Skip to content

2026

Testing Without Mocks

Open the test suite of almost any business application and start counting the mocks. A mock for the repository, a mock for the clock, a mock for the email gateway, a mock for the payment provider. By the time the test finally reaches the code it was meant to check, half of the system has been replaced by stand-ins that you wrote yourself. The test runs, it turns green, and it tells you something. The question is what.

Here is the uncomfortable part: a test that passes because of its mocks can be worse than no test at all. No test leaves you knowingly uncertain. A green mock-driven test hands you confidence that nobody has any right to give you, because nothing guarantees that the mock still resembles the real thing. Mocks are not a testing strategy. They are a workaround for two problems: domain logic that is tangled up with infrastructure, and infrastructure that is too slow to touch in a test. Event Sourcing removes the first. A database that starts in milliseconds removes the second. This is what testing looks like once you stop pretending.

Commanded, Meet EventSourcingDB

Today we're delighted to celebrate a new arrival in the EventSourcingDB ecosystem: Thomas Gossmann has released a Commanded event store adapter for EventSourcingDB. Commanded is the de-facto framework for building CQRS and Event Sourcing applications in Elixir, and with this adapter it can now store its events in EventSourcingDB. If you work in Elixir and you've wanted to put EventSourcingDB underneath your aggregates and process managers, that option exists today.

What makes this exciting isn't a new line in a dependency file. It's what that line unlocks: an entire language community gains a first-class path to EventSourcingDB, without giving up the framework they already know and trust. Let's look at what the adapter does, how you'd put it to work, and why this kind of growth is exactly what we'd hoped to see.

Event-Driven TypeScript: An Interview on Nimbus

Golo: Daniel, you're the CTO of Overlap in Vienna, Austria, and the lead architect behind Nimbus. Overlap isn't a framework shop, you build and ship real products for real customers, which makes the decision to build a framework all the more interesting. Before we get into the design, take us back to the beginning: what were you running into, again and again, in actual projects that made you decide to build Nimbus rather than reach for something that already existed?

The Read Model Zoo: Projections Beyond Tables

Say "projection" to most developers and they reach, almost reflexively, for a SQL table. Denormalized, perhaps materialized, but ultimately rows in a relational database. It happens so quickly that it doesn't feel like a decision. It feels like the definition of the word.

It isn't. A read model is just a query-optimized view of the event history, and the shape it takes should follow the query, not the convention. There are at least four other shapes worth knowing about, each one fitting a class of queries that a SQL table either can't handle well or has no business handling at all. Once you've seen the menu, the reflex gets harder to justify.

You Don't Need an Outbox

The outbox pattern has quietly become canonical in microservice tutorials. It has a name, library support, conference talks, and a steady stream of blog posts that walk through implementing it. It's blessed. And yet, every time it shows up in a system, it's a sign that something else has gone wrong upstream.

The pattern itself is clever. It works around a real, structural problem: two systems that need to agree but can't share a transaction. The question worth asking is whether you need to have that problem in the first place. Once you take that seriously, the outbox stops looking like a pattern and starts looking like an admission of defeat.

Commands Aren't Just Events in Reverse

BorrowBook and BookBorrowed. ReserveSeat and SeatReserved. AcquireBook and BookAcquired. The first half is what someone wants, the second half is what happened, and the only visible difference is the tense. Most diagrams in most Event Sourcing tutorials draw the two as a pair, and after enough examples, your brain quietly starts assuming they always will be.

That picture gets people started, and it isn't wrong, exactly. But the more real your system becomes, the less it matches the shape of what's happening underneath. Commands and events look symmetric on the surface, and they're not. They're not symmetric in whether they can fail. They're not symmetric in who they speak to. They're not even symmetric in number. Treating them as if they were is one of the quietest, most expensive mistakes we see, because the code keeps working long enough for the asymmetry to set in everywhere before anyone notices.

What's an Entity, Anyway?

I've worked with Domain-Driven Design for fifteen years, and I'll admit something I usually keep to myself. There's one concept in DDD whose point I've never quite gotten. Not because I haven't read Evans, and not because I haven't built systems around it. I've done both. But every time I sit with the concept of the Entity and ask myself what it's actually for, I come away with the same shrug. Value Objects feel intuitive. Aggregates feel intuitive. The Entity feels like a placeholder that everyone agreed to keep teaching anyway.

A conversation a few days ago finally produced the click I'd been waiting for, and the answer surprised me. The confusion wasn't a personal blind spot. The concept itself has been quietly hollowed out by the very ideas that surround it, and most of us keep teaching it as if that hadn't happened. The Entity isn't broken. It's overshadowed. And the shadow only lifts once you start asking what would happen if the thing casting it weren't there.

Is DDD Overkill for My CRUD Project?

We hear it almost every week. A developer leans back, half-smiles, and says something like: "Domain-Driven Design? Sure, for a big enterprise system. But mine is just a simple CRUD app. Wouldn't DDD be total overkill?" The tone is friendly, sometimes even a little apologetic, as if they're letting us down gently. And the reasoning sounds airtight. CRUD is simple. Domain-Driven Design is heavy. Why bring a freight train to move a couch?

We get the instinct. Most of us have rolled our eyes at a slide deck full of Bounded Contexts for an app that, frankly, has one table and three buttons. But once you scratch the surface of this question, two different things turn out to be hiding under the same word. One of them really is overkill for your CRUD app. The other one isn't even optional, and you're either doing it well or doing it badly right now, whether you call it DDD or not.

Your Read Model Doesn't Always Need a Database

Sooner or later, every team building an event-sourced system runs into the same question: which database should we use for the read model? The textbook answer is reassuringly pragmatic. It depends. Pick the tool that fits the access pattern. Relational if you need joins and ad-hoc queries, document-oriented if your data is hierarchical, key-value if you mostly look things up by ID, a graph database for relationships, a spatial database for geodata, and so on.

That advice is sound, and yet it quietly assumes something that nobody ever questions: that there has to be a database in the first place. There's one option that almost never makes it onto that list, and it's the one that turns the whole question on its head. For a large class of read models, you don't need a database at all. You can keep the entire read model in memory and serve it straight from there.

Continuous Modeling, or What Happens to the Model on Tuesday?

Friday afternoon. The sticky notes on the wall are the densest they've been all week. Someone has redrawn a Bounded Context for the third time, and this time everyone in the room nods. Two product managers, three engineers, a domain expert, and a coach who's been keeping the conversation honest agree: this is what the system actually is. Phones come out, photos get taken. People shake hands and say things like finally, and now we know. The room empties.

On Tuesday, someone opens a pull request that touches the boundary you spent half of Friday redrawing. The PR description doesn't mention the model. The reviewer doesn't mention the model. The model is in three Miro boards, one of which is now read-only because somebody's account got rotated, and a Confluence page that hasn't been opened in four weeks. The reviewer approves the change. The model isn't wrong yet. It's just not anywhere the work can see it. Three months later, when a new question forces you back to the wall, no one quite remembers why the boundary was where it was. Did the workshop fail? It didn't. Something else did, and almost every team we talk to keeps making the same quiet mistake.