Real life experience with the Axon Framework [closed]
Solution 1:
The framework relies heavily on eventsourcing, which means that all state changes are >written to the data store as events. "
This is completely untrue, it does not rely heavily on event-sourcing. One of the implementations for storing the aggregate in this framework use Event-Sourcing but you can easily use also the classes provided to use a standard relational model.
It is just better with event-sourcing.
So you have a historical reference of all your data. This is nice but makes changing your >domain after you've gone in production a very daunting proposition especially if you sold >the customer on the system's "strong auditability" "
I don't think it is a lot easier with a standard relational model that only stores the current state.
The framework encourages denormalizing your data, to the point that some have suggested >having a table per view in the application. This makes your application extremely >difficult to maintain, especially when the original developers are gone"
This is unrelated to the framework but to the architectural pattern in use (CQRS). And sorry to mention that but having one denormalizer/view is a good idea as it stays a simple object.
So maintenance is easy because SQL request/insertion as also easy. So this argument is not very strong. How about a view which uses a 1000 tables model with inner joins everywhere and complex SQL queries?
Again, CQRS helps because, basically, the view data is just a SELECT * from the table which correspond to the view.
if somehow you made a mistake in one of the eventhandlers, your only option is to >"replay" the eventlog, which depending on the size of your data can take a very long >time. The tooling for this however is non-existent.
I agree on the point that currently there is a lack of tooling to replay events and that this can take a long time. However, it is theoretically possible to only replay a portion of the event and not all the content of the event store.
Replaying can have side effects, so >developers become scared of doing it
Replaying event have side effects -> that's untrue. For me side effects means modifying the state of the system. In an event-sourced CQRS application, the state is stored in the event-store. Replaying the events does not modify the event store. You can have side effect on the query side of the model yes. But you don't care if you have made a mistake because you are still able to correct it and replay the event once again.
it's extremely easy to have developers mess up using this framework. if they don't store >changes to domain objects in events, next time you replay your events you are in for a >surprise.
Well if you misused and misunderstand the architecture, the concept, etc. then ok I agree with you. But perhaps the problem is not the framework here.
Should you store delta's ? absolute values ? if you don't keep tabs on your developers >you are bound to end up with both and you will be f***ed
I can say that for every system I would say that it's unrelated directly to the framework itself. It's like saying, "Java is crap because you can messed up everything if someone codes a bad implementation of hashCode and equals methods."
And for the last part of your comment, I already seen samples like helloWorld with the Spring framework. Of course it is completely useless in a simple example.
Be careful in your comment to make a difference between the concept (CQRS + EventSourcing) and the framework. Make a difference please.
Solution 2:
Since you have stated that you want to use CQRS for your project (and I assume that the JVM is your target platform) I think Axon Framework is an excellent choice.
I have built a fairly complex trading platform on it (no, the trading sample is not complex) and I have not seen any obvious flaws of the framework.
Since I use EventSourcing, the test fixtures made it very easy to write BDD style "given, when, then" tests. This lets you treat an aggregate as a black box and concentrate on checking that the correct set of events come out when you put in a certain command.
About pitfalls: before jumping in, make sure
- That you have the concepts of CQRS figured out.
- Make a list (paper, whiteboard, whatever) of all your aggregates, command handlers, event handlers, sagas, commands and events. This is the hard part of building your system, figuring out what it should do and how. After this, the reference manual should show you how to wire it all together with Axon.
Some non Axon specific points:
Being able to rebuild the view store from events is a concept of EventSourcing, and not something that is exclusive to Axon, but I found it pretty easy to create a service that will send me all events from an aggregate type, aggregate id or a certain event type.
Being able to build a new reporting component one year after the project is launched and instantly get reports on data from the time of the project launch and onwards is awesome.
Solution 3:
I've been using AxonFramework for more than one year on a complex project developed for a big bank.
The requirements were demanding, customer's expectations were high, and release times narrow.
I've choosed AxonFramework because, at the project kick off moment, it was the most complete and the best documented implementation of CQRS available in Java, well designed, easy to integrate, to test and to extend.
After more than one year I think that these considerations are still valid and current.
Another consideration has guided my choice: I wanted that the commitment on such a difficult project to become a training opportunity for me and other members of the team.
We started to develop with AxonFramework version 1.0 and moved to version 1.4 as newer versions were released.
Our team experience with CQRS and the implementation provided by the AxonFramework was absolutely positive.
It provided us with a consistent and uniform manner to develop each feature that guided us and make you feel at ease.
Without it some features of the application would have been much more complicated to develop. I am referring mainly to the various long-running processes that need to be handled and to the related compensation logic, but also to the many business logics pieces that have been necessary, here and there, that fitted nicely and uncoupled in the event driven architecture promoted by CQRS.
Our choice was to be conservative in the write model, so we preferred a JPA based persistence instead of the event sourced one.
The query model is made up of views. We have tried to make sure that each view contains all the required data from a single page using intermediate views when necessary.
Anyhow we developed the write model as we were applying event sourcing, so we take care of modifying the state of aggregates exclusively through events. When the customer asked for a cloning function of a very complex aggregate it was just a matter of replaying the source events (with uuid translated) to a brand new instance - the down side in this case have been the events upcasting (but this functionality was greatly improved in the imminent 2.0 version).
As in each project during the development we found a lot of bugs, in our code mainly, but also in components supposed to be mature and stable, like the application server, the IoC container, the cache, the workflow engine and some of the other libraries that are easily to be found in any large J2EE application.
As any other human product AxonFramework was not immune to bugs too, but surprisingly for a young and niche project like this, they have been few, not critical, and quickly resolved by new releases.
The kind and immediate support provided by the author on the mailing list is another invaluable feature and helped me a lot when I was in trouble.
The application was released in production a year ago and is currently maintained and under active development of new features.
The customer is satisfied and asks for more.
When to use AxonFramework is more a matter of when to use CQRS. For a response it's worth to go back to the official documentation: http://www.axonframework.org/docs/1.4/introduction.html#d4e51
In our case definitively it was worth it.