We looked at the first aggregate rule of thumb in the previous article about Domain-Driven Design aggregates. What I didn’t cover was how to deal with collaborative domains. One way to deal with issues that appear in collaborative domains is to use optimistic concurrency.
We looked at using an aggregate to model our consistency boundaries. In particular, we were creating boundaries around applying changes to a time-sheet in a time-tracking application.
This approach helps us to better reason about and manage our important business rules related to the time-sheet business concept. All other parts of our system have to come through the time-sheet aggregate – just like a gateway.
However, this still doesn’t solve the issue where two concurrent operations on the aggregate – that logically should fail – will both succeed.
Collaborative domains (i.e. domains where resources can be changed by multiple users/clients at the same time) call for more intelligent handling of our business logic.
In our case, we have two operations that are trying to add 8 hours to the time-sheet. The time-sheet is currently at 32 worked hours and should not go over 40 hours (that’s a hard business rule).
So, only one of the two operations should succeed. But, given the standard implementation, they will both succeed.
How do we solve this so our invariant of “time-sheets cannot exceed 40 hours worked” is never broken?
One of the most popular ways to solve this is by using concurrency controls. In other words, some way to block these concurrent writes to the database when the data is out of sync.
One way is to use pessimistic concurrency. This is when we lock the entire resource and only one operation is allowed access at any time.
Kinda like when you open excel and now no one else on the network drive is allowed to modify it 😂.
But, this suffers from poor performance and is, in a way, naive in that we are just “brute force” locking everything.
Optimistic concurrency is somewhat more intelligent and flexible. It also allows for some interesting failure modes too.
This works by allowing each operation to get the current version of the data store. It might be a relational database, document or event sourced. Doesn’t matter.
Then, the version is tested against the data store whenever the aggregate is being written back. If the version is out of sync (i.e. someone else has written to the store while this operation was processing), then we fail the operation.
This allows for an interesting failure mode where the failed operation can just re-try. As long as it’s operation still make sense given the updates in the data store.
How To Implement It?
Event store, for example, has this built-in.
One of the write methods in the .NET client, for example, looks like:
Task<WriteResult> AppendToStreamAsync(string stream, long expectedVersion, params EventData events)
The second parameter is where you tell event store what version you expect to be at. If it’s not at that version, just like in the example above, then you’ll be told by event store.
In relational databases, you might do something like:
UPDATE sometable T SET something = @someDataParam WHERE T.RowVersion = @expectedRowVersionParam
Depending on your database engine, this will return how many rows were affected. If none were affected, then you know that the transaction “failed” in that another operation wrote to the data store before this operation could.
Check out the next article relating to Domain-Driven Design and unit testing!
Are you looking to get more help with applying these concepts to your own team and projects? I can help!