cqrs-demo | A demo application for the cqrs-es crate | Microservice library

Before we dive into how Axon deals with consistency, there are a few things that I'd like to point out in the context of CQRS as a concept.

There is a lot of misconception around consistency in combination with CQRS. The concept of eventual consistency applies between the different models that you have defined within your application. For example, a Command Model may have changed state recently, but the Query Model doesn't reflect that state yet. The Query Model is eventually consistent with the Command Model. However, the information within that Query Model is still consistent in itself.

More importantly, this allows you to make conscious choices around where consistency is important and where it can be relaxed. Typically, Command Models make decisions in which consistency is important. You'd want to make sure each decision is made with the relevant knowledge of recent changes. That's the purpose of the Aggregate. An Aggregate will always make decisions that are consistent with its state.

I recommend reading up on the Reactive Principles document [1], namely Section V [2].

Then Axon. Axon implements the concepts of DDD and CQRS very strictly. Consistency is sacred within an Aggregate. For example, when using Event Sourcing, the events with an Aggregate's stream are guaranteed to have been generated based on a State that included all previous events in that stream. In other words, event number 9 in the stream was created with the knowledge of events number 0 through 8. Guaranteed.

When events are published, this doesn't mean any projections are already up to date. This may take a few milliseconds. Relaxing consistency here allows us to scale our system. The only downside is that a user may execute a command, perform a query and not see the results yet. This is actually much more common in systems than you think. There are numerous ways to prevent this from being a problem. Updating user interfaces in real-time is a powerful way of working with this. Then it doesn't matter which user made the change; they see it practically immediately.

The other way round may pose a challenge. A user observes the system state through a Query. This may (and always will, even without CQRS) provide stale data; the data may have been altered while the user is watching it. The user decides to make a change. However, in parallel, the information has already been changed. This other change may be such that, had the user known, it would have never submitted that Command.

In Axon, you can use Conflict Resolvers to detect these "unseen" parallel actions. You can use the "aggregate sequence" from incoming events and store them with your projection. If a user action results in a Command towards that aggregate, pass the Aggregate Sequence as Expected Aggregate Version. If the actual Aggregate's version doesn't match this (because it has been altered in the meantime), you get to decide whether that is problematic. There is a short explanation in the Reference Guide [3].

I hope this sheds some light on consistency in the context of CQRS and Axon.

[1] https://principles.reactive.foundation

[2] https://principles.reactive.foundation/principles/tailor-consistency.html

[3] https://docs.axoniq.io/reference-guide/axon-framework/axon-framework-commands/modeling/conflict-resolution