> domain ignorance. I suppose I crave simplicity in code, with as little magic as possible, and with as few maddening descents into "not-invented-here" coding

> domain ignorance. I suppose I crave simplicity in code, with as little magic as possible, and with as few maddening descents into "not-invented-here" coding adventures when open source modules and frameworks exist that could do the job. My use of the word "clean" refers to Uncle Bob's definition of clean code, not some scientology thing. He preaches the necessity of writing well-tested, high quality code via TDD. You mentioned SOLID earlier, which is another Uncle Bob-ism, and I figured you would get the clean reference. Not Uncle Bob's, but YAGNI's another acronym he likes to throw out there - YAGNI comes to mind whenever CQRS is mentioned. I bet YAGNI would be your worst nightmare if anyone around you had the courage to utter it. Are you a bully or do you just have no scope control on your projects from your business? Hey coworkers of bonesss, challenge everything this guy says with 'YAGNI', and see how he reacts! Yeah, so anyways as I said in my other reply let's see your large scale code example that necessitates CQRS. Impress me with the high quality design and implementation, I'll do a code review. > At scale, under load, while supporting multiple N-tiered applications and their accordant services, unified domain models break down. Aggregate boundaries map these epistemological distinctions. I mean, I get it, you're talking about DDD. You've got context-bounded models. I've explored all this for over a decade. I apply the concepts daily (as mandated by our architecture, not my choice.) In the SOA days we had canonical models that are exposed on the service interfaces and domain-specific models that were representative of data coming from data sources or were internal application specifics and we always mediated between the models. It's nothing special. I sometimes think, if we all talked a little more we could make our terminology more consistent - but I get it, there's domains and different definitions and types will get mapped. What you wrote is too pendantic, though. Epistemological! You're writing web apps, c'mon you are killing me!