Skip to main content
Software Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

7
  • Thanks. This is what I was thinking when I asked the question. On that basis I think that code first is "better" than database first from a DDD perspective. You can just map to the Domain Objects directly. Have I understood you correctly? Commented Aug 3, 2017 at 19:34
  • Yes. But the line between CF and DBF is blurred. As I commented, we still may end up coding POCOS with both approaches. If you are going with CF, model as there were no persistence. Focus on the logic first. Later, follow CF conventions for persisting what should be persisted. Commented Aug 3, 2017 at 19:38
  • Are you saying with a CF approach then you just map EF to domain objects? Commented Aug 3, 2017 at 19:55
  • Nop. I'm saying do model as there were no EF at all. Be pure DDD. Later decide what data of the model need to be persisted. Finally, look at the CF conventions to make the persistence you need possible. For CF, the persistence are mere implementation details. Commented Aug 3, 2017 at 20:00
  • So are you saying; map to the EF classes and then the domain classes? Thanks. Commented Aug 3, 2017 at 20:36