by Jimmy Bogard
Senior Principal Consultant
Nov 5, 2019
Vertical slice architecture is becoming the preferred method for refactoring legacy systems (“vertical slice” being a cross section of code that runs from the front-end deep down to the data layer). Our Chief Architect, Jimmy Bogard —Chief Architect and in-demand software consultant—, shares his insights into how vertical slices work, what you need to know first, and why he’ll no longer be needing all those layers.
Many years back, we started a long-term project by building an “onion” architecture. Within a couple of months, the cracks started to show in this style. So we moved towards a Command Query Responsibility Segregation (CQRS) pattern (before it had that name) and began building in vertical slices instead of layers (whether flat or concentric, layers are layers). Since then, we’ve almost exclusively built around vertical slice architectures for applications and systems and I can’t imagine going back to the constraints of layered architectures.
What’s wrong with onion architecture?
A layered architecture like the onion or “clean” pattern we started with is monolithic in nature:
This approach/architecture is really only appropriate for a minority of the typical requests in a system. These architectures also tend to be mock-heavy, with rigid rules around dependency management. In practice, I’ve found these rules rarely useful, and you start to get many abstractions around concepts that really shouldn’t be abstracted (Controller MUST talk to a Service that MUST use a Repository).
A more tailored approach to the system would enable you to treat each request as a distinct use case for how to approach its code. Because my system breaks down neatly into “command” requests and “query” requests (GET vs POST/PUT/DELETE in HTTP-land), moving towards a vertical slice architecture gives me CQRS out of the gate.
So why is vertical slice architecture better than onion architecture?
In the battle of vertical slice architecture vs. onion architecture, there are reasons we side with vertical slice, there are reasons many modern software consultants side with vertical slice.
The diagram below illustrates how it works. In this style, my architecture is built around distinct requests, encapsulating and grouping all concerns from front-end to back. You take a normal “n-tier” or hexagonal/whatever architecture and remove the gates and barriers across those layers, and couple along the axis of change:
When adding or changing a feature in an application, I’m typically touching many different “layers” in an application. I’m changing the user interface, adding fields to models, modifying validation, and so on. Instead of coupling across a layer, as in onion architecture, we couple vertically along a slice. The goal is to minimize coupling between slices and maximize coupling within a slice.
With this approach, most abstractions melt away and we don’t need any kind of “shared” layer abstractions like repositories, services, controllers. Sometimes these are still required by our tools (like controllers or ORM units-of-work) but we keep our cross-slice logic sharing to a minimum.
In this way, each of our vertical slices can decide for itself how to best fulfill the request:
The old Domain Logic patterns from the Patterns of Enterprise Architecture book no longer need to be an application-wide choice. Instead, we can start simple (Transaction Script) and simply refactor to the patterns that emerge from code smells we see in the business logic. New features only add code—you’re not changing shared code and worrying about side effects. Very liberating!
What do you need to succeed with vertical slice architecture?
This approach assumes that your team understands code smells and refactoring. If your team doesn’t understand when a “service” is doing too much to push logic to the domain, this pattern is likely not for you—unless, of course, you want to employ the help of experienced software consultancy.
You need a team that understands refactoring and can recognize when to push complex logic into the domain, into what DDD services should have been. They should also be familiar with other Fowler/Kerievsky refactoring techniques. If you’ve got this knowledge in place, you’ll find this style of architecture able to scale far past the traditional layered, “onion” architectures.
For more on the vertical slice architecture vs. onion architecture debate, and a deep-dive on how vertical slice works, watch Jimmy’s talk from NDC Sydney: