Vertical Slice Architecture (VSA) seems like a breath of fresh air when you first encounter it.
You stop jumping between seven layers to add a single field.
You delete the dozens of projects in your solution.
You feel liberated.
But when you start implementing more complex features, the cracks begin to show.
You build a CreateOrder slice.
Then UpdateOrder.
Then GetOrder.
Suddenly, you notice the repetition.
The address validation logic is in three places.
The pricing algorithm is needed by both Cart and Checkout.
You feel the urge to create a Common project or SharedServices folder.
This is the most critical moment in your VSA adoption.
Choose wrong, and you'll reintroduce the coupling you were trying to escape.
Choose right, and you maintain the independence that makes VSA worthwhile.
Here's how I approach shared code in Vertical Slice Architecture.
To understand why this is hard, we need to look at what we left behind.
Clean Architecture provides strict guardrails.
It tells you exactly where code lives: Entities go in Domain, interfaces go in Application, implementations go in Infrastructure.
It's safe.
It prevents mistakes, but it also prevents shortcuts when they're appropriate.
Vertical Slice Architecture removes the guardrails.
It says, "Organize code by feature, not technical concern".
This gives you speed and flexibility, but it shifts the burden of discipline onto you.
So what can you do about it?
The path of least resistance is to create a project (or folder) named Shared, Common, or Utils.
This is almost always a mistake.
Imagine a Common.Services project with an OrderCalculationService class.
It has a method for cart totals (used by Cart), another for historical revenue (used by Reporting),
and a helper for invoice formatting (used by Invoices).
Three unrelated concerns.
Three different change frequencies.
One class coupling them all together.
A Common project inevitably becomes a junk drawer for anything you can't be bothered to name properly.
It creates a tangled web of dependencies where unrelated features are coupled together because they happen to use the same helper method.
You've reintroduced the very coupling you tried to escape.
When I hit a potential sharing situation, I ask three questions:
1. Is this infrastructural or domain?
Infrastructure (database contexts, logging, HTTP clients) almost always gets shared. Domain concepts need more scrutiny.
2. How stable is this concept?
If it changes once a year, share it. If it changes with every feature request, keep it local.
3. Am I past the "Rule of Three"?
Duplicating the same code once is fine.
However, creating three duplicates should raise an eyebrow.
Don't abstract until you hit three.
We solve this by refactoring our code.
Let's look at some examples.
Instead of binary "Shared vs. Not Shared," think in three tiers.
Pure plumbing that affects all slices equally: logging adapters, database connection factories, auth middleware,
the Result pattern, validation pipelines.
Centralize this in a Shared.Kernel or Infrastructure project.
Note that this can also be a folder within your solution.
It rarely changes due to business requirements.
public readonly record struct Result
{
public bool IsSuccess { get; }
public string Error { get; }
private Result(bool isSuccess, string error)
{
IsSuccess = isSuccess;
Error = error;
}
public static Result Success() => new(true, string.Empty);
public static Result Failure(string error) => new(false, error);
}
This is one of the best places to share logic.
Instead of scattering business rules across slices, push them into entities and value objects.
Here's an example:
public class Order
{
public Guid Id { get; private set; }
public OrderStatus Status { get; private set; }
public List<OrderLine> Lines { get; private set; }
public bool CanBeCancelled() => Status == OrderStatus.Pending;
public Result Cancel()
{
if (!CanBeCancelled())
{
return Result.Failure("Only pending orders can be cancelled.");
}
Status = OrderStatus.Cancelled;
return Result.Success();
}
}
Now CancelOrder, GetOrder, and UpdateOrder all use the same business rules.
The logic lives in one place.
This implies an important concept: different vertical slices can share the
same domain model.
Logic shared between related slices, like CreateOrder and UpdateOrder, doesn't need to go global.
Create a Shared folder (there's an exception to every rule) within the feature:
📂 Features
└──📂 Orders
├──📂 CreateOrder
├──📂 UpdateOrder
├──📂 GetOrder
└──📂 Shared
├──📄 OrderValidator.cs
└──📄 OrderPricingService.cs
This also has a hiddene benefit.
If you delete the Orders feature, the shared logic goes with it.
No zombie code left behind.
Let's explore some advanced scenarios most people overlook.
What about sharing code between unrelated features in Vertical Slice Architecture?
The CreateOrder slice needs to check if a customer exists.
GenerateInvoice needs to calculate tax.
Orders and Customers both need to format notification messages.
This doesn't fit neatly into a feature's Shared folder.
So where does it go?
First, ask: do you actually need to share?
Most cross-feature "sharing" is just data access in disguise.
If CreateOrder needs customer data, it queries the database directly.
It doesn't call into the Customers feature.
Each slice owns its data access.
The Customer entity is shared (it lives in Domain), but there's no shared service between them.
When you genuinely need shared logic, ask what it is:
- Domain logic (business rules, calculations) →
Domain/Services
- Infrastructure (external APIs, formatting) →
Infrastructure/Services
public class TaxCalculator
{
public decimal CalculateTax(Address address, decimal subtotal)
{
var rate = GetTaxRate(address.State, address.Country);
return subtotal * rate;
}
}
Both CreateOrder and GenerateInvoice can use it without coupling to each other.
Before creating any cross-feature service, ask: could this logic live on a domain entity instead?
Most "shared business logic" is actually data access, domain logic that belongs on an entity, or premature abstraction.
If you need to trigger a side effect in another feature, I recommend using messaging and events.
Alternatively, the feature you want to call into can explore a facade (public API) for that operation.
Sometimes "shared" code isn't actually shared.
It just looks that way.
public record GetOrderResponse(Guid Id, decimal Total, string Status);
public record CreateOrderResponse(Guid Id, decimal Total, string Status);
They're identical.
The temptation to create a SharedOrderDto is overwhelming.
Resist it.
Next week, GetOrder needs a tracking URL.
But CreateOrder happens before shipping, so there's no URL yet.
If you'd shared the DTO, you'd now have a nullable property that's confusingly empty half the time.
Duplication is cheaper than the wrong abstraction.
Here's what a mature Vertical Slice Architecture project looks like:
📂 src
└──📂 Features
│ ├──📂 Orders
│ │ ├──📂 CreateOrder
│ │ ├──📂 UpdateOrder
│ │ └──📂 Shared # Order-specific sharing
│ ├──📂 Customers
│ │ ├──📂 GetCustomer
│ │ └──📂 Shared # Customer-specific sharing
│ └──📂 Invoices
│ └──📂 GenerateInvoice
└──📂 Domain
│ ├──📂 Entities
│ ├──📂 ValueObjects
│ └──📂 Services # Cross-feature domain logic
└──📂 Infrastructure
│ ├──📂 Persistence
│ └──📂 Services
└──📂 Shared
└──📂 Behaviors
- Features — Self-contained slices. Each owns its request/response models.
- Features/[Name]/Shared — Local sharing between related slices.
- Domain — Entities, value objects, and domain services. Shared business logic lives here.
- Infrastructure — Technical concerns.
- Shared — Cross-cutting behaviors only.
After building several systems this way, here's what I've landed on:
-
Features own their request/response models. No exceptions.
-
Push business logic into the domain. Entities and value objects are the best place to share business rules.
-
Keep feature-family sharing local. If only Order slices need it, keep it in Features/Orders/Shared (feel free to find a better name than Shared).
-
Infrastructure is shared by default. Database contexts, HTTP clients, logging. These are technical concerns.
-
Apply the Rule of Three. Don't extract until you have three real usages with identical, stable logic.
Vertical Slice Architecture asks: "What feature does this belong to?"
The shared code question is really asking: "What do I do when the answer is multiple features?"
Acknowledge that some concepts genuinely span features.
Give them a home based on their nature (domain, infrastructure, or cross-cutting behavior).
Resist the urge to share everything just because you could.
The goal isn't zero duplication.
It's code that's easy to change when requirements change.
And requirements always change.
Thanks for reading.
And stay awesome!
Log in
