There're likely no more than 2-4 widely used approaches to this problem.
I have a situation in which there's a common class I use all over the place, and (on occasion) I'd like to give it special abilities. For arguments sake, let's say that type checking is not a requirement.
What are some means of giving functionality to a class without it being simply inheritance or member functions?
One way I've seen is the "decorator" pattern in which a sort of mutator wraps around the class, modifies it a bit, and spits out a version of it with more functions.
Another one I've read about but never used is for gaming. It has something to do with entities and power-ups/augments. I'm not sure about the specifics, but I think they have a list of them.
???
I don't need specific code of a specific language so much as a general gist and some keywords. I can implement from there.
So as far as I understand, you're looking to extend an interface to allow client-specific implementations that may require additional functionality, and you want to do so in a way that doesn't clutter up the base class.
As you mentioned, for simple systems, the standard way is to use the Adaptor pattern: subclass the "special abilities", then call that particular subclass when you need it. This is definitely the best choice if the extent of the special abilities you'll need to add is known and reasonably small, i.e. you generally only use the base class, but for three-to-five places where additional functionality is needed.
But I can see why you'd want some other possible options, because rarely do we know upfront the full extent of the additional functionality that will be required of the subclasses (i.e. when implementing a Connection API or a Component Class, each of which could be extended almost without bound). Depending on how complex the client-specific implementations are, how much additional functionality is needed and how much it varies between the implementations, this could be solved in a variety of ways:
Decorator Pattern as you mentioned (useful in the case where the special entities are only ever expanding the pre-existing methods of the base class, without adding brand new ones)
class MyClass{};
DecoratedClass = decorate(MyClass);
A combined AbstractFactory/Adaptor builder for the subclasses (useful for cases where there are groupings of functionality in the subclasses that may differ in their implementations)
interface Button {
void paint();
}
interface GUIFactory {
Button createButton();
}
class WinFactory implements GUIFactory {
public Button createButton() {
return new WinButton();
}
}
class OSXFactory implements GUIFactory {
public Button createButton() {
return new OSXButton();
}
}
class WinButton implements Button {
public void paint() {
System.out.println("I'm a WinButton");
}
}
class OSXButton implements Button {
public void paint() {
System.out.println("I'm an OSXButton");
}
}
class Application {
public Application(GUIFactory factory) {
Button button = factory.createButton();
button.paint();
}
}
public class ApplicationRunner {
public static void main(String[] args) {
new Application(createOsSpecificFactory());
}
public static GUIFactory createOsSpecificFactory() {
int sys = readFromConfigFile("OS_TYPE");
if (sys == 0) return new WinFactory();
else return new OSXFactory();
}
}
The Strategy pattern could also work, depending on the use case. But that would be a heavier lift with the preexisting base class that you don't want to change, and depending on if it is a strategy that is changing between those subclasses. The Visitor Pattern could also fit, but would have the same problem and involve a major change to the architecture around the base class.
class MyClass{
public sort() { Globals.getSortStrategy()() }
};
Finally, if the "special abilities" needed are enough (or could eventually be enough) to justify a whole new interface, this may be a good time for the use of the Extension Objects Pattern. Though it does make your clients or subclasses far more complex, as they have to manage a lot more: checking that the specific extension object and it's required methods exist, etc.
class MyClass{
public addExtension(addMe) {
addMe.initialize(this);
}
public getExtension(getMe);
};
(new MyClass()).getExtension("wooper").doWoop();
With all that being said, keep it as simple as possible, sometimes you just have to write the specific subclasses or a few adaptors and you're done, especially with a preexisting class in use in many other places. You also have to ask how much you want to leave the class open for further extension. It might be worthwhile to keep the tech debt low with an abstract factory, so less changes need to be made when you add more functionality down the road. Or maybe what you really want is to lock the class down to prevent further extension, for the sake of understand-ability and simplicity. You have to examine your use case, future plans, and existing architecture to decide on the path forward. More than likely, there are lots of right answers and only a couple very wrong ones, so weigh the options, pick one that feels right, then implement and push code.
As far as I've gotten, adding functions to a class is a bit of a no-op. There are ways, but it seems to always get ugly because the class is meant to be itself and nothing else ever.
What has been more approachable is to add references to functions to an object or map.
Instead of writing a code like
FindObjectOfType<GameManager>().gameOver()
I would like to type just
gm.gameOver()
Is there a way to do that in Unity?
Maybe using some kind of alias, or some kind of namespace or something else. I am after making my code clean, so using GameManger gm = FindObjectOfType() in every file that uses a the GameManager is not what I am looking for.
In general I have to discourage this question. This is very questionable and I would actually not recommend this kind of shortening aliases for types and especially not for a complete method call ... bad enough when it is done with variables and fields by a lot of people.
Always use proper variable and field names thus that by reading the code you already know what you are dealing with!
how about storing it in a variable (or class field) at the beginning or whenever needed (but as early as possible)
// You could also reference it already in the Inspector
// and skip the FindObjectOfType call entirely
[SerializeField] private _GameManager gm;
private void Awake()
{
if(!gm) gm = FindObjectOfType<_GameManager>();
}
and then later use
gm.gameOver();
where needed.
In general you should do this only once because FindObjectOfType is a very performance intense call.
This has to be done of course for each class wanting to use the _GameManager instance ...
However this would mostly be the preferred way to go.
Alternatively you could also (ab)use a Singleton pattern ... it is controversial and a lot of people hate it kind of ... but actually in the end FindObjectOfType on the design side does kind of the same thing and is even worse in performance ...
public class _GameManager : MonoBehaviour
{
// Backing field where the instance reference will actually be stored
private static _GameManager instance;
// A public read-only property for either returning the existing reference
// finding it in the scene
// or creating one if not existing at all
public static _GameManager Instance
{
get
{
// if the reference exists already simply return it
if(instance) return instance;
// otherwise find it in the scene
instance = FindObjectOfType<_GameManager>();
// if found return it now
if(instance) return instance;
// otherwise a lazy creation of the object if not existing in scene
instance = new GameObject("_GameManager").AddComponent<_GameManager>();
return instance;
}
}
private void Awake()
{
instance = this;
}
}
so you can at least reduce it to
_GameManager.Instance.gameOver();
the only alias you can create now would be using a using statement at the top of the file like e.g.
using gm = _GameManager;
then you can use
gm.Instance.gameOver();
it probably won't get much shorter then this.
But as said this is very questionable and doesn't bring any real benefit, it only makes your code worse to read/maintain! What if later in time you also have a GridManager and a GroupMaster? Then calling something gm is only confusing ;)
Btw you shouldn't start types with a _ .. rather call it e.g. MyGameManager or use a different namespace if you wanted to avoid name conflicts with an existing type
I'm a seasoned Objective-c programmer but I can't say the same for Swift, I'm having a hard time unit testing a class in swift without using frameworks like OCMock.
The Problem: I'm integrating Firebase into a mixed Objective-C/Swift project, and I need to configure it based on the build configuration of the app.
I've written a Swift class for that (that will be used by the obj-c app delegate), however since the firebase framework is configured trough a static class method, precisely FIRApp.configure(with: FIROptions), I need to mock this method somehow in order to unit test it.
My code, without any handle for Dependency Injection, looks like that:
#objc class FirebaseConfigurator: NSObject{
func configureFirebase(){
let config = configManager.buildConfiguration
var optionsPlistBaseName = getPlistName()
let optionsFile = Bundle.main.path(forResource: optionsPlistBaseName, ofType: "plist")
guard let opts = FIROptions(contentsOfFile: optionsFile) else{
assert(false, "fatal: unable to load \(optionsFile)")
return
}
FIRApp.configure(with: opts)
}
func getPlistName() -> String{
// retrieves correct plist name and returns it
}
}
I've done some research but so far I didn't find nothing that fits my solution, however I was thinking of one of the following:
I could pass a function that defaults to FIRApp.configure(with:) however I should do this from objective-c and the function also accepts a parameter, I was struggling with the syntax
I could use a wrapper around FIRApp, but I wanted to avoid it unless the only viable clean solution.
I could keep on playing with protocols and do dependency inversion, however being the method static I was struggling with the syntax again, I can't find an easy way to do DI with a mock class with a static method.
As a reference (both personal and for who might need it) these are some of the resources I found useful and upon which I will keep on digging:
Dealing with static cling in Swift
This Question
This article about generic unit testing
In the meanwhile, every help would be really appreciated.
As a sidenote, there are many ways I can solve this problem without struggling with mocking a static class method, but my aim here is to find out a way of mocking it in order to have a better understanding of the best practices when testing more complex situations.
You can indeed do any of those.
Closure Argument
You can have your configureFirebase function take an "applier" closure that defaults to what you originally used:
func configureFirebase(
using apply: (_ options: FIROptions) -> Void
= { opts in FIRApp.configure(opts) }
) {
// building |opts| as before
// Now replace this: FIRApp.configure(with: opts)
apply(opts)
}
Protocols
You need a Configurable protocol, and then to conform FIRApp to it for the default case:
protocol Configurable {
static func configure(with options: FIROptions)
}
extension FIRApp: Configurable {}
class FirebaseConfigurator {
var configurable: Configurable
init(configurable: Configurable = FIRApp) {
self.configurable = configurable
}
func configureFirebase() {
//load |opts|…
configurable.configure(with: opts)
}
}
If you're just going to use this in one method, though, it's merely transient state, and it should probably be a function argument rather than stored property.
(If it's unclear whether it's persistent or transient state because the whole point of the class is to call a single function, perhaps you don't even need a class, just a function.)
Implementations of rx provide BehaviorSubject<T> and Variable<T> as mechanisms for modeling properties that change over time (a useful replacement for C# INotifyPropertyChanged).
Generally these are exposed as Observable<T> but it would be more useful to expose properties as something like:
class ObservableValue<T> : Observable<T>{
var currentValue:T { get }
}
This can be created along these lines in swift:
class ObservableValue<Element> : ObservableType {
typealias E = Element
private let subject:BehaviorSubject<E>
var currentValue:E {
get {
return try! subject.value()
}
}
init(subject:BehaviorSubject<E>) {
self.subject = subject
}
func subscribe<O: ObserverType where O.E == E>(observer: O) -> Disposable {
return self.subject.subscribe(observer)
}
}
Does this already exist? and if not is it because it's against the aims of Rx?
The only way around it is to expose a separate currentValue or write consumers that assume the concrete implementation behind the exposed Observable is a BehaviourSubject or somewhere in the chain a replay() has occured e.g. the following snippet doesn't make it explicit that as soon as I subscribe I will get a value:
class MyViewModel {
// 'I will notify you of changes perhaps including my current value'
myProperty:Observable<String>
}
so code has to be written as if its 'asynchronous' with an underlying assumption it will act in an almost synchronous manner rather than:
class MyViewModel {
// 'I have a current value and will notify you of changes going forward'
myProperty:ObservableValue<String>
}
Having thought it over and discussed it a bit more presumably the reason it doesn't (and perhaps shouldn't exist) is that it's an introduction of imperatively accessed state.
Other mechanisms of maintaining state (such as scan) do so within the confines of chained observables rather than as 'dead-end' direct calls such as 'give me the value right now'.
Perhaps it would have it's place in a hybrid reactive/imperative approach but it may just hinder full embracement of the reactive style.
It's analogous to using promises or tasks in half of the code then reverting to synchronous blocking code in other parts.
In most cases what people do is create a standard view model that exposes properties via INotifyPropertyChanged. This allows UI elements to bind to them and receive property change events and keep the UI in sync.
Then if you want an IObservable for said property you take advantage of standard Rx operators that turn events into IObservable. You can google this to find lots of different implementations. You would generally create and consume these observables from something that is observing the view model rather than expose them on the view model directly.
I'm currently modifying a class that has 9 different constructors. Now overall I believe this class is very poorly designed... so I'm wondering if it is poor design for a class to have so many constructors.
A problem has arisen because I recently added two constructors to this class in an attempt to refactor and redesign a class (SomeManager in the code below) so that it is unit testable and doesn't rely on every one of its methods being static. However, because the other constructors were conveniently hidden out of view about a hundred lines below the start of the class I didn't spot them when I added my constructors.
What is happening now is that code that calls these other constructors depends on the SomeManager class to already be instantiated because it used to be static....the result is a null reference exception.
So my question is how do I fix this issue? By trying to reduce the number of constructors? By making all the existing constructors take an ISomeManager parameter?
Surely a class doesn't need 9 constructors! ...oh and to top it off there are 6000 lines of code in this file!
Here's a censored representation of the constructors I'm talking about above:
public MyManager()
: this(new SomeManager()){} //this one I added
public MyManager(ISomeManager someManager) //this one I added
{
this.someManager = someManager;
}
public MyManager(int id)
: this(GetSomeClass(id)) {}
public MyManager(SomeClass someClass)
: this(someClass, DateTime.Now){}
public MyManager(SomeClass someClass, DateTime someDate)
{
if (someClass != null)
myHelper = new MyHelper(someOtherClass, someDate, "some param");
}
public MyManager(SomeOtherClass someOtherClass)
: this(someOtherClass, DateTime.Now){}
public MyManager(SomeOtherClass someOtherClass, DateTime someDate)
{
myHelper = new MyHelper(someOtherClass, someDate, "some param");
}
public MyManager(YetAnotherClass yetAnotherClass)
: this(yetAnotherClass, DateTime.Now){}
public MyManager(YetAnotherClass yetAnotherClass, DateTime someDate)
{
myHelper = new MyHelper(yetAnotherClass, someDate, "some param");
}
Update:
Thanks everyone for your responses...they have been excellent!
Just thought I'd give an update on what I've ended up doing.
In order to address the null reference exception issue I've modified the additional constructors to take an ISomeManager.
At the moment my hands are tied when it comes to being allowed to refactor this particular class so I'll be flagging it as one on my todo list of classes to redesign when I have some spare time. At the moment I'm just glad I've been able to refactor the SomeManager class...it was just as huge and horrible as this MyManager class.
When I get around to redesigning MyManager I'll be looking for a way to extract the functionality into two or three different classes...or however many it takes to ensure SRP is followed.
Ultimately, I haven't come to the conclusion that there is a maximum number of constructors for any given class but I believe that in this particular instance I can create two or three classes each with two or three constructors each..
A class should do one thing and one thing only. If it has so many constructors it seems to be a tell tale sign that it's doing too many things.
Using multiple constructors to force the correct creation of instances of the object in a variety of circumstances but 9 seems like a lot. I would suspect there is an interface in there and a couple of implementations of the interface that could be dragged out. Each of those would likely have from one to a few constructors each relevant to their specialism.
As little as possible,
As many as necessary.
9 constructors and 6000 lines in class is a sign of code smell. You should re-factor that class.
If the class is having lot of responsibilities and then you should separate them out. If the responsibilities are similar but little deviation then you should look to implement inheritance buy creating a interface and different implementations.
If you arbitrarily limit the number of constructors in a class, you could end up with a constructor that has a massive number of arguments. I would take a class with 100 constructors over a constructor with 100 arguments everyday. When you have a lot of constructors, you can choose to ignore most of them, but you can't ignore method arguments.
Think of the set of constructors in a class as a mathematical function mapping M sets (where each set is a single constructor's argument list) to N instances of the given class. Now say, class Bar can take a Foo in one of its constructors, and class Foo takes a Baz as a constructor argument as we show here:
Foo --> Bar
Baz --> Foo
We have the option of adding another constructor to Bar such that:
Foo --> Bar
Baz --> Bar
Baz --> Foo
This can be convenient for users of the Bar class, but since we already have a path from Baz to Bar (through Foo), we don't need that additional constructor. Hence, this is where the judgement call resides.
But if we suddenly add a new class called Qux and we find ourselves in need to create an instance of Bar from it: we have to add a constructor somewhere. So it could either be:
Foo --> Bar
Baz --> Bar
Qux --> Bar
Baz --> Foo
OR:
Foo --> Bar
Baz --> Bar
Baz --> Foo
Qux --> Foo
The later would have a more even distribution of constructors between the classes but whether it is a better solution depends largely on the way in which they are going to be used.
The answer: 1 (with regards to injectables).
Here's a brilliant article on the topic: Dependency Injection anti-pattern: multiple constructors
Summarized, your class's constructor should be for injecting dependencies and your class should be open about its dependencies. A dependency is something your class needs. Not something it wants, or something it would like, but can do without. It's something it needs.
So having optional constructor parameters, or overloaded constructors, makes no sense to me. Your sole public constructor should define your class's set of dependencies. It's the contract your class is offering, that says "If you give me an IDigitalCamera, an ISomethingWorthPhotographing and an IBananaForScale, I'll give you the best damn IPhotographWithScale you can imagine. But if you skimp on any of those things, you're on your own".
Here's an article, by Mark Seemann, that goes into some of the finer reasons for having a canonical constructor: State Your Dependency Intent
It's not just this class you have to worry about re-factoring. It's all the other classes as well. And this is probably just one thread in the tangled skein that is your code base.
You have my sympathy... I'm in the same boat.
Boss wants everything unit tested, doesn't want to rewrite code so we can unit test. End up doing some ugly hacks to make it work.
You're going to have to re-write everything that is using the static class to no longer use it, and probably pass it around a lot more... or you can wrap it in a static proxy that accessses a singleton. That way you an at least mock the singleton out, and test that way.
Your problem isn't the number of constructors. Having 9 constructors is more than usual, but I don't think it is necessarily wrong. It's certainly not the source of your problem. The real problem is that the initial design was all static methods. This is really a special case of the classes being too tightly coupled. The now-failing classes are bound to the idea that the functions are static. There isn't much you can do about that from the class in question. If you want to make this class non-static, you'll have to undo all that coupling that was written into the code by others. Modify the class to be non-static and then update all of the callers to instantiate a class first (or get one from a singleton). One way to find all of the callers is to make the functions private and let the compiler tell you.
At 6000 lines, the class is not very cohesive. It's probably trying to do too much. In a perfect world you would refactor the class (and those calling it) into several smaller classes.
Enough to do its task, but remember the Single Responsibility Principle, which states that a class should only have a single responsibility. With that in mind there are probably very few cases where it makes sense to have 9 constructors.
I limit my class to only have one real constructor. I define the real constructor as the one that has a body. I then have other constructors that just delegate to the real one depending on their parameters. Basically, I'm chaining my constructors.
Looking at your class, there are four constructors that has a body:
public MyManager(ISomeManager someManager) //this one I added
{
this.someManager = someManager;
}
public MyManager(SomeClass someClass, DateTime someDate)
{
if (someClass != null)
myHelper = new MyHelper(someOtherClass, someDate, "some param");
}
public MyManager(SomeOtherClass someOtherClass, DateTime someDate)
{
myHelper = new MyHelper(someOtherClass, someDate, "some param");
}
public MyManager(YetAnotherClass yetAnotherClass, DateTime someDate)
{
myHelper = new MyHelper(yetAnotherClass, someDate, "some param");
}
The first one is the one that you've added. The second one is similar to the last two but there is a conditional. The last two constructors are very similar, except for the type of parameter.
I would try to find a way to create just one real constructor, making either the 3rd constructor delegate to the 4th or the other way around. I'm not really sure if the first constructor can even fit in as it is doing something quite different than the old constructors.
If you are interested in this approach, try to find a copy of the Refactoring to Patterns book and then go to the Chain Constructors page.
Surely a class should have as many constructors as are required by the class... this doesnt mean than bad design can take over.
Class design should be that a constructor creates a valid object after is has finished. If you can do that with 1 param or 10 params then so be it!
It seems to me that this class is used to do way, way to much. I think you really should refactor the class and split it into several more specialized classes. Then you can get rid of all these constructors and have a cleaner, more flexible, more maintainable and more readable code.
This was not at direct answer to your question, but i do believe that if it is necessary for a class to have more than 3-4 constructors its a sign that it probably should be refactored into several classes.
Regards.
The only "legit" case I can see from you code is if half of them are using an obsolete type that you are working to remove from the code. When I work like this I frequently have double sets of constructors, where half of them are marked #Deprecated or #Obsolete. But your code seems to be way beyond that stage....
I generally have one, which may have some default parameters. The constructor will only do the minimum setup of the object so it's valid by the time it's been created. If I need more, I'll create static factory methods. Kind of like this:
class Example {
public:
static FromName(String newname) {
Example* result = new Example();
result.name_ = newname;
return result;
}
static NewStarter() { return new Example(); }
private:
Example();
}
Okay that's not actually a very good example, I'll see if I can think of a better one and edit it in.
The awnser is: NONE
Look at the Language Dylan. Its has a other System.
Instat of a constructors you add more values to your slots (members) then in other language. You can add a "init-keyword". Then if you make a instance you can set the slot to the value you want.
Ofcourse you can set 'required-init-keyword:' and there are more options you can use.
It works and it is easy. I dont miss the old system. Writing constructors (and destructors).
(btw. its still a very fast language)
I think that a class that has more than one constructor has more than one responsibility. Would be nice to be convinced about the opposite however.
A constructor should have only those arguments which are mandatory for creating the instance of that class. All other instance variables should have corresponding getter and setter methods. This will make your code flexible if you plan to add new instance variables in the future.
In fact following OO principle of -
For each class design aim for low coupling and high cohesion
Classes should be open for extension but closed for modification.
you should have a design like -
import static org.apache.commons.lang3.Validate.*;
public class Employee
{
private String name;
private Employee() {}
public String getName()
{
return name;
}
public static class EmployeeBuilder
{
private final Employee employee;
public EmployeeBuilder()
{
employee = new Employee();
}
public EmployeeBuilder setName(String name)
{
employee.name = name;
return this;
}
public Employee build()
{
validateFields();
return employee;
}
private void validateFields()
{
notNull(employee.name, "Employee Name cannot be Empty");
}
}
}