if yes then leave these parts in one unit and if not this is the responsibility of someone else or the system itself then separate them and use eventual consistency. Unfortunately although the latest recommendation made the general situation a little easier it did not fundamentally change anything it is the business that determines how to divide data between aggregates where it is necessary to use eventual consistency and where sagas. whether we have sagas and how many of them the developers themselves almost do not control.
This approach to work
This approach inevitably leads to the fact that the number of uses of eventual consistency in a project increases by orders of magnitude and many of them will nee to be implemente as a saga longrunning transaction . Yes there will not always be a nee for a saga in some Laos WhatsApp Number Data cases subsequent steps in principle cannot fail and we can do with ordinary eventual consistency without sagas. The bad thing is that whether we can do without sagas is determine by business requirements not by developers so sooner or later sagas will be require and this may not happen in the most obvious way.
Consistency between these parts
When a new feature requires adding a new step to an existing eventual consistency chain which unlike the previous ones may fail in such a situation it is easy to miss the nee to transform the entire chain steps into the saga with the implementation of the logic of compensation Lithuania Phone Number List for all previous steps. And the more sagas there are in the project the greater the number of situations when the implementation of the next steps of the saga may fail. Failure will require a n of previous steps… and this is where the key problem lies the logic that implements the compensation of the saga steps is almost impossible to write and maintain correct.
