undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjonahx5mo ago0 comments

> Why would you do this?

Performance and re-use are two possible reasons.

You may have a command sub-routine that is used by multiple higher-level commands, or even called multiple times within by a higher-level command. If the validation lives in the subroutine, that validation will be called multiple times, even when it only needs to be called once.

So you are forced to choose either efficiency or the security of colocating validation, which makes it impossible to call the sub-routine with unvalidated input.

0 comments

Jtsummers5mo ago

Perhaps I was unclear, to add to my comment:

hinkley poses this as a fault in CQS, but CQS does not require your commands to always succeed. Command-Query Separation means your queries return values, but produce no effects, and your commands produce effects, but return no values. Nothing in that requires you to have a command which always succeeds or commands which don't make use of queries (queries cannot make use of commands, though). So a better question than what I originally posed:

My "Why would you do this?" is better expanded to: Why would you use CQS in a way that makes your system less secure (or safe or whatever) when CQS doesn't actually require that?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse