Tech'n bolts home about archive // tbd-in-practice ddd // (drafts)
{ version:1.3, what:["java", "scala", "nosql", "amqp", "programing", "functional", "[t|b|d]dd", ...] }

Twitter quotes: Business Components versus Bounded Contexts

— Last updated 2012/02/15

Twitter exchange on “Business Components versus Bounded Contexts” after the blog post: Udi & Greg Reach CQRS Agreement

Eric Evans

thinkb4coding / jeppec

@thinkb4coding Seems you have the hands down on Business Components versus Bounded Contexts. Can you clarify on… — (tweet)


@jeppec it’s true Thar there’s few words about bizcomp on the blogs for now — (tweet)

@jeppec from my experience BCtx contains several smaller services that represent Business units that are impl separately — (tweet)

@jeppec this are the business components, that have different users, dev/deployment lifecycles.. — (tweet)

@jeppec it’s a level between bounded context and aggregates. They group services that work together to provide a business unit — (tweet)

@jeppec the c/q segregation happens at this level. Neither at the top level, neither at the bounded ctx level. It’s too large — (tweet)


@thinkb4coding that sounds reasonable and I think most CQRS users do this. But when did the business component term get defined? — (tweet)

@thinkb4coding Such as Usecase specific services (eg. different clients/users might have special needs/flows). Makes sense? — (tweet)


@jeppec yep. I think udi talks about it in his course. — (tweet)


Udi Dahan

Fork me on GitHub