I came into the conference really looking forward to this one and overall I thought it was a really valuable talk! It's a tough, dry, abstract subject and I thought you did a good job navigating all that and getting the message across. I know that whenever I'm trying to tell someone why interfaces are good (for example) I find myself rambling and soon their eyes glaze.
So the main takeaway for me was the idea of keeping the app organization clear: Core Domain => Application => Framework => "Outside", and using interfaces to delineate the boundaries between those three things. It was a bit unclear how the CommandBus stuff ties into this directly, other than being one of potentially many methods for achieving that separation.
I'd still like to know what is meant by "hexagonal." Not joking here - there were pictures of hexagons but I just don't get why that particular shape is invoked.
Room for improvement? It's an abstract subject, so maybe it would be good to see more real-world, concrete examples / case studies. It's also a pretty dry subject, so more jokes would help bring people along! That's about it.
Lucky for me Patrick Noonan @devopat wrote out my exact feelings about this talk. I think it was little overly ambitious for the timeframe available. Chris did a good job tackling the topic, and he clearly presented a case for keeping application layers separate, but maybe get a longer time slot or pare down the information included. Btw, I kept thinking of The Octagon, a Chuck Norris B-grade movie from when I was a kid, which popularized ninja. Seems like a possible humorous tie-in.
Really good stuff. Perhaps because I'm also working down this path I would have loved to see some tactical application, but I got a lot of validation out of the presentation and picked up a few nuances that I had missed as well.
I felt this was one of my favorite subjects of the conference. I really attended Laracon for talks such as this. The explanation of the different aspects / boundaries of an application was very helpful. Chris did a good job with a hard to explain subject. Though, I think something like this should have a longer spot with live-coding and real use cases.
I felt this was one of my favorite subjects of the conference. I really attended Laracon for talks such as this. The explanation of the different aspects / boundaries of an application was very helpful. Chris did a good job with a hard to explain subject. Though, I think something like this should have a longer spot with live-coding and real use cases.
This talk needs a lot of work. The content was entirely dependent on a single diagram that was brought up throughout which was never fully explained or put to use. As others have said, what does hexagonal even mean? The command bus slides seem thrown in on a whim, and had no real tie-in to the over all talk. The subject matter is abstract, dry and is quite low-impact as far as the average developer trying to improve themselves or their code. The topic and the way it was explained does not lend itself to being used in the real world. A decent thought exercise at best.
Interesting presentation, but I had trouble following some of the "why." What does an architecture like this give me? It could just be that it was there and I missed it, though.
Comments
Comments are closed.
I came into the conference really looking forward to this one and overall I thought it was a really valuable talk! It's a tough, dry, abstract subject and I thought you did a good job navigating all that and getting the message across. I know that whenever I'm trying to tell someone why interfaces are good (for example) I find myself rambling and soon their eyes glaze.
So the main takeaway for me was the idea of keeping the app organization clear: Core Domain => Application => Framework => "Outside", and using interfaces to delineate the boundaries between those three things. It was a bit unclear how the CommandBus stuff ties into this directly, other than being one of potentially many methods for achieving that separation.
I'd still like to know what is meant by "hexagonal." Not joking here - there were pictures of hexagons but I just don't get why that particular shape is invoked.
Room for improvement? It's an abstract subject, so maybe it would be good to see more real-world, concrete examples / case studies. It's also a pretty dry subject, so more jokes would help bring people along! That's about it.
Thanks for the talk!
Lucky for me Patrick Noonan @devopat wrote out my exact feelings about this talk. I think it was little overly ambitious for the timeframe available. Chris did a good job tackling the topic, and he clearly presented a case for keeping application layers separate, but maybe get a longer time slot or pare down the information included. Btw, I kept thinking of The Octagon, a Chuck Norris B-grade movie from when I was a kid, which popularized ninja. Seems like a possible humorous tie-in.
I'm sad that people doesn't even give credit to the author/inventor of this architecture
Really good stuff. Perhaps because I'm also working down this path I would have loved to see some tactical application, but I got a lot of validation out of the presentation and picked up a few nuances that I had missed as well.
I felt this was one of my favorite subjects of the conference. I really attended Laracon for talks such as this. The explanation of the different aspects / boundaries of an application was very helpful. Chris did a good job with a hard to explain subject. Though, I think something like this should have a longer spot with live-coding and real use cases.
I felt this was one of my favorite subjects of the conference. I really attended Laracon for talks such as this. The explanation of the different aspects / boundaries of an application was very helpful. Chris did a good job with a hard to explain subject. Though, I think something like this should have a longer spot with live-coding and real use cases.
Wasn't at the conference, but looking forward to watching the video of this talk when it goes up.
This talk needs a lot of work. The content was entirely dependent on a single diagram that was brought up throughout which was never fully explained or put to use. As others have said, what does hexagonal even mean? The command bus slides seem thrown in on a whim, and had no real tie-in to the over all talk. The subject matter is abstract, dry and is quite low-impact as far as the average developer trying to improve themselves or their code. The topic and the way it was explained does not lend itself to being used in the real world. A decent thought exercise at best.
Interesting presentation, but I had trouble following some of the "why." What does an architecture like this give me? It could just be that it was there and I missed it, though.