Inconsistent architecture. Four devs, four styles.
One uses Active Record, one uses the Repository Pattern, a third has custom conventions. No linter catches that. Jardis enforces a uniform DDD architecture in PHP at the filesystem level.
Why code reviews don't prevent inconsistent architecture.
42% of PHP developers use no code quality tools. But even teams running PHPStan, Psalm, and CS-Fixer have no tool that enforces architectural consistency.
Same task, three different solutions
Team A builds entities with Active Record. Team B uses a repository pattern. Team C has custom base classes. All three approaches work in isolation. Together they create a system nobody understands as a whole.
Every onboarding starts from scratch
New developers cannot spot a pattern because none exists. Every Bounded Context looks different. What applies in module A is irrelevant in module B. Ramp-up time multiplies with the number of patterns.
Reviews check style, not structure
Code reviews catch formatting and obvious bugs. Whether a service accesses the database directly instead of through a repository, whether events are dispatched or not: these are architectural decisions no linter ruleset covers.
A standard that lives in code, not in a wiki.
The Jardis builder generates every Bounded Context with identical hexagonal architecture. No room for interpretation, no style debates.
Identical structure for every Bounded Context
Whether team A or team B creates the context: the builder generates the same directory structure, the same layers, the same patterns. Entities in the domain, repositories in the infrastructure, use cases in the application. Not because rules say so, but because that is how the structure is generated.
Layers that cannot be bypassed
The builder creates physical package boundaries. A controller cannot access an entity directly because dependency direction is encoded in the folder structure. Shortcuts that slip through reviews are structurally impossible.
Same input, same output. Every time.
Define the schema, run the builder. The output is deterministic. Regardless of who runs the builder or when: the architecture is identical. No deviations from personal interpretation, no drift from team changes.
Why teams with inconsistent architecture choose Jardis.
Because an architecture standard that only exists in people's heads gets weaker with every team change.
Every module follows the same structure
The builder generates the same hexagonal structure for every Bounded Context. Know one module, know them all. No guessing which pattern applies here.
Architecture lives in the repo, not in slide decks
Your architecture is the generated code. Changes are traceable and reviewable through Git history. No drift between documentation and reality.
Code reviews become more productive
When the foundation is in place, reviews discuss business logic instead of architecture style. Fewer pattern debates, more focus on domain correctness.
Ready to give your architecture a uniform standard?
Join the WaitlistFrequently Asked Questions
Answers about eliminating inconsistent architecture with Jardis.
Not automatically. But you can generate new Bounded Contexts cleanly and migrate existing domains step by step. The Jardis builder imports your existing database schema and produces the target architecture. Your team moves business logic piece by piece into the consistent structure.