Say I have two services AService and BService, both of which require an api key.
So in my modules, I can't do something like:
#Provides #Singleton #A #ApiKey String provideAKey() { return "a"; }
#Provides #Singleton #B #ApiKey String provideBKey() { return "b"; }
(Dagger would complain with "Only one qualifier annotation is allowed per element").
Instead what I have to do, is define two separate qualifiers for each combination: #ApiKeyA and #ApiKeyB.
For a service with multiple dependencies, (think network client, request headers, etc.) it gets cumbersome to define these qualifiers for each combination, rather than simply combine different annotations.
Is there a reason why this explicitly disallowed?
It's to simplify Dagger's implementation, and to make it faster.
Please see this issue:
JSR330 forbids to have have multiple qualifier annotations.
For more detail, this discussion might be helpful.
Related
I'm looking for advice on this problem and whether service locator and class naming conventions are an ok solution (I tend to avoid these anti-patterns), and potential performance ramifications.
An app has a collection of objects implementing the same interface, distinguished by name. For example:
public interface IDog {
void Bark();
}
public class Pug: IDog {
public void Bark() {
// Pug bark implementation
}
}
public class Beagle: IDog {
public void Bark() {
// Beagle bark implementation
}
}
In the code, when you need an IDog, you only know a string name that is passed to you, for example "Pug" or "Beagle". In this case the string may contain special characters (example: <breed:pug />)
There are a few proposed solutions that have come about:
Using reflection, find the implementation needed where the string name == implementation name.
Add an addribute to each class, use reflection where string name == attribute property. Ex [DogBreed("Pug")]
Add a Breed property to the IDog interface. Inject a IList into a factory class, and have it retrieve the matching dog. Ex.
Private IList _dogs;
Public DogFactory(IList<IDog> dogs) {
_dogs = dogs;
}
Public IDog GetDog(string dogBreed) {
return _dogs.First(x => x.Breed == dogBreed);
}
1 and 2 use service locator. 1 uses an implied naming convention that you will only know by seeing the reflection code. 3 the concern is that all of the objects will be built in memory even though you only need a single implementation.
I personally have leaned towards #3 in the past. Object creation should be cheap. However, this is a legacy web app and objects down the chain may have heavy initialization cost. This application uses Unity for IoC.
Option 1.
This option sounds like the Partial Type Name Role Hint idiom. If you inject the list of candidates and find the appropriate Strategy among those candidates, it's just plain old Constructor Injection, and has nothing to do with Service Locator (which is a good thing).
Option 2.
This option sounds like the Metadata Role Hint idiom. Again, if you inject the list of candidates via the constructor, Service Locator is nowhere to be seen.
Option 3.
This options sounds like a variation of the Role Interface Role Hint idiom. Still supports use of good old Constructor Injection.
Personally, I tend to favour Partial Type Name Role Hint because this design doesn't impact the implementation of any business logic. All the selection logic becomes a pure infrastructure concern, and can be defined independently of the implementations and clients.
When it comes to the cost of composing the relevant object graphs, there are ways to address any issues in clean ways.
Do you always create these two abstract base classes as the basis of any new project in DDD?
I've read that Entity should have two things. First, an identity property, probably of a generic type. Second, an Equals() method that determines whether it's the same as another Entity. Anything else? Any other natural methods or rules of thumb?
I like to have a common abstract ancestor for all my Domain objects but that is a matter of preference and overall infrastructure requirements.
After that, yes I have abstract classes for Entity and Value objects.
Don't forget that also overriding Equals for Value objects to return equality based on equal property state can be important.
Also people frequently overlook the value of packages. Put all these core base classes in their own "kernel" library and don't be reluctant to split your domain model into multiple assemblies instead of winding up with a single large "Domain Library".
If you're using .NET/C#, I've published a set of DDD interfaces and classes for public use. Take a look to see what typically goes inside them. The embedded code comments should hint towards their usage.
You can [download it here][1]. Project is dead now.
I've never needed the Equals() method in my applications thus far. Your mileage may vary though.
However, I create empty interfaces and use them as descriptors:
public interface IAggregateRoot {}
public interface IEntity {}
public interface IValueObject {}
public class Order : IAggregateRoot
{
...
}
public class State : IValueObject
{
...
}
This question already has answers here:
What is the point of interfaces in PHP?
(15 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
From php.net:
Object interfaces allow you to create code which specifies which methods
a class must implement, without having to define how these methods are handled.
Why should I need to do that? Could it be a kind of 'documentation'?
When I'm thinking about a class I have to implement, I know exactly which methods I should code.
What are some situations where interfacing a class is a "best practice"?
Short answer: uniform interfaces and polymorphism.
Longer answer: you can obviously just create a class that does everything and indeed you'd know what methods to write. The problem you have with using just concrete classes, however, is your lack of ability to change. Say you have a class that stores your users into a MySQL database, let's call it a UserRepository. Imagine the following code:
<?php
class UserRepositoryMysql {
public function save( User $user ) {
// save the user.
}
}
class Client {
public function __construct( UserRepositoryMysql $repos ) {
$this->repos = $repos;
}
public function save( User $user ) {
$this->repos->save( $user );
}
}
Now, this is all good, as it would actually work, and save the User to the database. But imagine your application will become populair, and soon, there is a question to support PostgreSQL as well. You'll have to write a UserRepositoryPostgresql class, and pass that along instead of UserRepositoryMysql. Now, you've typehinted on UserRepositoryMysql, plus you're not certain both repositories use the same methods. As an aside, there is little documentation for a potential new developer on how to implement his own storage.
When you rewrite the Client class to be dependent upon an interface, instead of a concrete class, you'll have an option to "swap them out". This is why interfaces are useful, obviously, when applied correctly.
First off, my php object coding is way behind my .net coding, however, the principles are the same. the advantages of using interfaces in your classes are many fold. Take for example the case where you need to return data from a search routine. this search routine may have to work across many different classes with completely different data structures. In 'normal' coding, this would be a nightmare trying to marry up the variety of different return values.
By implementing interfaces, you add a responsibility to the clsses that use them to produce a uniform set of data, no matter how disparate they may be. Another example would be the case where you are pulling data from different 'providers' (for example xml, json, csv etc, etc). By implementing an interface on each class type, you open up the possibilities to extend your data feeds painlessly by adding new classes that implement the interface, rather than having a mash-up of switch statements attempting to figure out what your intentions are.
In a word, think of an interface as being a 'contract' that the class 'must' honour. lnowing that means that you can code with confidence for that given scenario with only the implementation detail varying.
Hope this helps.
[edit] - see this example on SO for a fairly simple explanation:
An interface is a concept in Object Oriented programming that enables polymorphism. Basically an interface is like a contract, that by which classes that implement it agree to provide certain functionality so that they can be used the same way other classes that use the interface
purpose of interface in classes
The first case that comes to my mind is when you have a class that uses certain methods of another class. You don't care how this second class works, but expects it to have particular methods.
Example:
interface IB {
public function foo();
}
class B implements IB {
public function foo() {
echo "foo";
}
}
class A {
private $b;
public function __construct( IB $b ) {
$this->b = $b;
}
public function bar() {
$this->b->foo();
}
}
$a = new A( new B() );
$a->bar(); // echos foo
Now you can easily use different object passed to the instance of class A:
class C implements IB {
public function foo() {
echo "baz";
}
}
$a = new A( new C() );
$a->bar(); // echos baz
Please notice that the same bar method is called.
You can achieve similar results using inheritance, but as PHP does not support multiple inheritance, interfaces are better - class can implement more than one interface.
You can review one of PHP design patterns - Strategy.
Say you're creating a database abstraction layer. You provide one DAL object that provides generic methods for interfacing with a database and adapter classes that translate these methods into specific commands for specific databases. These adapters themselves need to have a generic interface, so the DAL object can talk to them in a standardized way.
You can specify the interface the adapters need to have using an Interface. Of course you can simply write some documentation that specifies what methods an adapter needs to have, but writing it in code enables PHP to enforce this interface for you. It enables PHP to throw helpful error messages before a single line of code is executed. Otherwise missing methods could only be found during runtime and only if you actually try to call them, which makes debugging a lot harder and code much more unreliable.
I am new to OSGi and came across several examples about OSGi services.
For example:
import org.osgi.framework.*;
import org.osgi.service.log.*;
public class MyActivator implements BundleActivator {
public void start(BundleContext context) throws Exception {
ServiceReference logRef =
context.getServiceReference(LogService.class.getName());
}
}
My question is, why do you use
getServiceReference(LogService.class.getName())
instead of
getServiceReference("LogService")
If you use LogService.class.getName() you have to import the Interface. This also means that you have to import the package org.osgi.services.log in your MANIFEST.MF.
Isn't that completely counterproductive if you want to reduce dependencies to push loose coupling? As far as I know one advantage of services is that the service consumer doesn't have to know the service publisher. But if you have to import one specific Interface you clearly have to know who's providing it. By only using a string like "LogService" you would not have to know that the Interface is provided by org.osgi.services.log.LogService.
What am I missing here?
Looks like you've confused implementation and interface
Using the actual interface for the name (and importing the interface , which you'll end up doing anyway) reenforces the interface contract that services are designed around. You don't care about the implemenation of a LogService but you do care about the interface. Every LogService will need to implement the same interface, hence your use of the interface to get the service. For all you know the LogService is really a wrapper around SLF4J provided by some other bundle. All you see is the interface. That's the loose coupling you're looking for. You don't have to ship the interface with every implementation. Leave the interface it's own bundle and have multiple implementations of that interface.
Side note: ServiceTracker is usually easier to use, give it a try!
Added benefits: Using the interface get the class name avoids spelling mistakes, excessive string literals, and makes refactoring much easier.
After you've gotten the ServiceReference, your next couple lines will likely involve this:
Object logSvc = content.getService(logRef)
// What can you do with logSvc now?!? It's an object, mostly useless
// Cast to the interface ... YES! Now you need to import it!
LogSerivce logger = (LogService)logSvc;
logger.log(LogService.LOG_INFO, "Interfaces are a contract between implementation and consumer/user");
If you use the LogService, you're coupled to it anyway. If you write middleware you likely get the name parameterized through some XML file or via an API. And yes, "LogService" will fail terribly, you need to use the fully qualified name: "org.osgi.service.log.LogService". Main reason to use the LogService.class.getName() pattern is to get correct renaming when you refactor your code and minimize spelling errors. The next OSGi API will very likely have:
ServiceReference<S> getServiceReference(Class<S> type)
calls to increase type safety.
Anyway, I would never use these low level API unless you develop middleware. If you actually depend on a concrete class DS is infinitely simpler, and even more when you use it with the bnd annotations (http://enroute.osgi.org/doc/217-ds.html).
#Component
class Xyz implements SomeService {
LogService log;
#Reference
void setLog( LogService log) { this.log = log; }
public void foo() { ... someservice ... }
}
If you develop middleware you get the service classes usually without knowing the actual class, via a string or class object. The OSGi API based on strings is used in those cases because it allows us to be more lazy by not creating a class loader until the last moment in time. I think the biggest mistake we made in OSGi 12 years ago is not to include the DS concepts in the core ... :-(
You cannot use value "LogService"
as a class name to get ServiceReference, because you have to use fully qualified class name
"org.osgi.services.log.LogService".
If you import package this way:
org.osgi.services.log;resolution:=optional
and you use ServiceTracker to track services in BundleActivator.start() method I suggest to use "org.osgi.services.log.LogService" instead of LogService.class.getName() on ServiceTracker initializazion. In this case you'll not get NoClassDefFoundError/ClassNotFountException on bundle start.
As basszero mentioned you should consider to use ServiceTracker. It is fairly easy to use and also supports a much better programming pattern. You must never assume that a ServiceReference you got sometime in the past is still valid. The service the ServiceReference points to might have gone away. The ServiceTracker will automatically notify you when a service is registered or unregistered.
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");
}
}
}