andydefer/domain-structures
A Laravel/PHP package that provides reusable domain structures and building blocks for domain-driven design. It helps organize business logic, reduce boilerplate, and keep core rules isolated from framework and infrastructure concerns for cleaner, more maintainable applications.
Architecture fit: The package targets a common Laravel/PHP pain point: replacing unstructured arrays and anemic Eloquent models with explicit Records, Value Objects, DTOs, and TypedCollections. It fits a DDD-lite, hexagonal, or modular-monolith architecture where domain code should not depend directly on Eloquent. In a standard Laravel app, it can define request/response DTOs, domain identifiers, money/email/status value objects, and typed lists while keeping persistence in infrastructure. Fit is strongest in greenfield modules and weakest in apps that rely heavily on Illuminate\Support\Collection, Eloquent serialization, and array-based payloads.
Integration feasibility: Likely installable via Composer with PSR-4 autoloading; probably framework-agnostic and unlikely to require a Laravel service provider. Initial integration is low-effort in a bounded module: define a few DTOs/VOs, map from Eloquent or HTTP requests, and use typed collections internally. Brownfield feasibility depends on mapping effort at boundaries and whether the package interoperates cleanly with Laravel’s validation, JSON resources, queues, and Eloquent casts.
Technical risk: High maturity risk. The package has 0 stars, 0 dependents, and no visible ecosystem validation. Key risks include unknown PHP/Laravel version support, API stability, test coverage, serialization semantics, immutability guarantees, equality/comparison behavior, and TypedCollection interoperability with Laravel collections. A single-maintainer or low-activity project creates abandonment and upgrade risk. Performance overhead is likely small but should be measured where large collections or high-volume API mapping are involved.
Key questions: Which PHP and Laravel versions are supported? Are Records/VOs immutable and validated on construction? How do DTOs serialize to/from arrays and JSON? Do TypedCollections implement Laravel collection contracts or require conversion? How are Eloquent models mapped to DTOs? What are the equality, comparison, and error-handling semantics? What is the test coverage and static-analysis compatibility? Is there a release cadence, security policy, and documented upgrade path? Can the package be forked or vendored if maintenance stalls?
Stack fit: Composer-based PHP package fits Laravel naturally. Use it in domain/application layers rather than replacing Eloquent wholesale. Keep HTTP resources, jobs, and persistence adapters as mapping boundaries. Avoid forcing TypedCollections where Laravel collections or Eloquent collections are already expected unless interoperability is proven.
Migration path: Start with a low-risk bounded context or internal API module. Introduce DTOs for request/response payloads, Value Objects for identifiers/emails/money/statuses, Records for immutable domain data, and TypedCollections for lists of domain objects. Map Eloquent models to DTOs at the repository or service boundary. Do not attempt a broad refactor before validating serialization, validation, and collection behavior.
Compatibility: Confirm PHP constraints against the Laravel version in use. Verify PHPUnit/Pest, PHPStan/Psalm, Laravel validation, JSON resources, queue serialization, and Eloquent casts. Check whether the package depends on Laravel components or remains framework-agnostic. Test conversion paths for arrays, JSON, and database persistence before adopting it in shared code.
Sequencing: 1) Proof of concept in one non-critical module. 2) Establish internal conventions for DTO/VO naming, validation, and mapping. 3) Add static analysis and contract tests around package usage. 4) Expand to API resources, jobs, and service boundaries. 5) Decide whether to vendor/fork, contribute fixes, or standardize internally if the package proves useful but under-maintained.
Maintenance: Expect limited community support and unclear long-term maintenance. The TPM should assign internal ownership, pin versions, document upgrade procedures, and consider vendoring or forking if adoption grows. Avoid spreading the package across critical paths until it has survived at least one framework/PHP upgrade cycle internally.
Support: No commercial support is expected. Rely on GitHub issues and internal documentation. Create examples, mapping helpers, and guardrails so teams do not invent inconsistent DTO/VO patterns. Budget time for responding to upstream inactivity.
Scaling: Package-level runtime overhead is likely negligible for typical DTO/VO usage. The larger scaling concern is mapping and conversion cost at boundaries, especially for large collections or high-throughput APIs. Measure serialization and collection conversion in realistic workloads. TypedCollections may be less ergonomic than Laravel collections for large teams already fluent in Laravel idioms.
Failure modes: Breaking API changes, abandonment, PHP/Laravel incompatibility, incomplete serialization support, type-coercion surprises, validation gaps, and friction with Eloquent or Laravel collections. A failed adoption could leave mixed patterns across the codebase. Mitigate with a pilot, version pinning, contract tests, and a documented exit strategy.
Ramp-up: Developers need familiarity with DTOs, Value Objects, immutability, and boundary mapping. Laravel developers accustomed to arrays and Eloquent may need training and code-review guidance. Start with a small champion team, publish internal examples, and measure adoption before mandating the package broadly.
How can I help you explore Laravel packages today?