Comments on: CQRS is not an option. It is a must-have http://simon-says-architecture.com/2010/02/16/cqrs-is-not-an-option-it-is-a-must-have/ Szymon Pobiega about software engineering and architecture Fri, 03 Feb 2012 10:29:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Chris Nicola http://simon-says-architecture.com/2010/02/16/cqrs-is-not-an-option-it-is-a-must-have/comment-page-1/#comment-933 Chris Nicola Sun, 22 Aug 2010 17:20:02 +0000 http://simon-says-architecture.com/?p=422#comment-933 Well, put. I've seen a number of people cite the additional complexity of CQRS as their reason for avoiding the pattern (which they often see as an architecture and not a pattern). While some agree CQRS is valuable they believe it is too complex and difficult to apply and most scenarios don't warrant this overhead in complexity. In my opinion, an my own experience, CQRS increases the simplicity and maintainability of a design. By seperating these concerns we gain much more fine grained control. Where CQRS becomes more complex is when DDD (or DDDD in this case) is applied. In that case YMMV and if you don't feel the situation is complex enough to warrant it then don't use it. However CQRS does make applying DDD far simpler (in fact I would go as far as to argue it is nearly impossible to do DDD well without CQRS). Well, put. I’ve seen a number of people cite the additional complexity of CQRS as their reason for avoiding the pattern (which they often see as an architecture and not a pattern). While some agree CQRS is valuable they believe it is too complex and difficult to apply and most scenarios don’t warrant this overhead in complexity.

In my opinion, an my own experience, CQRS increases the simplicity and maintainability of a design. By seperating these concerns we gain much more fine grained control.

Where CQRS becomes more complex is when DDD (or DDDD in this case) is applied. In that case YMMV and if you don’t feel the situation is complex enough to warrant it then don’t use it. However CQRS does make applying DDD far simpler (in fact I would go as far as to argue it is nearly impossible to do DDD well without CQRS).

]]>