The latest version of the book is B5.0, released 24 days ago. If you've bought a PDF of the book and would like to upgrade it to this version (for free), visit your home page.
By default this page displays the errata for the latest version of the book. If you have a previous version, select it here:
If you've found a new error, please submit it.
- Reported in: B5.0 (23-Nov-17)
PDF page: 1
Severity Code Description Project File Line Suppression State
Error Unexpected symbol ':' in definition. Expected incomplete structured construct at or before this point or other token. OrderTaking C:\Users\scott\source\repos\swdddf-code\src\OrderTaking\Boundary.Dto.fs 118
Error Incomplete structured construct at or before this point in implementation file OrderTaking C:\Users\scott\source\repos\swdddf-code\src\OrderTaking\Boundary.Dto.fs 126
- Reported in: B1.0 (02-Jun-17)
PDF page: 51
In the kindle app for iPad code is not indented so it's almost useless. The same code in the EPUB version on iBook app looks fine. E.g function isEven in section Function Signatures has all lines aligned on the left.--Juan Manuel Gimeno Illa
- Reported in: B3.0 (29-Jul-17)
PDF page: 78
?remotesession=75848559-655b-4891-a1c3-8e8b8f581235&dttm=2017-07-28 15:48&validFor=3600&OT=Whatson&OF=AFTix11-2&OC=WhatsonHi Scott,
On page 78, you have
data UnvalidatedOrder =
AND list of UnvalidatedOrderLine
is "data" supposed to be "type"
But my real point is wouldn't it be more likely that an order is considered "Unvalidated" if any of it's components are Unvalidated?
data Order =
AND list of OrderLine
then we would have
type CustomerInfo =
type ShippingAddress =
Then we would need a what of Checking the Order to see if it is Validated or not, that is are any of its parts unvalidated. Can this be expressed in the type definition or does this require a function to return if the order is a validated on or not? How would this look? What is the best way to do this
I guess once you have a ValidatedOrder then you can use the specific type ValidatedOrder
type ValidatedOrder =
AND list of ValidatedOrderLine
- Reported in: B4.0 (19-Oct-17)
PDF page: 105
Couldn't it be that two or more aggregates had an important role in an use case and therefore had to be in a single transaction? I read this in another book about DDD and seems fine to me as long as none of the aggregates is corrupted by the others, so that we can rollback the transaction if one of the aggregates fail to be persisted.--Santiago Botero Correa
- Reported in: B5.0 (28-Nov-17)
PDF page: 110
In the topic explaining about CompilationRepresentation the code in the example is [<CompilationRepresentation(CompilationRepresentationFlags.ModuleSuffix)>] and I believe that < and > should be changed to < and >.