弗农·沃恩给出了一个解决方案:

使用存储库或域服务提前查找依赖对象 调用聚合行为。客户端应用程序服务可以 控制这个问题。

这是一个非常好的问题。我期待着就此进行一些讨论。但我想DDD的几本书里都提到了吉米·尼尔森斯和埃里克·埃文斯。我想通过示例也可以看到如何使用存储库模式。

BUT lets discuss. I think a very valid thought is why should an entity know about how to persist another entity? Important with DDD is that each entity has a responsibility to manage its own "knowledge-sphere" and shouldn't know anything about how to read or write other entities. Sure you can probably just add a repository interface to Entity A for reading Entities B. But the risk is that you expose knowledge for how to persist B. Will entity A also do validation on B before persisting B into db?

正如您所看到的，实体A可以更多地参与到实体B的生命周期中，这可以为模型增加更多的复杂性。

我猜(没有任何例子)单元测试将会更加复杂。

但是我确信总会有这样的场景:您想通过实体来使用存储库。你必须考虑每一种情况才能做出有效的判断。优点和缺点。但是在我看来，存储库实体解决方案有很多缺点。它一定是一个非常特殊的场景，优点抵消了缺点....

弗农·沃恩给出了一个解决方案:

使用存储库或域服务提前查找依赖对象 调用聚合行为。客户端应用程序服务可以 控制这个问题。

To cite Carolina Lilientahl, "Patterns should prevent cycles" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJjadzMRQAk, where she refers to cyclic dependencies between classes. In case of repositories inside aggregates, there is a temptation to create cyclic dependencies out of conveniance of object navigation as the only reason. The pattern mentioned above by prograhammer, that was recommended by Vernon Vaughn, where other aggregates are referenced by ids instead of root instances, (is there a name for this pattern?) suggests an alternative that might guide into other solutions.

类之间循环依赖的例子(忏悔):

(Time0): Sample和Well这两个类彼此引用(循环依赖)。Well指的是Sample，而Sample指的是Well，这是为了方便(有时是对样品进行循环，有时是对一个板中的所有孔进行循环)。我无法想象样本不会指向它所在的井。

(Time1):一年之后，许多用例实现了....现在有一些情况下，样本不应该指向它所在的井。在一个工作步骤内有临时板。这里的孔指的是样品，而样品又指的是另一个盘子上的孔。正因为如此，当有人试图实现新功能时，有时会出现奇怪的行为。渗透需要时间。

我也从上面提到的这篇关于惰性加载的负面方面的文章中得到了帮助。

这是出自Eric Evans的《领域驱动设计》一书，还是来自其他地方?

都是老东西了。埃里克的书让它更热闹了。

对其背后的原因有什么好的解释吗?

原因很简单——当人类面对模糊相关的多种情境时，大脑会变得脆弱。它们导致了歧义(美国在南/北美意味着南/北美)，歧义导致了每当大脑“接触到”信息时，信息的不断映射，这总结起来就是糟糕的生产力和错误。

业务逻辑应该尽可能清晰地反映出来。外键、归一化、对象关系映射是完全不同的领域——那些东西是技术上的，与计算机有关。

打个比方:如果你正在学习如何写字，你就不应该被笔是在哪里制造的，为什么墨水能在纸上保持，纸是什么时候发明的，以及中国还有哪些其他著名的发明。

编辑:澄清一下:我不是在谈论将数据访问从业务逻辑分离到一个单独层的经典OO实践——我是在谈论DDD中的具体安排，即实体根本不应该与数据访问层对话(即它们不应该持有对Repository对象的引用)。

原因和我上面提到的一样。这里只是更进一步。如果实体可以(至少接近)完全忽略持久性，为什么它们应该部分忽略持久性?我们的模型所包含的与领域无关的问题更少——当我们不得不重新解释它时，我们的大脑获得了更多的喘息空间。

这里有点混乱。存储库访问聚合根。聚合根是实体。这样做的原因是关注点的分离和良好的分层。这在小型项目中没有意义，但如果您在一个大型团队中，您会说:“您通过产品存储库访问产品。Product是实体集合的聚合根，包括ProductCatalog对象。如果你想要更新ProductCatalog，你必须通过ProductRepository。”

通过这种方式，您在业务逻辑和内容更新的位置上有非常非常清晰的分离。你不会有一个孩子独自编写了整个程序，对产品目录做了所有这些复杂的事情，当涉及到将其集成到上游项目时，你坐在那里看着它，意识到这一切都必须抛弃。这也意味着当人们加入团队，添加新功能时，他们知道该去哪里以及如何组织程序。

But wait! Repository also refers to the persistence layer, as in the Repository Pattern. In a better world an Eric Evans' Repository and the Repository Pattern would have separate names, because they tend to overlap quite a bit. To get the repository pattern you have contrast with other ways in which data is accessed, with a service bus or an event model system. Usually when you get to this level, the Eric Evans' Repository definition goes by the way side and you start talking about a bounded context. Each bounded context is essentially its own application. You might have a sophisticated approval system for getting things into the product catalog. In your original design the product was the center piece but in this bounded context the product catalog is. You still might access product information and update product via a service bus, but you must realize that a product catalog outside the bounded context might mean something completely different.

Back to your original question. If you're accessing a repository from within an entity it means the entity is really not a business entity but probably something that should exist in a service layer. This is because entities are business object and should concern themselves with being as much like a DSL (domain specific language) as possible. Only have business information in this layer. If you're troubleshooting a performance issue, you'll know to look elsewhere since only business information should be here. If suddenly, you have application issues here, you're making it very hard to extend and maintain an application, which is really the heart of DDD: making maintainable software.

对评论1的回应:好问题。所以并不是所有的验证都发生在领域层。夏普有一个属性“DomainSignature”，它可以做你想要的。它是持久性感知的，但是作为一个属性可以使域层保持干净。它确保在您的示例中，没有名称相同的重复实体。

But let's talk about more complicated validation rules. Let's say you're Amazon.com. Have you ever ordered something with an expired credit card? I have, where I haven't updated the card and bought something. It accepts the order and the UI informs me that everything is peachy. About 15 minutes later, I'll get an e-mail saying there's a problem with my order, my credit card is invalid. What's happening here is that, ideally, there's some regex validation in the domain layer. Is this a correct credit card number? If yes, persist the order. However, there's additional validation at the application tasks layer, where an external service is queried to see if payment can be made on the credit card. If not, don't actually ship anything, suspend the order and wait for the customer. This should all take place in a service layer.

不要害怕在服务层创建可以访问存储库的验证对象。让它远离域层。