I'm going to use another example I'm more familiar with to explain how I believe most people would do this.
Consider an Order Management System (OMS) and an Inventory Management System (IMS).
When a customer places an order in the company web site, we ask the OMS to create an order entry in the backend (e.g. via an HTTP endpoint).
The OMS system then broadcasts an event e.g. OrderPlaced containing all the details of the customer order. We may have a pub/sub (e.g. Redis), or a queue (e.g. RabbitMQ), or an event stream (e.g. Kafka) where we place the event (although this can be done in many other ways).
The thing is that we have one or more subscribers interested in this event. One of those could be the IMS, which has the responsibility of assigning the best inventory available every time an order is placed.
We can expect that the IMS will keep a copy of the relevant order information it received when it processed the OrderPlaced event such that it does not ask every little detail of the order to the OMS all the time. So, if the IMS needed a join with the order, instead of calling an endpoint in the Order API, it would probably just do a join with its local copy of the orders table.
Say now that our customer called to cancel her order. A customer service representative then cancelled it in the OMS Web User Interface. At that point an event OrderCanceled is broadcast. Guess who is listening for that event? Correct, the IMS receives notification and acts accordingly reversing the inventory assignation and probably even deleting the order record because it is no longer necessary on this domain.
So, as you can see, the best way to do this is by using events and making copies of the relevant details on the other domain.
Since events need time to get broadcast and processed by interested parties, we say that the order data in the IMS is eventually consistent.
Followup Questions
Q: So, if I understood right in microservises we prefer to duplicate data and get better performance? That is the concept? I mean I know the concept is scaling and flexibility but when we must share data we will just duplicate it?
Not really. That´s definitively not what I meant although it may have sounded like that due to my poor choice of words in the original explanation. It appears to me that at the heart of your question lies a lack of sufficient understanding of the concept of a bounded context.
In my explanation I meant to indicate that the OMS has a domain concept known as the order, but so does the IMS. Therefore, they both have an entity within their domain that represents it. There is a good chance that the order entity in the OMS is much richer than the corresponding representation of the same concept in the IMS.
For example, if the system I was describing was not for retail, but for wholesale, then the same concept of a "sales order" in our system corresponds to the concept of a "purchase order" in that of our customers. So you see, the same data, mapped under a different name, simply because under a different bounded context the data may have a different perspective and meaning.
So, this is the realization that a given concept from our model may be represented in multiple bounded contexts, perhaps from a different perspective and names from our ubiquitous language.
Just to give another example, the OMS needs to know about the customer, but the representation of the idea of a customer in the OMS is probably different than the same representation of such a concept or entity in the CRM. In the OMS the customer's name, email, shipping and billing addresses are probably enough representation of this idea, but for the CRM the customer encompasses much more.
Another example: the IMS needs to know the shipping address of the customer to choose the best inventory (e.g. the one in a facility closest to its final destination), but probably does not care much about the billing address. On the other hand, the billing address is fundamental for the Payment Management System (PMS). So, both the IMS and PMS may have a concept of an "order", it is just that it is not exactly the same, neither it has the same meaning or perspective, even if we store the same data.
One final example: the accounting system cares about the inventory for accounting purposes, to be able to tell how much we own, but perhaps accounting does not care about the specific location of the inventory within the warehouse, that's a detail only the IMS cares about.
In conclusion, I would not say this is about "copying data", this is about appropriately representing a fundamental concept within your bounded context and the realization that some concepts from the model may overlap between systems and have different representations, sometimes even under different names and levels of details. That's why I suggested that you investigate the idea of context mapping some more.
In other words, from my perspective, it would be a mistake to assume that the concept of an "order" only exists in the OMS. I could probably say that the OMS is the master of record of orders and that if something happens to an order we should let other interested systems know about those events since they care about some of that data because those other systems could have mapping concepts related to orders and when reacting to the changes in the master of record, they probably want to change their data as well.
From this point of view, copying some data is a side effect of having a proper design for the bounded context and not a goal in itself.
I hope that answers your question.
