[sb8244]

> it becomes folly to think that CQRS can be distilled into a library

Sincerely curious about this statement. I understand that CQRS is an architectural pattern, but couldn't a library implement that architecture and then provide ways for you to implement into that architecture? You don't get to pick the architecture nuances at that point, though.

[Terr_]

IMO it's a bit like talking about a "Facade Framework".

Using facades to encapsulate multiple complex objects behind a simpler interface may be an important of your overall design, but even if you use them it a lot you probably don't need (or want) to build a "Facade Framework" that lets you instantly define new ones with a few lines of meta-code.

Any code you make for reuse by other people is going to contain something more in order to have value to them. For example, "A Facade library for dealing with various cloud services".

Relating it back to CRQS, compare "CQRS Framework" to "A CQRS framework for command-line applications" or "A CQRS framework for websites". The CQRS-ness is a quality that can't stand just on its own.

[karmajunkie]

At its most basic level, CQRS is frankly too simple to take on a dependency as a cornerstone of a project. You can write a single base class that handles all of the responsibilities needed. Its NOT an architecture—its an architectural tool.

[kellyleahy]

Agreed. This is so true. I've never ended up with a "library" for doing this. At my previous employer we had three different CQRS-based systems and two of the three of them even had completely different implementations for 90% of the CQRS infrastructure. They are both successful implementations and there was no need to share that bit of the code, as the two teams doing things came to different conclusions on how they wanted to write their CQRS code. The only thing we shared was the event store and some of the minor things on top of the event store.