Book Image

Get Your Hands Dirty on Clean Architecture - Second Edition

By : Tom Hombergs
4 (1)
Book Image

Get Your Hands Dirty on Clean Architecture - Second Edition

4 (1)
By: Tom Hombergs

Overview of this book

Building for maintainability is key to keep development costs low (and developers happy). The second edition of "Get Your Hands Dirty on Clean Architecture" is here to equip you with the essential skills and knowledge to build maintainable software. Building upon the success of the first edition, this comprehensive guide explores the drawbacks of conventional layered architecture and highlights the advantages of domain-centric styles such as Robert C. Martin's Clean Architecture and Alistair Cockburn's Hexagonal Architecture. Then, the book dives into hands-on chapters that show you how to manifest a Hexagonal Architecture in actual code. You'll learn in detail about different mapping strategies between the layers of a Hexagonal Architecture and see how to assemble the architecture elements into an application. The later chapters demonstrate how to enforce architecture boundaries, what shortcuts produce what types of technical debt, and how, sometimes, it is a good idea to willingly take on those debts. By the end of this second edition, you'll be armed with a deep understanding of the Hexagonal Architecture style and be ready to create maintainable web applications that save money and time. Whether you're a seasoned developer or a newcomer to the field, "Get Your Hands Dirty on Clean Architecture" will empower you to take your software architecture skills to new heights and build applications that stand the test of time.
Table of Contents (18 chapters)

Mapping between Boundaries

In the previous chapters, we’ve discussed the web, application, domain, and persistence layers and what each of those layers contributes to implementing a use case.

We have, however, barely touched on the dreaded and omnipresent topic of mapping between the models of each layer. I bet you’ve had a discussion at some point about whether to use the same model in two layers in order to avoid implementing a mapper.

The argument might have gone something like this:

Pro-mapping developer:

If we don’t map between layers, we have to use the same model in both layers, which means that the layers will be tightly coupled!

Contra-mapping developer:

But if we do map between layers, we produce a lot of boilerplate code, which is overkill for many use cases since they’re only doing CRUD and have the same model across layers anyways!

As is often the case in discussions such as this, there’...