Data isolation for Modular Monoliths - DB Schemas, EF Core

[@MilanJovanovicTech]

Want to master Clean Architecture? Go here: bit.ly/3PupkOJ Want to unlock Modular Monoliths? Go here: bit.ly/3SXlzSt

[@sweeperq]

Why go through the trouble of making the schema a constant for the migration, only to hard-code it in all the queries?

[@MilanJovanovicTech]

Meh, just wanted to make things explicit for the raw SQL example. All it takes is move the constant one level below, and reuse it.

[@ramytawfik9168]

Milan Please I do not understand the last part of this video , how will you define 2 users one for each schema, one that will have access to the user schema and then another that will have access to the training schema ?

[@MilanJovanovicTech]

Check this: www.milanjovanovic.tech/blog/internal-vs-public-apis-in-modular-monoliths#protecting-your-modules-data

[@kekwonur]

Hi Milan, instead of using different schemas, is there a way to make one schema dynamic and change the schema dynamically while the application is running?

[@MilanJovanovicTech]

You'd have to construct your queries with a dynamic schema

[@alexdefaro]

Hi Milan... Great video... Would you use the same approach if you have different databases for each module?

[@MilanJovanovicTech]

Different SQL database? Using schemas could still make sense.

[@ahmedameen2]

In a real scenario where for example, Orders table contains fields like CreatedBy which is a logical relation to Users.ID would you allow to join between the two different schemas? If not, how will you handle if you need to display orders created by user name?

[@MilanJovanovicTech]

It's fine having a UserId column, and in fact needed. How else would we know who made the order? Simply fetch the related data at runtime and return it to the client.

[@ahmedameen2]

@@MilanJovanovicTech how about storing user name in Orders table and maintain consistency with domain events?

[@danielbahe]

@@ahmedameen2 Domain events are ok, but you are adding complexity, is it worth in your specific case or could be overengineering?

[@Nikegamecentral]

Hello Milan! Thank you very much for your videos! Are you familiar with the actor model of programming? For example, about an application written using Akka? Can you release a video about this? It would be very interesting

[@MilanJovanovicTech]

I think Akka would be interesting, yes :)

[@SajjadKhanTech]

If we have seperate databases per Module then incase while querying we gonna needs to fetch data from a table which is inside anotherr database ??

[@MilanJovanovicTech]

Try not to mix queries from different modules

[@SajjadKhanTech]

@@MilanJovanovicTech Ok Let take one example here milan I have modules like Patient Demographics Appointments Reports In such case, I can make above modules as SubModules under Module Reception . By this, I can have all related tables under one Module. Is that correct ?

[@StjepanPuljko]

I don't know if I'm missing something, but you are using Hangfire for further processing outbox messages? If that is so, Hangfire should already have it's own schema or database, so why don't you just write common integrations service to process outbox messages, since if you are using Hangfire (which is external service) it can't be domain event.

[@MilanJovanovicTech]

Hangfire/Quartz/Hosted service, it's an implementation detail mostly

[@nagibatorbatcka86]

Great video. How about creating video about prometheus or loki ? Can be in combination with Grafana for better data visualization.

[@MilanJovanovicTech]

Going to cover OTel + Aspire first

[@nicholasgueli305]

great video. wouldn't it be better to have one module that handles all the outbox messages? if I have N modules I have N background jobs if performance might decrease.

[@MilanJovanovicTech]

That would introduce coupling, though. Depends on what you want. Also, having one outbox processor would decrease the overall throughput.

[@artemissterio]

Great video 👍 But I still wonder - is there any other option for outbox messages table instead of code duplication?

[@MilanJovanovicTech]

Expanding the abstraction, and passing in the respective schema

[@artemissterio]

@@MilanJovanovicTech How about using only one OutboxMessages table (in public schema, for example) with only one processor?

[@dariuszlenartowicz]

@@artemissterio it's ok too - depends on how modules are busy :)

[@mesutdemirci7933]

Great video ..thanks a lot

[@MilanJovanovicTech]

You are welcome!

[@LCMinato]

Hi Milan, thanks a lot as always for your videos, love them ! I'm interested by your course about the MMA, and I was wondering if you'd consider uploading it on platforms like Udemy ? thanks for helping

[@MilanJovanovicTech]

It won't be coming to Udemy

[@Kasiux]

Arent modular monoliths just monoliths but with good system design?

[@MilanJovanovicTech]

Kind of: www.milanjovanovic.tech/blog/what-is-a-modular-monolith