.

I think having a method like UndoLastStatus on the Order class feels a bit wrong because the reasons for its existence are in a sense outside of the scope of an order. On the other hand, having a method which is responsible for changing the status of an order, Order.ChangeStatus, fits nicely as a domain model. The status of an order is a proper domain concept and changing that status should be done through the Order class, since it owns the data associated with an order status - it is the responsibility of the Order class to keep itself consistent and in a proper state.

Another way to think of it is that the Order object is what's persisted to the database and it is the 'last stop' for all changes applied to an Order. It is easier to reason about what a valid state for an order might be from the perspective of an Order rather than from the perspective of an external component. This is what DDD and OOP are all about, making it easier for humans to reason about code. Furthermore, access to private or protected members may be required to execute a state change, in which case having the method be on the order class is a better option. This is one of the reasons why anemic domain models are frowned upon - they shift the responsibility of keeping state consistent away from the owning class, thereby breaking encapsulation among other things.

One way to implement a more specific operation such as UndoLastStatus would be to create an OrderService which exposes the domain and is how external components operate upon the domain. Then you can create a simple command object like this:

class UndoLastStatusCommand {
  public Guid OrderId { get; set; }
}

An the OrderService would have a method to process that command:

public void Process(UndoLastStatusCommand command) {
  using (var unitOfWork = UowManager.Start()) {
    var order = this.orderRepository.Get(command.OrderId);
    if (order == null)
      throw some exception

    // operate on domain to undo last status

    unitOfWork.Commit();
  }
}

So now the domain model for Order exposes all of the data and behavior that correspond to an Order, but the OrderService, and the service layer in general, declare the different kind of operations that are performed on an order and expose the domain for utilization by external components, such as the presentation layer.

Also consider looking into the concept of domain events which considers anemic domain models and ways of improving them.

It sounds like you are not driving this domain from tests. Take a look at the work of Rob Vens, especially his work on exploratory modeling, time inversion and active-passive.