Customer --> Supplier misleading arrow?!

[edlich]

Great work! Just a micro remark: Wouldn't it be better to remove the arrow in the Customer-Supplier picture or turn it around?! I mean the "Customer gets" something which the "Supplier provides". Or did I miss something? Best greetings Stefan

[sl-manuelguilbault]

@edlich the way I understand it, the arrow shows the direction of the dependency. The customer depends on the supplier, not the other way around.

[edlich]

ok thanks.

[stefan-ka]

I'm probably biased because of the syntax in @ContextMapper, but: I would turn it around, because in the "DDD jargon" we always talk about Upstream-Downstream relationships and according to that metaphor I would illustrate "information flow" and not direction of dependency. The information flows from upstream to downstream; or from supplier to customer in this case. This is the reason why its the other way around in @ContextMapper: Customer <- Supplier or Supplier -> Customer

[mploed]

Sorry for joining in late to the discussion. I get your arguments and I come to the conclusion that arrows in context maps are a bad idea in general because they lead to many implicit assumptions depending on the context of the folks looking at them.

My suggestion is: let's just get rid of the arrow in the Customer-Supplier relationship visualization.