design question

[Wayne Douglas]

Hi

A while ago i asked about the structure of my domain - and whether or not we should look at putting potentially large child collections as their own document and link using live projections or such. The response was that unless these collections will make the doc size > 1Mb not to worry too much.

Reading the excellent article at: http://codeofrob.com/archive/2010/12/16/ravendb-stackoverflow-style-voting-with-live-projections.aspx it looks like rob thinks that creating the document which would become an element in a potentially very large collection as it's own root is sensible. 

is this a matter of preference, purely to illustrate slightly more complex indexing/querying or the advised way to do things like this? 

--
Cheers,

w://

[Rob Ashton]

The former for the most part (it's an example to show what *can* be
done).

Also, while it is true that for the most part we have document ==
aggregate root if you want to use DDD terminology, sometimes this is
impractical and just because you have split the data storage up
doesn't mean it's still not an aggregate root.

On Dec 21, 1:10 pm, Wayne Douglas <codingvi...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> A while ago i asked about the structure of my domain - and whether or not we
> should look at putting potentially large child collections as their own
> document and link using live projections or such. The response was that
> unless these collections will make the doc size > 1Mb not to worry too much.
>

> Reading the excellent article at:http://codeofrob.com/archive/2010/12/16/ravendb-stackoverflow-style-v...

[Rob Ashton]

Also, the usual comments about what it is you are treating as a
transaction boundary, patch operations vs the client API unit of work
vs loading the entire document etc.

[Rob Ashton]

Here: http://codeofrob.com/archive/2010/12/21/ravendb-document-design-with-collections.aspx

[Ayende Rahien]

+1, that matches pretty much with how I am thinkgin

[Wayne Douglas]

excellent answer + blog post - very much cleared things up in my head :)

--
Cheers,

w://