Comparison with Alternative Architectures

Reading time: ~10 minutes

Introduction

To fully appreciate Prism Architecture, it's valuable to understand how it compares to other established architectural patterns. This document examines the similarities and differences between Prism Architecture and several popular alternatives, highlighting where Prism offers distinctive benefits and where it draws inspiration from existing approaches.

We'll compare Prism Architecture with:

• Domain-Driven Design (DDD)
• Clean Architecture
• Onion Architecture
• Hexagonal Architecture (Ports and Adapters)

PrismUI: Recommended Presentation Pattern

For the Presentation Layer, Prism Architecture recommends using PrismUI, our specialized presentation pattern designed to work seamlessly with the core architecture. PrismUI is characterized by:

• Hierarchical Presenter Structure: Organizes presenters in a three-tiered hierarchy that mirrors the UI component structure
• Intent-Based Communication: Uses explicit intent objects to communicate user actions from UI to presenters
• Unidirectional State Flow: Implements predictable state flow from presenters to UI components
• Declarative UI Support: Works naturally with SwiftUI, React, Flutter, and other modern UI frameworks

For detailed comparisons between PrismUI and other UI architectural patterns (MVVM, Redux/Flux, MVC, etc.), please see the dedicated UI Architecture Comparison document.

Domain-Driven Design (DDD) Comparison

Domain-Driven Design is a comprehensive approach to software development that focuses on creating a rich domain model that closely reflects the business domain.

Key Similarities

• Rich Domain Model: Both approaches value a domain model that captures business concepts
• Separation of Concerns: Both separate technical concerns from domain concerns
• Ubiquitous Language: Both emphasize consistent terminology across the codebase
• Focus on Business Value: Both prioritize business requirements over technical concerns

Key Differences

Bounded Contexts:

• DDD: Strictly isolates models within bounded contexts with explicit translation between contexts
• Prism: Uses shared core domain models in an accessible Core Layer, reducing translation overhead

Aggregates and Consistency Boundaries:

• DDD: Enforces strict aggregate boundaries for consistency
• Prism: More flexible about aggregate boundaries, especially for query optimization

Repository Implementation:

• DDD: Repositories typically work with complete aggregates
• Prism: Supports both traditional repositories and specialized query services

Implementation Complexity:

• DDD: Can lead to complex implementations with many translation layers
• Prism: Prioritizes practical implementation with fewer transformations

When to Choose Each

Choose DDD When:

• Your system has truly distinct bounded contexts with different meanings for the same terms
• You need strict enforcement of aggregate boundaries
• You're working primarily with traditional databases and REST APIs

Choose Prism When:

• You want the benefits of domain modeling with less overhead
• You're working with GraphQL or other query-optimized APIs
• You need more flexibility between domain integrity and query optimization

Clean Architecture Comparison

Clean Architecture, popularized by Robert C. Martin, organizes code in concentric circles, with dependencies pointing inward.

Key Similarities

• Layer Separation: Both create clear boundaries between layers
• Business Logic Isolation: Both protect business logic from external concerns
• Testability: Both architectures design for testability
• Dependency Rule: Both control the direction of dependencies between layers

Key Differences

Dependency Direction:

• Clean: Inner layers have no knowledge of outer layers, with strict dependency rule
• Prism: Core Layer accessible by all layers, other dependencies flow through Orchestration

Data Structure Location:

• Clean: Each layer typically has its own data structures
• Prism: Core Layer entities shared across layers to reduce mapping overhead

Central Coordination:

• Clean: Use cases coordinate between layers but with limited power
• Prism: Orchestration Layer actively coordinates all layer interactions

UI Communication:

• Clean: Often relies on presenters/controllers as interfaces
• Prism: Uses intent-based communication and hierarchical presenters

When to Choose Each

Choose Clean Architecture When:

• You want maximum isolation between components
• You're willing to write more mapping code for stricter boundaries
• Your system benefits from having separate models for each layer

Choose Prism When:

• You want to reduce repetitive mapping between similar models
• You need more flexible communication between layers
• You're working with modern reactive UI frameworks

Onion Architecture Comparison

Onion Architecture, described by Jeffrey Palermo, organizes code in concentric layers with domain models at the center.

Key Similarities

• Domain-Centric: Both place domain concepts at the center
• Layered Approach: Both use layers to separate concerns
• External Independence: Both isolate external concerns in outer layers
• Dependency Inversion: Both use interfaces to invert dependencies

Key Differences

Layer Access:

• Onion: Layers can only access layers further inward
• Prism: Core Layer accessible by all, Orchestration Layer mediates other access

Application Layer Role:

• Onion: Application layer primarily defines interfaces to infrastructure
• Prism: Orchestration Layer actively coordinates between all layers

Infrastructure Isolation:

• Onion: Focus on isolating all infrastructure concerns from domain
• Prism: Provides specialized patterns for GraphQL and other modern infrastructure

Implementation Patterns:

• Onion: Less prescriptive about implementation patterns within layers
• Prism: Defines specific patterns like intent-based communication and hierarchical presenters

When to Choose Each

Choose Onion Architecture When:

• You need maximum isolation from infrastructure concerns
• Your domain model is relatively stable
• You have multiple infrastructure implementations for the same components

Choose Prism When:

• You want more guidance on layer implementation patterns
• You need optimized patterns for modern infrastructure like GraphQL
• You want a more active coordinator between layers

Hexagonal Architecture (Ports and Adapters) Comparison

Hexagonal Architecture, created by Alistair Cockburn, isolates the application core from external systems through ports and adapters.

Key Similarities

• Core Isolation: Both protect core application logic
• Interface-Based Communication: Both use interfaces to communicate between layers
• Testability: Both allow for easy swapping of implementations for testing
• Dependency Inversion: Both invert dependencies to protect core logic

Key Differences

Port Concept:

• Hexagonal: All external communication goes through explicit ports
• Prism: Core Layer accessible directly, other communication follows specific patterns

Adapter Implementation:

• Hexagonal: Adapters transform between port and external format
• Prism: Infrastructure implements Core interfaces directly

Layer Organization:

• Hexagonal: No explicit layers beyond core and adapters
• Prism: Explicit layer separation with specific responsibilities

UI Communication:

• Hexagonal: UI treated as external system with its own adapter
• Prism: Specialized presentation patterns for modern UI frameworks

When to Choose Each

Choose Hexagonal Architecture When:

• You need maximum isolation from external systems
• You frequently swap implementations of external systems
• You have many diverse external integrations

Choose Prism When:

• You want more structure in the core application
• You need optimized patterns for GraphQL and modern UIs
• You want more guidance on internal organization

Hybrid Approaches

It's worth noting that many real-world applications use hybrid approaches, combining elements of multiple architectural patterns. Prism Architecture itself draws inspiration from several of these patterns:

• From DDD: Rich domain modeling and focus on business concepts
• From Clean/Onion: Layer separation and protection of core logic
• From MVVM/Redux: UI state management and data binding approaches (see UI Architecture Comparison)
• From Hexagonal: Interface-based communication with external systems

Summary Comparison Table

Aspect	Prism Architecture	DDD	Clean	Onion	Hexagonal
Domain Focus	High	Very High	Medium	High	Medium
Layer Isolation	Balanced	High	Very High	High	High
Implementation Complexity	Medium	High	High	Medium	Medium
UI Pattern Guidance	High	Low	Low	Low	Low
Data Access Flexibility	High	Low	Medium	Medium	Medium
GraphQL Optimization	High	Low	Low	Low	Medium
Learning Curve	Medium	Steep	Steep	Medium	Medium
Boilerplate Code	Medium	High	High	Medium	Medium
Testability	High	High	Very High	High	Very High

Making the Right Choice

Choosing the right architecture depends on your specific needs:

• Project Size: For smaller projects, simpler architectures or Prism Lite may be sufficient
• Team Experience: Consider your team's familiarity with different architectural patterns
• Domain Complexity: More complex domains benefit from more domain-focused architectures
• UI Requirements: Modern declarative UIs benefit from Prism's specialized patterns
• API Technology: GraphQL-based APIs benefit from Prism's optimized patterns
• Long-Term Maintenance: More structured approaches pay off for long-lived applications

Conclusion

Prism Architecture represents a pragmatic evolution of several established patterns, optimized for modern application development with GraphQL and declarative UIs. It balances the structural benefits of layered architectures with practical implementation concerns, reducing unnecessary overhead while maintaining clear separation of concerns.

While no single architecture is perfect for all situations, Prism Architecture offers a compelling option for teams building complex applications that need to balance domain integrity with modern implementation efficiency.