Citation :

Sethu Madhav Vure, "Domain-Driven Design: A Strategic Framework for Composable Commerce Architecture," International Journal of Computer Trends and Technology (IJCTT), vol. 74, no. 8, pp. 28-37, 2026. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.14445/22312803/IJCTT-V74I8P104

Abstract

Domain-Driven Design (henceforth referred to as DDD) is an industry-proven standard to handle large and complex monoliths and decompose them efficiently. This article analyzes the usefulness of DDD to perform this decomposition to align with the composable commerce principles laid down by MACH architecture. A retail platform currently in production for a couple of years that is built using these principles is evaluated to obtain statistical evidence in proving the efficacy of these best practices. The analysis utilized bounded contexts, ubiquitous language and context mapping – the three pillars of DDD and their role in achieving composability. A validation mechanism, “The Replace-It Test”, is also proposed to evaluate boundary integrity. The findings in the article conclude that coupling impact is not defined by the platform selection but instead by the quality of boundary enforcement. It also indicates that strategic DDD is essential to begin building a composable system, while tactical DDD could be applied iteratively.

Keywords

Bounded-Contexts, Composable Architecture, Domain-Driven Design, Domain Events, Ubiquitous-Language.

References

[1] Vaughn Vernon, Implementing Domain-Driven Design, Addison-Wesley Professional, 2013.
[Google Scholar]

[2] Eric Evans, Domain-Driven Design: Tackling Complexity in the Heart of Software, Addison-Wesley, Pearson, 2003.
[Publisher Link]

[3] MACH Alliance, MACH Architecture Principles. [Online]. Available: https://machalliance.org/

[4] Melvin E. Conway, “How do Committees Invent?,” Datamation, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 28-31, 1968.
[Google Scholar]

[5] Matthew Skelton, and Manuel Pais, Team Topologies, 2^nd ed., IT Revolution Press, 2019.
[Publisher Link]

[6] Chris Richardson, Microservices Patterns, Manning Publications, 2018.
[Publisher Link]

[7] Davide Taibi, Valentina Lenarduzzi, and Claus Pahl, “Processes, Motivations, and Issues for Migrating to Microservices Architectures: An Empirical Investigation,” IEEE Cloud Computing, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 22-32, 2017.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]

[8] Ruoyu Su, Xiaozhou Li, and Davide Taibi, “From Microservice to Monolith: A Multivocal Literature Review,” Electronics, vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 1-16, 2024.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]

[9] Diogo Faustino et al., “Stepwise Migration of a Monolith to a Microservices Architecture: Performance and Migration Effort Evaluation,” Performance Evaluation, vol. 164, 2024.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]

[10] Alberto Brandolini, Introducing EventStorming: An Act of Deliberate Collective Sensemaking, Leanpub, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.eventstorming.com/book/

[11] Chenxing Zhong et al., “Domain-Driven Design for Microservices: An Evidence based Investigation,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 1425-1449, 2024.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]

[12] J. Sangabriel-Alarcón et al., “Domain-Driven Design in Microservices-based Systems Development: A Systematic Literature Review and Thematic Analysis,” Programming and Computer Software, vol. 50, no. 8, pp. 742-770, 2024.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]

[13] Uwe Zdun, Elena Navarro, and Frank Leymann, “Ensuring and Assessing Architecture Conformance to Microservice Decomposition Patterns,” Service-Oriented Computing: 15^th International Conference, ICSOC 2017, Malaga, Spain, vol. 10601, pp. 411-429, 2017.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]

[14] Valentina Lenarduzzi et al., “Does Migrating a Monolithic System to Microservices Decrease the Technical Debt?,” Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 169, 2020.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]

[15] Davide Taibi, and Valentina Lenarduzzi, “On the Definition of Microservice Bad Smells,” IEEE Software, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 56-62, 2018.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]

[16] D.L. Parnas, “On the Criteria to be used in Decomposing Systems into Modules,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 15, no. 12, pp. 1053-1058, 1972.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]

[17] Stefan Kapferer, and Olaf Zimmermann, “Domain-Driven Service Design: Context Modeling, Model Refactoring and Contract Generation,” Service-Oriented Computing: 14^th Symposium and Summer School on Service-Oriented Computing, SummerSOC 2020, Crete, Greece, vol. 1310, pp. 189-208, 2020.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]

[18] Sebastiano Panichella, Mohammad Imranur Rahman, and Davide Taibi, “Structural Coupling for Microservices,” Proceedings of the 11^th International Conference on Cloud Computing and Services Science CLOSER, vol. 1, pp. 280-287, 2021.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]

[19] Michale Gysel et al., “Service Cutter: A Systematic Approach to Service Decomposition,” Service-Oriented and Cloud Computing: 5^th IFIP WG 2.14 European Conference, ESOCC 2016, Vienna, Austria, vol. 9846, pp. 185-200, 2016.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]