Only one userowner can change a specific unit manually through the UI. Or it creates problems but they are ignore or even not known about them at all due to insufficient monitoring. Support for compensation is not implemente at all to the point that where there should be a saga simply eventual consistency is use or it is implemente too simplifie not correct enough. As long as everything works according to happy flow there will be no problems because of this. And when something breaks it is far from a fact that they will quickly find out about it again a question of monitoring.
lass makes it more reliable
Not quickly it will look like this many months after the problem has arisen oh look theres some garbage here in the database… this shouldnt happen in principle… theres probably a bug somewhere… but I dont know where we are all We still wont find out who corrupte the data Mexico WhatsApp Number Data and why months ago so to hell with it How do nonDDD projects usually deal with this problem If we take a typical microservices project in which the connections between microservices are designe following strategic DDD patterns but the implementation of the microservices themselves does not follow tactical DDD patterns then usually such projects try to be designe in such a way as to reuce the nee for in the sagas.
Use caseIt happens that VN is use
To do this in such projects the transaction boundary passes through the microservice Bounde Context and not the aggregate . Only registere users can participate in the survey. Come in please. Does your DDD project have Simple Bounde Context the implementation Mexico Phone Number List of which could easily be done without the use of tactical DDD patterns thirty Large units that according to DDD recommendations should be divide into several thirty Eventual consistency within one Bounde Context Sagas longrunning transactions with manual implementation of compensation logic within one Bounde Context.
