Book Image

Get Your Hands Dirty on Clean Architecture

By : Tom Hombergs
Book Image

Get Your Hands Dirty on Clean Architecture

By: Tom Hombergs

Overview of this book

Building for maintainability is key to keeping development costs low and processes easy. 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. With this comprehensive guide, you’ll explore the drawbacks of conventional layered architecture and the advantages of domain-centric styles such as Robert C. Martin's Clean Architecture and Alistair Cockburn's Hexagonal Architecture. Then, you’ll dive into hands-on explanations on how to convert hexagonal architecture into actual code. You'll learn in detail about different mapping strategies between the layers of hexagonal architecture and discover how to assemble the architectural elements into an application. Additionally, you’ll understand how to enforce architecture boundaries, which 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.
Table of Contents (13 chapters)

It Makes Parallel Work Difficult

Management usually expects us to be done with building the software they sponsor at a certain date. Actually, they even expect us to be done within a certain budget as well, but let's not complicate things here.

Aside from the fact that I have never seen "done" software in my career as a software developer, to be done by a certain date usually implies that we have to work in parallel.

Probably you know this famous conclusion from "The Mythical Man-Month," even if you haven't read the book:

"Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later" – The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering by Frederick P. Brooks, Jr., Addison-Wesley, 1995.

This also holds true, to a degree, to software projects that are not (yet) late. You cannot expect a large group of 50 developers to be 5 times as fast as a smaller team of 10 developers in every context. If they're working on a very large application where and they can split up in sub-teams and work on separate parts of the software, it may work, but in most contexts, they would stand on each other's feet.

But on a healthy scale, we can certainly expect to be faster with more people on the project. And management is right to expect that of us.

To meet this expectation, our architecture must support parallel work. This is not easy. And a layered architecture doesn't really help us here.

Imagine we're adding a new use case to our application. We have three developers available. One can add the needed features to the web layer, one to the domain layer, and the third to the persistence layer, right?

Well, it usually doesn't work that way in a layered architecture. Since everything builds on top of the persistence layer, the persistence layer must be developed first. Then comes the domain layer, and finally the web layer. So, only one developer can work on the feature at the same time.

Ah, but the developers can define interfaces first, you say, and then each developer can work against these interfaces without having to wait for the actual implementation. Sure, this is possible, but only if we're not doing database-driven design, as discussed earlier, where our persistence logic is so mixed up with our domain logic that we just cannot work on each aspect separately.

If we have broad services in our codebase, it may even be hard to work on different features in parallel. Working on different use cases will cause the same service to be edited in parallel, which leads to merge conflicts and, potentially, regressions.