I have a class "Vertex" with 4 attributes and a class "Vertex_" with one attribute. The one attribute in Vertex_ is also in Vertex. Is it a good design to keep the two classes or is it better to program just the class Vertex, although there will be 3 variables, which are not used, when I instantiate an object which needs just the one attribute?
Class Vertex_ is actually somewhat a duplicate of Class Vertex.
I would suggest using inheritance and having Class Vertex inherit the attribute from the parent Class Vertex_ while having the 3 other attributes Class Vertex_ does not have.
TL;DR
This is a question that deserves a very long answer.There are two reasons for inheritance and the reason for doing it can depend on the language being used. One reason is for code reuse. Without knowing anything else about your situation, it would seem you are inheriting simply to reuse an attribute (but I suspect there could be more you will be reusing). But, there are other ways of getting code reuse without inheritance, for example containment, which is often a better way.
A powerful feature of object-oriented programming is the ability to substitute one type of object for another. When a message is sent to that object, the correct method implementation is invoked according the actual type of object receiving the message. This is one type of polymorphism. But in some languages the ability to substitute one object for another is constrained. In Java I can only substitute an instance of class B for an instance of class A if B is a descendant of A. So inheritance becomes important in Java to support polymorphism.
But what does it mean to be able to substitute a B instance for an A instance? Will it work? Class A has established a contract stating what each of its methods requires before you can successfully call it and at the same time states what each method promises to deliver. Will the methods of class B live up to that contract? If not, you really cannot substitute a B for an A and expect the program to run correctly. B may be a subclass of A but it is not a subtype of A (see Liskov substitution principle]).
In a language such as Python, inheritance is not required for polymorphism and coders are more apt to use it as code-reuse mechanism. Nevertheless, some people feel that subclassing should only be used to express subtyping. So, if Vertex_ is only using one of the four attributes it has inherited, I am doubtful that an instance of Vertex_ could be safely substituted for an instance of Vertex. I would not do the inheritance unless the language were C++ and then I would use private inheritance.
Related
This is my naive thought process. I appreciate when anyone points out any discrepancies.
I know that in Java it is possible to create private nested classes. But in PHP (calling itself an "OOL") no such thing is easily possible.
However, there may be an instance where I need to use a helper class within only one other class.
This naturally led me to consider using composition about which I think its supposed to actually solve this kind of a problem, for the following reason:
Wikipedia:
It is only called composite, if the objects it refers to
are really its parts, i.e. have no independent existence.
Aggregation differs from ordinary composition in that it does not imply ownership.
In composition, when the owning object is destroyed, so are the
contained objects. In aggregation, this is not necessarily true.
So since in composition the components aren't supposed to exist without the other composite object, I assume there is basically only one way of accomplishing this by using private nested classes, otherwise I will need to have the Component class visible, making it instantiable also somewhere else, violating the creation/destruction-of-components-within-the-composite-class rule.
Now I came across PHP where it is not possible at all to create nested classes (or maybe with some magic) which may lead to a question why do we need nested classes at all?
Compelling reasons for using nested classes include the following:
It is a way of logically grouping classes that are only used in one
place: If a class is useful to only one other class, then it is
logical to embed it in that class and keep the two together. Nesting
such "helper classes" makes their package more streamlined.
It increases encapsulation: Consider two top-level classes, A and B,
where B needs access to members of A that would otherwise be declared
private. By hiding class B within class A, A's members can be declared
private and B can access them. In addition, B itself can be hidden
from the outside world.
It can lead to more readable and maintainable code: Nesting small
classes within top-level classes places the code closer to where it is
used.
So in my opinion, as nested classes increase encapsulation (and thus allowing for implementation of a composite concept) it should be always possible to create a nested class in a proper OOL.
I also looked up the definition of an OOP and it only mentions the support for Encapsulation, Abstraction, Inheritance, Polymorphism concepts.
OOP
Encapsulation means that the internal representation of an object is generally hidden from view outside of the object’s
definition.
Abstraction is the development of classes, objects, types in terms of their interfaces and functionality, instead of their implementation details. (e.g. instead or creating a single sequence of commands to work with a radius and points we would abstract a concept of a circle. So we define a class Circle and a its attributes/functions in such a way that it reflects this abstract concept.)
Inheritance is supposed to be the is-a relationship between abstractions (allowing for code reuse).
Polymorphism allows for overriding and overloading methods.
A guy asked a question here which actually complies exactly with my understanding of the problem and IMHO received quite inaccurate answer, being told to be really confused and being provided with a code sample which IMO is not a proper composition, as it is not really possible in PHP. In addition someone may argue that composition isn't about inner classes.
So am I understanding something really wrong?
Those concepts like composition are generic and their implementation may vary depending on the programming language.
In the other hand, I wouldn't say that the definition of composition which includes [...] have no independent existence refers to being able to create instances or not from different scopes.
No independent existence is a more conceptual than practical rule. It means that a wheel can never be the composition root because the root is the car. That is, a wheel can't exist independently of a car.
Therefore, the conclusion is nested classes are just an implementation detail and they have nothing to do with composition. Note that objects aren't created from classes in all programming languages but composition and many other features are still possible. Would you say that object composition isn't possible in JavaScript?
var car = { manufacturer: "Ford", model: "Focus" };
// I can create the wheel after the car
var wheel = { color: "black" };
// but it'll be always tied to some car
car.wheel = wheel;
Anyway, practically all systems implement aggregation, which is a flavor of composition. Take a look at this Q&A at Software Engineering.
While a wheel is useless without being part of a car, wheels are still sold apart as one of the many mechanical pieces of which a car is built, hence a wheel can live alone yet it's useless as just a piece.
Generic definition of composition in OOP
The OP is too concerned and focused on the formal definition of composition in terms of UML: composition, association, direct association, aggregation...
BTW, the term composition in OOP has a more simple meaning which is often used, for example, when discussing when to use inheritance or when to avoid it, we talk about composition over inheritance. See for example this Q&A from 2010: What is composition as it relates to object oriented design? on which basically all answerers have a consensus about the definition of composition.
At the end of the day, the term composition is the approach to create an object graph: simple types are associated together to create more complex types.
Thus, as I've already explained in the first part of this answer, nested classes are just a programming language implementation detail and they're not crucial to implement any flavor of composition.
OP said on some comment:
But conceptually in order to implement it properly as a composition,
I'd prefer something like partial classes (as in C#) allowing me to
separate code into multiple files but restricting the instantiability
to the main class only. I know you don't agree with me, I have to
express my view somehow.
This is a wrong example because partial classes are just a syntactic sugar to glue multiple files defining the same class and later everything is the same class.
C# has nested classes:
public class A
{
public class B
{
}
}
But you need to understand that type definitions have nothing to do with objects from a conceptual point of view because an object-oriented language may or may not have a type system and classes, but yet it can support composition and all its flavors.
In wikipedia, there's also the following example of composition without using private nested classes.
class University
{
std::vector<Department> faculty; //this is composition
std::vector<People*> people; //this is aggregation
University() // constructor
{
// Composition: Departments exist as long as the University exists
faculty.push_back(Department("chemistry"));
faculty.push_back(Department("physics"));
faculty.push_back(Department("arts"));
}
};
For a true composition we don't have to make the whole class private as long as we treat instances of departments appropriately, i.e. we need to make sure that all departments will actually get deleted when the university ceases to exist.
An analogous ways of implementing different compositions in JavaScript would be as follows:
/*this is a component's "class"*/
function Text(txt){
this.txt = txt;
}
/*this is a composite's "class"*/
function Hello(begining){
/*public object*/
this.begining = begining;
/*this is like making an instance from a nested function which is a composite*/
var Middle = new (function Middle(txt){
this.txt = txt;
})(" - ");
/*private object - also a composite, even though it's made of the public class Text*/
var Ending = new Text("that's all.");
/*The use of the private property Ending*/
this.Say = function(){
var msg = this.begining.txt + Middle.txt + Ending.txt;
console.log(msg);
}
}
/*
This txt variable will be the "begining" text. It could still be a composite, but
only if it's not used in another composite when purpose is to be
"an untransferable part" and not a "visitor".
*/
var txt = new Text("Dan");
var say1 = new Hello(txt);
var say2 = new Hello(new Text("To be or not to be"));
say1.Say() /*Dan - that's all.*/
say2.Say() /*To be or not to be - that's all.*/
But even the transferability is often a neglected rule when people see "cars" having "wheels" as parts (rather then "visitors")
Instead of perhaps "neural network" and "neurons" or "forest" and "trees". Trees don't get replanted to a different forest so often.
And since the wheels can still be understood as parts of a composite, it doesn't have to differ from aggregation in code.
It seems to me that I can make just about anything using object, trait, abstract class and in rare occasions, case class. Most of this is in the form object extends trait. So, I'm wondering, when should I, if ever, use a plain, standard class?
This is not a right place to ask this question
Looks like you are new Scala
Class is a specification for something(some entity) you want to model . It contains behavior and state
There is only one way to declare so called regular class using keyword class
Both trait and abstract class are used for inheritance.
trait is used for inheritance (generally to put common behavior in there). trait is akin to interface in Java. multiple inheritance possible with traits but not abstract class.
A class can extends one class or abstract class but can mixin any number of traits. Traits can have behavior and state.
case class is a nothing but a class but compiler produces some boilerplate code for us to make things easy and look good.
object is used when you want to declare some class but you want to have single instance of the class in the JVM (remember singleton pattern).
If an object performs stateful computations on its members i.e. its members are declared with vars;
Or, even if its member are only declared with vals but those vals store mutable data structures which can be edited in place, then it should be an ordinary (mutable) class akin to a Java mutable object.
The idiomatic way of using Case classes in Scala is as immutable types i.e. all the constructor arguments are vals. We could use vars but then we lose the advantages of case classes like equality comparisons will break over time.
Some advise from Programming in Scala by Odersky et al on deciding between using traits, abstract classes and concrete classes:
If the behavior will not be reused, then make it a concrete class. It is not reusable behavior after all.
If it might be reused in multiple, unrelated classes, make it a trait.
Only traits can be mixed into different parts of the class hierarchy.
If you want to inherit from it in Java code, use an abstract class.
Since traits with code do not have a close Java analog, it tends to be
awkward to inherit from a trait in a Java class. Inheriting from a
Scala class, meanwhile, is exactly like inheriting from a Java class.
As one exception, a Scala trait with only abstract members translates
directly to a Java interface, so you should feel free to define such
traits even if you expect Java code to inherit from it. See Chapter 29
for more information on working with Java and Scala together.
If you plan to distribute it in compiled form, and you expect outside
groups to write classes inheriting from it, you might lean towards
using an abstract class. The issue is that when a trait gains or loses
a member, any classes that inherit from it must be recompiled, even if
they have not changed. If outside clients will only call into the
behavior, instead of inheriting from it, then using a trait is fine.
If efficiency is very important, lean towards using a class. Most Java
runtimes make a virtual method invocation of a class member a faster
operation than an interface method invocation. Traits get compiled to
interfaces and therefore may pay a slight performance overhead.
However, you should make this choice only if you know that the trait
in question constitutes a performance bottleneck and have evidence
that using a class instead actually solves the problem.
If you still do not know, after considering the above, then start by
making it as a trait. You can always
change it later, and in general using a trait keeps more options open.
In c# we have the protected accessor which allows class members to be visible on inherited clases but not for the rest.
In Swift this doesn't exist so I wonder what's a correct approach for something like this:
I want to have a variable (internal behavior) and and a public method using this variable on a base class. This variable will be used also on inherited clases.
Options I see
Forget about base class and implement variable and methods everywhere I need it. WRONG, duplicated code
Implement inheritance by composition. I'd create a class containing common methods and this will be used by composition instead of inheritance. LESS WRONG but still repeating code that could be avoided with inheritance
Implement inheritance and make variable internal on base class. WRONG since exposes things without any justification except allowing visibility on inherited clases.
Implementation Details for Base Class
I want to have a NSOperationQueue instance and and a public method to cancel queued operations. I add new operations to this queue from inherited classes.
In Swift the correct answer is almost always protocols and extensions. It is almost never inheritance. Sometimes Cocoa stands in our way, because there are classes in Cocoa more often than protocols, but the goal is almost always protocols and extensions. Subclassing is our last choice.
Your particular case is confusing because NSOperationQueue already has a public method to cancel queued operations (cancelAllOperations). If you want to protect the queue from outside access (prevent callers from using addOperation directly for instance), then you should put the queue inside another type (i.e. composition), and forward what you want to the queue. More details on the specific problem you're solving would allow us to help suggest other Swift-like solutions.
If in the end you need something that looks like protected or friend, the correct solution is private. Put your subclass or your friend in the same file with the target, and mark the private thing private. Alternately, put the things that need to work together in a framework, and mark the attribute internal. The Swift Blog provides a good explanation of why this is an intentional choice.
I have been developing my skills at creating large object orientated programs (30+ classes).
I am trying to make my code as clean as possible after reading a fantastic book called clean code.
One problem I am having is to do with calling a method on an object from "across the program"
Say I have 5 classes.
`ClassA
ClassB
ClassC
ClassD
ClassE`
an instance of ClassA contains an instance of ClassB, which in turn contains an instance of classC, so
`ClassA > ClassB > ClassC`
I'm not saying that this is the inheritance chain, rather that in the constructor of classA an instance of ClassB is created and so on.
Now, say that ClassD > ClassE in a similar way. ClassD is instansiated with an instance variable containing an instance of ClassE.
This is all well and good, and the classes are small and only handle one job, and it all seems nice and clean.
However, say that at some point in the program I need the instance of classC to call a method on the instance of ClassE.
The two objects are on 'opposite sides of the program' so to speak. Yet the method call is necessary.
I am left with three options as I see it
make the instance of classE a global variable, so that classD AND classC can access it (as well as anything else in the program). I feel like this is bad form as global variables are generally considered bad news
Create the instance of ClassE at the top level, then pass it in as an argument to the constructors of ClassA, ClassB, and ClassC. The trouble with this is that I would end up with really long constructor argument lists if this is happening more than once, and it seems like lots of work to pass ojects down chains of constructors like this
Move the object of ClassE to be instantiated by ClassC. The trouble with that is that its more strongly coupled with ClassD and only needs to be called once in the entire running of the program by ClassC.
So what do I do in situations such as these? And are there any resources I can read about this. I know that I could use the observer pattern for situations similar to this, but when its just for one method call it seems excessive, as I would be making things observable all over the program. I want my code as clean as possible!
Thanks in advance :)
Three words: Single Responsibility Principle. If you worry that your class has too many constructor arguments it's probably because this class needs to deal with too many different things. If you keep classes focused, they will be small.
You correctly indicate the coupling problem in the third solution you've described. The coupling problem is also present in the first solution (depending on a global variable is even harder to find/diagnose later). So the second option seems to be the best - as long as you refactor the code to keep your classes simple.
You could read up on Law of Demeter (Short explanation on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Demeter or a longer but very well written example http://www.ccs.neu.edu/research/demeter/demeter-method/LawOfDemeter/paper-boy/demeter.pdf)
Depending on the context / content of your example you could for instance: Build your Class D as a wrapper to your class E (or similar facade / adapter). Meaning if your class c sometimes needs to talk to an E instance it does so via it's class D instance.
Another way to go would be to provide a reference to a class E instance to those objects that need one.
If all your objects are talking to the same instance of E you could also think about the singleton pattern where there is only one instance of a class. But this instance is more or less globally available.
Give a bit more context info and we can develop this further.
EDIT: btw. a funny explanation of lad of demeter can be found here:
http://www.daedtech.com/visualization-mnemonics-for-software-principles
EDIT Nr.2 (your comment): ad. 1.) Maybe you can implement your class D in a way that reliefs your other classes of ever talking directly to an E object. Instead they ask their D instance to do something (not knowing that D delegates the call to E). Depending on what you are trying to do this might be an option for you.
ad. Singleton.) Yes and No. The Singleton main use is that it guarantees (if implemented correctly) that only one instance of the singleton object exists. If you are talking about config settings this might not be a requirement. You are right however that basically the thing is kind of a global variable with all it's downsides. Your object D sounds as if it's immutable in a sense that it does not change it's state while your program is running so maybe the problem is not that you create a complex dynamic behaviour but that you create too many dependencies.
Just another link/principle to get you thinking:
What is Inversion of Control?
Similar question but not quite the same thing
I was thinking that with extension methods in the same namespace as the interface you could get a similar effect to multiple inheritance in that you don't need to have duplicate code implementing the same interface the same way in 10 different classes.
What are some of the downsides of doing this? I think the pros are pretty obvious, it's the cons that usually come back to bite you later on.
One of the cons I see is that the extension methods can't be virtual, so you need to be sure that you actually do want them implemented the same way for every instance.
The problem that I see with building interface capability via extension methods is that you are no longer actually implementing the interface and so can't use the object as the interface type.
Say I have a method that takes an object of type IBar. If I implement the IBar interface on class Foo via extension methods, then Foo doesn't derive from IBar and can't be used interchangeably with it (Liskov Substitution principle). Sure, I get the behavior that I want added to Foo, but I lose the most important aspect of creating interfaces in the first place -- being able to define an abstract contract that can be implemented in a variety of ways by various classes so that dependent classes need not know about concrete implementations.
If I needed multiple inheritance (and so far I've lived without it) badly enough, I think I'd use composition instead to minimize the amount of code duplication.
A decent way to think about this is that instance methods are something done by the object, while extension methods are something done to the object. I am fairly certain the Framework Design Guidelines say you should implement an instance method whenever possible.
An interface declares "I care about using this functionality, but not how it is accomplished." That leaves implementers the freedom to choose the how. It decouples the intent, a public API, from the mechanism, a class with concrete code.
As this is the main benefit of interfaces, implementing them entirely as extension methods seems to defeat their purpose. Even IEnumerable<T> has an instance method.
Edit: Also, objects are meant to act on the data they contain. Extension methods can only see an object's public API (as they are just static methods); you would have to expose all of an object's state to make it work (an OO no-no).