Skip to main content
Software Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

4
  • I wouldn't say "by definition". I agree that it is commonly the case, but not exclusively so. Some data entities might be hidden from the domain by intention, e.g. audit logs. As a simple example, maybe the DAL secretly records any changes made to the database, but the domain never reads those records and therefore has no need for an aggregate to represent them - even though the DAL does need the entity itself in order to create the records. Commented Jun 14, 2021 at 12:45
  • 1
    Well, I said 'by definition' intentionally. Because in DDD an Entity is something whose lifecycle we care about. It will have to change. Audit logs are not a good example for entities, actually, I hope they're immutable. If you find yourself just modelling around data structures... maybe that's not the best place or the best angle to tackle DDD. Commented Jun 14, 2021 at 16:49
  • Thank you. I'd be curious as to where this is defined because I Googled this and didn't find a statement like the one you made. Commented Jun 15, 2021 at 9:08
  • I think it boils down to the "Blue Book" where the Tactical Patterns are defined. Please keep in mind that the tactical patterns are not intended to be a finite set (i.e. Commands and Domain Events were not part of the original formulation), and that different tools can have different meanings for the same term. What may be an 'Entity' for your ORM isn't necessarily an Entity in DDD terms. Commented Jun 17, 2021 at 6:09