100 lines
No EOL
5.1 KiB
JSON
100 lines
No EOL
5.1 KiB
JSON
{
|
|
"uuid": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "db312e00-7a9d-492d-a6db-7298848e06b2"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"langcode": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "en"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"type": [
|
|
{
|
|
"target_id": "daily_email",
|
|
"target_type": "node_type",
|
|
"target_uuid": "8bde1f2f-eef9-4f2d-ae9c-96921f8193d7"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"revision_timestamp": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "2025-05-11T09:00:22+00:00"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"revision_uid": [
|
|
{
|
|
"target_type": "user",
|
|
"target_uuid": "b8966985-d4b2-42a7-a319-2e94ccfbb849"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"revision_log": [],
|
|
"status": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": true
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"uid": [
|
|
{
|
|
"target_type": "user",
|
|
"target_uuid": "b8966985-d4b2-42a7-a319-2e94ccfbb849"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"title": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "Defining Ubiquitous language"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"created": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "2024-01-24T00:00:00+00:00"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"changed": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "2025-05-11T09:00:22+00:00"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"promote": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": false
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"sticky": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": false
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"default_langcode": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": true
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"revision_translation_affected": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": true
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"path": [
|
|
{
|
|
"alias": "\/daily\/2024\/01\/24\/defining-ubiquitous-language",
|
|
"langcode": "en"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"body": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "\n <p>A key takeaway from Rob Allen's Domain-Driven Design talk was defining ubiquitous language and avoiding the phrase \"That's not what I meant\".<\/p>\n\n<p>Even a simple table or glossary that lists business and domain-specific terms and their agreed meaning is very helpful to ensure everyone in the discussion is on the same page and means the same thing.<\/p>\n\n<p>Rob's example was using the words \"policy\" and \"risk\" when dealing with insurance clients.<\/p>\n\n<p>A common issue I've seen is where people are referred to as customers by the business and users within the software.<\/p>\n\n<p>Ideally, these should be consistent, and the code should match the business terminology.<\/p>\n\n<p>This can be complicated further by different areas of the business, such as a marketing team that may refer to people as subscribers.<\/p>\n\n<p>Without the ubiquitous language being defined, the requirements are more likely to be misunderstood and the wrong solution delivered, resulting in \"that's not what I meant.\".<\/p>\n\n<p>This then means the work needs to be re-done and delayed, which can be expensive and time-consuming.<\/p>\n\n<p>Another approach is to work in small batches, which is something I've written about before, and getting feedback from customers as early and often as possible so, if there is a misunderstanding, the minimum amount of time has been spent before it's realised and rectified.<\/p>\n\n<p>Rob, of course, covered a lot more about DDD in his talk, and I'm looking forward to re-watching it once the video from the meetup is released.<\/p>\n\n ",
|
|
"format": "full_html",
|
|
"processed": "\n <p>A key takeaway from Rob Allen's Domain-Driven Design talk was defining ubiquitous language and avoiding the phrase \"That's not what I meant\".<\/p>\n\n<p>Even a simple table or glossary that lists business and domain-specific terms and their agreed meaning is very helpful to ensure everyone in the discussion is on the same page and means the same thing.<\/p>\n\n<p>Rob's example was using the words \"policy\" and \"risk\" when dealing with insurance clients.<\/p>\n\n<p>A common issue I've seen is where people are referred to as customers by the business and users within the software.<\/p>\n\n<p>Ideally, these should be consistent, and the code should match the business terminology.<\/p>\n\n<p>This can be complicated further by different areas of the business, such as a marketing team that may refer to people as subscribers.<\/p>\n\n<p>Without the ubiquitous language being defined, the requirements are more likely to be misunderstood and the wrong solution delivered, resulting in \"that's not what I meant.\".<\/p>\n\n<p>This then means the work needs to be re-done and delayed, which can be expensive and time-consuming.<\/p>\n\n<p>Another approach is to work in small batches, which is something I've written about before, and getting feedback from customers as early and often as possible so, if there is a misunderstanding, the minimum amount of time has been spent before it's realised and rectified.<\/p>\n\n<p>Rob, of course, covered a lot more about DDD in his talk, and I'm looking forward to re-watching it once the video from the meetup is released.<\/p>\n\n ",
|
|
"summary": null
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"feeds_item": [
|
|
{
|
|
"imported": "1970-01-01T00:33:45+00:00",
|
|
"guid": null,
|
|
"hash": "bbd5da09465e121b021023b291b56bcd",
|
|
"target_type": "feeds_feed",
|
|
"target_uuid": "90c85284-7ca8-4074-9178-97ff8384fe76"
|
|
}
|
|
]
|
|
} |