Real life experience with the Axon Framework [closed]

Answer 1

The OP specifically asks about the pitfalls relating to the Axon Framework rather than CQRS. This makes the question difficult to answer, as Axon started as a fairly faithful implementation of the famous book by Eric Evans

The main advantage is that it does exactly what it says on the tin: it handles the hard parts of a CQRS based design for you: aggregates, sagas, event sourcing, command handlers, event handlers, BASE consistency etc. When you follow the best practices, you end up with a highly responsive and horizontally scalable application. If you use it with event sourcing, your data is completely auditable, and at least in theory, you can determine the state your application had at any given point in time. Tooling to do this is not provided; you will have to roll your own.

The main developer of the framework is very approachable and extremely knowledgeable on the subject of high performance and scalable computing in java. He tends to answer every question on the mailing list within a few hours. This is both an advantage and the major pitfall: at this time (early 2014), the Axon Framework depends heavily on one person. The rest of the pitfalls I would like to mention are probably more the result of event sourcing than of CQRS or Axon (as of 2018 the framework is supported by the company Axoniq)

Design your data model very carefully upfront. Though it is easy to add to, making fundamental changes to your datamodel can be very difficult. If you make a fundamental mistake in the datamodel, your application may not perform well, or even fail to work at all. For example, if you choose a tree shaped data model, with one long lived aggregate root at the top, this aggregate may grow very large as it accrues more and more events over time, and it may take a long time to load and store. I don't know what will happen if this goes on until an instance of the aggregate no longer fits in RAM, but I imagine could be bad. Don't do it that way.

Another pitfall (event sourcing related) is that, after a number of revisions, it can become increasingly difficult to reason about the state of an aggregate, as you sometimes have to keep in mind not only what the code does today, but also what it did in the past. This definitely makes replaying (a portion of) the event store to rebuild a view table a non trivial task.

Fixing data errors can be more difficult than with a 'traditional' design. Rather than a simple SQL statement, you will often need to make a command to change the state of your application. If the error in your data was caused by a faulty event handler, you can usually just fix the bug, clear the snapshots and let he events for the aggregate be replayed. If your bug caused spurious events to be applied, it can me much more trouble to fix. The faulty events will stay in the event store, and you may have to apply some new ones to restore your data to the correct state, or change the code to ignore or fix their behaviour.

Answer 2

I've been using AxonFramework for more than one year on a complex project developed for a big bank.

The requirements were demanding, customer's expectations were high, and release times narrow.

I've choosed AxonFramework because, at the project kick off moment, it was the most complete and the best documented implementation of CQRS available in Java, well designed, easy to integrate, to test and to extend.
After more than one year I think that these considerations are still valid and current.

Another consideration has guided my choice: I wanted that the commitment on such a difficult project to become a training opportunity for me and other members of the team.

We started to develop with AxonFramework version 1.0 and moved to version 1.4 as newer versions were released.

Our team experience with CQRS and the implementation provided by the AxonFramework was absolutely positive.

It provided us with a consistent and uniform manner to develop each feature that guided us and make you feel at ease.

Without it some features of the application would have been much more complicated to develop. I am referring mainly to the various long-running processes that need to be handled and to the related compensation logic, but also to the many business logics pieces that have been necessary, here and there, that fitted nicely and uncoupled in the event driven architecture promoted by CQRS.

Our choice was to be conservative in the write model, so we preferred a JPA based persistence instead of the event sourced one.

The query model is made up of views. We have tried to make sure that each view contains all the required data from a single page using intermediate views when necessary.

Anyhow we developed the write model as we were applying event sourcing, so we take care of modifying the state of aggregates exclusively through events. When the customer asked for a cloning function of a very complex aggregate it was just a matter of replaying the source events (with uuid translated) to a brand new instance - the down side in this case have been the events upcasting (but this functionality was greatly improved in the imminent 2.0 version).

As in each project during the development we found a lot of bugs, in our code mainly, but also in components supposed to be mature and stable, like the application server, the IoC container, the cache, the workflow engine and some of the other libraries that are easily to be found in any large J2EE application.

As any other human product AxonFramework was not immune to bugs too, but surprisingly for a young and niche project like this, they have been few, not critical, and quickly resolved by new releases.

The kind and immediate support provided by the author on the mailing list is another invaluable feature and helped me a lot when I was in trouble.

The application was released in production a year ago and is currently maintained and under active development of new features.

The customer is satisfied and asks for more.

When to use AxonFramework is more a matter of when to use CQRS. For a response it's worth to go back to the official documentation: http://www.axonframework.org/docs/1.4/introduction.html#d4e51

In our case definitively it was worth it.

Answer 3

Since you have stated that you want to use CQRS for your project (and I assume that the JVM is your target platform) I think Axon Framework is an excellent choice.

I have built a fairly complex trading platform on it (no, the trading sample is not complex) and I have not seen any obvious flaws of the framework.

Since I use EventSourcing, the test fixtures made it very easy to write BDD style "given, when, then" tests. This lets you treat an aggregate as a black box and concentrate on checking that the correct set of events come out when you put in a certain command.

About pitfalls: before jumping in, make sure

1. That you have the concepts of CQRS figured out.
2. Make a list (paper, whiteboard, whatever) of all your aggregates, command handlers, event handlers, sagas, commands and events. This is the hard part of building your system, figuring out what it should do and how. After this, the reference manual should show you how to wire it all together with Axon.

Some non Axon specific points:

Being able to rebuild the view store from events is a concept of EventSourcing, and not something that is exclusive to Axon, but I found it pretty easy to create a service that will send me all events from an aggregate type, aggregate id or a certain event type.

Being able to build a new reporting component one year after the project is launched and instantly get reports on data from the time of the project launch and onwards is awesome.

Answer 4

I am currently with a team working on an online casino platform launching our brand Casumo this summer. The domain and platform is build using Axon Framework and so far it it has served us solidly.

A lot of time has been saved not having to build all the infrastructure needed for command handling, event routing, event sourcing, snapshoting etc and the APIs are really nice to work with. The one bug we found in the framework so far was fixed in .. release 12 hours later and Allard is always quick to take suggestions on new features and discussing ways to leverage the framework to fulfill your needs.

Answer 5

While the framework itself is written decent enough, using it in a real world project has been nothing short of a nightmare and the choice of this framework imo was a major contributing factor to this project's failing.

The framework relies heavily on eventsourcing, which means that all state changes are written to the data store as events. So you have a historical reference of all your data. This is nice but makes changing your domain after you've gone in production a very daunting proposition especially if you sold the customer on the system's "strong auditability"

You cannot have ops guys make ad-hoc changes to the database

The framework encourages denormalizing your data, to the point that some have suggested having a table per view in the application. This makes your application extremely difficult to maintain, especially when the original developers are gone

if somehow you made a mistake in one of the eventhandlers, your only option is to "replay" the eventlog, which depending on the size of your data can take a very long time. The tooling for this however is non-existent. Replaying can have side effects, so developers become scared of doing it

it's extremely easy to have developers mess up using this framework. if they don't store changes to domain objects in events, next time you replay your events you are in for a surprise. Should you store delta's ? absolute values ? if you don't keep tabs on your developers you are bound to end up with both and you will be f***ed

There is practically no adoption of this framework, so googling for answers will not do you any good

Even though the framework does not yet support distribution it's written with it in mind and the api's are a pain to work with because of it. Firing off an event is async by default and if you want to check if an exception was raised executing the command, say a duplicate username exception, you need to pass in a listener to your commandhandler which is a future, then you wait for the future's result to come in, handle any checked exceptions, interuptedexception etc and then you can grab the exception that was thrown from the future. Ofcourse which exceptions a command can raise is not apparent from the api. Defeating the purpose of checked exceptions

Check out some of the example apps. I somehow need a unit of work listener to create an addressbook application? My goodness...

Answer 6

The framework relies heavily on eventsourcing, which means that all state changes are >written to the data store as events. "

This is completely untrue, it does not rely heavily on event-sourcing. One of the implementations for storing the aggregate in this framework use Event-Sourcing but you can easily use also the classes provided to use a standard relational model.

It is just better with event-sourcing.

So you have a historical reference of all your data. This is nice but makes changing your >domain after you've gone in production a very daunting proposition especially if you sold >the customer on the system's "strong auditability" "

I don't think it is a lot easier with a standard relational model that only stores the current state.

The framework encourages denormalizing your data, to the point that some have suggested >having a table per view in the application. This makes your application extremely >difficult to maintain, especially when the original developers are gone"

This is unrelated to the framework but to the architectural pattern in use (CQRS). And sorry to mention that but having one denormalizer/view is a good idea as it stays a simple object.

So maintenance is easy because SQL request/insertion as also easy. So this argument is not very strong. How about a view which uses a 1000 tables model with inner joins everywhere and complex SQL queries?

Again, CQRS helps because, basically, the view data is just a SELECT * from the table which correspond to the view.

if somehow you made a mistake in one of the eventhandlers, your only option is to >"replay" the eventlog, which depending on the size of your data can take a very long >time. The tooling for this however is non-existent.

I agree on the point that currently there is a lack of tooling to replay events and that this can take a long time. However, it is theoretically possible to only replay a portion of the event and not all the content of the event store.

Replaying can have side effects, so >developers become scared of doing it

Replaying event have side effects -> that's untrue. For me side effects means modifying the state of the system. In an event-sourced CQRS application, the state is stored in the event-store. Replaying the events does not modify the event store. You can have side effect on the query side of the model yes. But you don't care if you have made a mistake because you are still able to correct it and replay the event once again.

it's extremely easy to have developers mess up using this framework. if they don't store >changes to domain objects in events, next time you replay your events you are in for a >surprise.

Well if you misused and misunderstand the architecture, the concept, etc. then ok I agree with you. But perhaps the problem is not the framework here.

Should you store delta's ? absolute values ? if you don't keep tabs on your developers >you are bound to end up with both and you will be f***ed

I can say that for every system I would say that it's unrelated directly to the framework itself. It's like saying, "Java is crap because you can messed up everything if someone codes a bad implementation of hashCode and equals methods."

And for the last part of your comment, I already seen samples like helloWorld with the Spring framework. Of course it is completely useless in a simple example.

Be careful in your comment to make a difference between the concept (CQRS + EventSourcing) and the framework. Make a difference please.