Domain-Driven Design encourages to analyse the domain deeply in a process called Supple Design. In his book (the blue book) and in his talks Eric Evans gives some examples of this process, and in this blog I suggest some sources of inspirations and some recommendations drawn from my practice in order to help about this process.

When a common formalism fits the domain well, you can factor it out and adapt its rules to the domain.

A known formalism can be reused as a ready-made, well understood model.

# Obvious sources of inspiration

## Analysis patterns

It is quite obvious in the book, DDD builds clearly on top of Martin Fowler analysis patterns. The patterns *Knowledge Level* (aka *Meta-Model*), and *Specification* (a *Strategy* used as a predicate) are from Fowler, and Eric Evans mentions using and drawing insight from analysis patterns many times in the book.

Reading analysis patterns helps to appreciate good design; when you’ve read enough analysis patterns, you don’t even have to remember them to be able to improve your modelling skills. In my own experience, I have learnt to look for specific design qualities such as explicitness and traceability in my design as a result of getting used to analysis patterns such as *Phenomenon* or *Observation*.

## Design patterns

Design patterns are another source of inspiration, but usually less relevant to domain modelling. Evans mentions the *Strategy* pattern, also named *Policy* (I rather like using an alternative name to make it clear that we are talking about the domain, not about a technical concerns), and the pattern *Composite*. Evans suggests considering other patterns, not just the GoF patterns, and to see whether they make sense at the domain level.

## Programming paradigms

Eric Evans also mentions that sometimes the domain is naturally well-suited for particular approaches (or paradigms) such as *state machines*, *predicate logic* and *rules engines*. Now the DDD community has already expanded to include *event-driven* as a favourite paradigm, with the Event-Sourcing and CQRS approaches in particular.

On paradigms, my design style has also been strongly influenced by elements of *functional programming,* that I originally learnt from using Apache Commons Collections, together with a increasingly pronounced taste for *immutability*.

# Maths

It is in fact the core job of mathematicians to factor out formal models of everything we experience in the world. As a result it is no surprise we can draw on their work to build deeper models.

## Graph theory

The great benefit of any mathematical model is that it is highly formal, ready with plenty of useful theorems that depend on the set of axioms you can assume. In short, all the body of maths is just work already done for you, ready for you to reuse. To start with a well-known example, used extensively by Eric Evans, let’s consider a bit of graph theory.

If you recognize that your problem is similar (mathematicians would say isomorphic or something like that) to a graph, then you can jump in graph theory and reuse plenty of exciting results, such as how to compute a shortest-path using a Dijkstra or A* algorithm. Going further, the more you know or read about your theory, the more you can reuse: in other words the more lazy you can be!

In his classical example of modelling cargo shipping using Legs or using Stops, Eric Evans, could also refer to the concept of Line Graph, (aka edge-to-vertex dual) which comes with interesting results such as how to convert a graph into its edge-to-vertex dual.

## Trees and nested sets

Other maths concepts common enough include trees and DAG, which come with useful concepts such as the topological sort. Hierarchy containment is another useful concept that appear for instance in every e-commerce catalog. Again, if you recognize the mathematical concept hidden behind your domain, then you can then search for prior knowledge and techniques already devised to manipulate the concept in an easy and correct way, such as how to store that kind of hierarchy into a SQL database.

*Don’t miss the next part: part 2
*

- Maths continued
- General principles