Myths & Misunderstandings about CDD
Despite its benefits, CDD often faces common misconceptions. Let’s clarify a few:
# Is CDD just another Event-Driven Architecture?
No. While both use events, CDD focuses on semantic communication contracts at the module/context level, not just infrastructure messaging.
# Does CDD mean no structure or planning?
Absolutely not. CDD requires upfront design of message contracts and module boundaries. It’s deliberate communication design, not chaos.
# Is CDD only for microservices or distributed systems?
Not at all. CDD works well in monoliths, frontend apps, or any modular system where communication matters.
# Does CDD replace domain modeling?
No. It complements domain modeling by focusing on how parts communicate, not what the domain means.
# Is CDD too complex or abstract to implement?
Nope. Start small with simple observable events and clear message schemas. It’s incrementally adoptable.
# Does CDD mean no centralized control or coordination?
No. CDD promotes loose coupling but still allows control and coordination via communication contracts when needed.
Summary
CDD’s power lies in disciplined communication design.
It’s not “events everywhere” or “no design,” but a clear contract-driven architecture.