我们应该在 DDD 中使用“按功能打包”结构吗？

Question

After doing some research, I got confirmation that folder-by-feature structure is superior to folder-by-layer structure in the majority of cases. To get some arguments we can read, among others, the following articles or even this answer .

Package by features, not layers
Feature folders vs Tech folders
Package by feature, not layer
Package by Layer for Spring Projects Is Obsolete

However, all the DDD project examples that I found are made with package-by-layer , most of the time following a structure like:

├── application
├── config
├── domain
├── infrastructure
└── interfaces

So my question is: why the DDD community does not follow package-by-feature even if it's apparently superior in the majority of cases?

Should we use package-by-feature with DDD? If so, how to do it?

I mention that I'm not talking about the particular case of micro-service architecture where obviously package-by-layer is more relevant.

Answer 1

My understanding and my vision of this subject is as follows:

Package by feature is about vertical slicing (structuring the source code according to domain concepts) instead of by horizontal layering (structuring according to technical concepts).

But saying "instead of" isn't completely true, since there's a moment when you have to distinguish between those technical concepts. It would be better to say package by feature first, and then package by layer inside each feature.

In strategic DDD, each Bounded Context (BC) is a vertical slice (a whole application, full stack... with UI, application, domain model and infraestructure layers).

Then, inside a BC, tactical DDD promotes packaging the domain model code by business concepts first, and then by technical concepts (tactical patterns). So you have modules (groups of aggregates that are tightly cohesive and loosely coupled), and inside each aggregate you have entities, value objects, factories, repository. The other layers (UI, application, infra) can be structured by modules as well.

So as a summary DDD does follow a mixed approach:

• Packaging by business concepts with different levels of granularity: BCs, modules, aggregates.

• Package by layer inside a BC: UI, application, domain, infraestructure.

PD: this subject (source code structure) is explained in Chapter 9 (Modules) of Vaughn Vernon's book "Implementing DDD".

Answer 2

why the DDD community does not follow package-by-feature

I think you'll find that the good projects do follow package-by-feature.

In examples , you may find that it isn't being followed. The generous interpretation is that the authors are trying to make it easier to recognize the separation of concerns and the directions of the dependency arrows.

Less generously? the authors aren't paying attention, or don't know better.

Should we use package-by-feature with DDD? If so, how to do it?

Yes, and pretty much the same way you would do package-by-feature if you weren't doing DDD. They are orthogonal concerns.

Answer 3

DDD is about domain, so group everything in domain folders . But at the very high level preserve 4 Hexagonal architecture layers . This could be packages for simplicity or best separate modules with strict mutual dependencies (as in Android Instant Apps).

src/main/java
├── UserInterface
│   └── ... (java files)
├── Application
│   ├── OneUseCase.java
│   ├── AnotherUseCase.java
│   └── YetAnotherUseCase.java
├── Domain
│   ├── SubDomain1
│   │   └── ... (java files)
│   ├── SubDomain2
│   │   └── ... (java files)
│   ├── SubDomain3
│   │   └── ... (java files)
│   └── SubDomain3
│       └── ... (java files)
└── Infrastructure
    ├── database
    │   └── ... (java files)
    ├── logging
    │   └── ... (java files)
    └── httpclient
        └── ... (java files)

Here is a a good article wtih clean explanation.