Trying to code to an interface so that unit testing and design are better. Some things that I am coding doesn't seem to have any other implementation other than the obvious one. Is there a naming convention for this?
If you've only got one implementation, why not name your interface after it? You can always refactor the name later, if a second implementation comes along.
Most of the time, we do name our interfaces after the implementation that inspired them. If we then find that we get a second implementation of that interface, we'll either rename the original implementation to be more specific or rename the interface to be more general.
Related
I am pretty aware of the benefits of interfaces and how it helps aggregate common functionality of similar types of objects. However I believe people have taken this 'always program to an interface' a bit too far.
a) People starting off by ALWAYS defining an interface and then implementing it in a class even if that interface is too specific to be implemented by any other class. - Am I the only one who thinks that this serves no useful purpose?
b) Forcing all 'related' interfaces to derive for a common (useless) interface because it is now 'extendable' - What?
c) What do you do in scenarios where two or more objects seem related but it is very difficult to define common interface methods because of its underlying differences?
Lets say for example, an interface named IConnection with a Connect() method. (this is how most examples trivialize interfaces). The problem is, different type of classes that implement the IConnection interface might require different data for establishing the connection, some might require a user name and password, some might require some kind of special connection key, some might require nothing at all. The Connect method as a contract is perfectly valid as each class will need some way of establishing a connection but the data they need is different.
Is an interface required in this case? If it is, how do you define the Connect method? If not, how do you prove that your concrete classes are still 'extendable'?
Sorry for the long rant, this has been bugging me for quite some time now. Most people after reading the famous design patterns book try to implement every possible pattern in everything they do without bothering to figure out whether it helps. I believe the pattern should be brought into play when you are faced with a problem not just for the heck of it.
In your IConnection example you're basically describing an abstract Connect() method, since each class will have to implement its own version. Usually (always?) abstract methods can only be defined with the same parameters, so Connect(username, password) and Connect(key) couldn't be implementations of the same Connect() method from an interface.
Now, at this point, you could define it as IConnection::Connect(SomeConnectionData) and derive UsernamePasswordConnectionData and KeyConnectionData, etc., etc. from that SomeConnectionData class but all this would be so hard to explain and implement that its pretty good clue that interfaces and inheritance aren't helping the situation.
If it makes programming it and using it harder, don't do it. If something is made "extendable" by becoming too complex to understand, no will extend it anyway. It's perfectly okay to define a bunch of classes, each with their own Connect() methods just as a convention.
From a design point of view, can I say that Interfaces are used to produce flexible code open for future easy maintenance. Referring to the case study, am I right to say:
Interface in this example is used because both Professor and HeadofDept class have the power to employ people. Assuming that we might add other people who might be given the right to employ people in the near future.
Thanks for your attention.
Interface will allow your code to call methods like employPeople() on the base type i.e EmployerProfessor. So you pass around EmployerProfessor objects and code need not know what the exact implementation is, it just knows that it can call employPeople(). So it allows for dynamic dispatch of method calls. Using some compiler implementation (vtable etc) it will call the correct method for you.
Interfaces are not always so flexible, its difficult to go and just change an interface since current code in the wild may be affected. An interface provides a contract, it tells the class implementing it, that you must provide the following methods.
Often when I create new classes, I first create a new interface. I name the methods of my interface exactly as I would like them to behave. A colleague of mine prefers to have these method names being more abstract, ie: areConditionsMet(). The reason, he wants to hide the 'implementation details'.
IMO implementation details are different from the expected behavior. Could anyone perhaps give more insight. My goal is to reach a common ground with my colleague.
Your method names should describe what the method does, but not how it does it. The example you gave is a pretty poor method name, but it's better than isXGreatherThan1AndLessThan6(). Without knowing the details about what it should do, I would say that it should be specific to the problem at hand, but general enough that the implementation could change without affecting the name itself, i.e., you don't want the name of the method to be brittle. An example might be isTemperatureWithinRange() - that describes what I'm checking but doesn't describe how it's accomplished. The user of the method should be confident that the output will reflect whether the temperature is within a certain range -- whether this is supplied as an argument or defined by the contract of the class, is immaterial.
Interfaces should represent some behavior or capability and not the way it is to be accomplished. Users of interfaces should not be interested in the way a target is achieved, they just want to know its done.
Implementation issues should not be included within the name of methods for that exact reason. The name of the table updated as a result of this method or the technology used has nothing to do in your domain object's method's name.
However from your question it is hard to say what is the exact case at hand.
If you could provide more details perhaps i could provide an additional help.
The names of your interface methods should leave the user of the interface in no doubt about what the method proposes to do from a functional perspective. If the implementation matches that, well and good.
Based on your updated comments:
Sounds to me like you need two methods: isModified() and hasProperties(). Leave it up to the user (or higher layer) of the domain object to determine if a particular criteria is fulfilled.
An interface should also be designed with the view that after it is released it will never be changed. By saying isDomainObjectModifiedAndHasProperties() you are setting in concrete that this is the criteria of fullfilment (regardless of any future unforseen implementation).
We seems to be abstracting a lot of logic way from web pages and creating "helper" classes. Sadly, these classes are all sounding the same, e.g
ADHelper, (Active Directory)
AuthenicationHelper,
SharePointHelper
Do other people have a large number of classes with this naming convention?
I would say that it qualifies as a code smell, but remember that a code smell doesn't necessarily spell trouble. It is something you should look into and then decide if it is okay.
Having said that I personally find that a name like that adds very little value and because it is so generic the type may easily become a bucket of non-related utility methods. I.e. a helper class may turn into a Large Class, which is one of the common code smells.
If possible I suggest finding a type name that more closely describes what the methods do. Of course this may prompt additional helper classes, but as long as their names are helpful I don't mind the numbers.
Some time ago I came across a class called XmlHelper during a code review. It had a number of methods that obviously all had to do with Xml. However, it wasn't clear from the type name what the methods had in common (aside from being Xml-related). It turned out that some of the methods were formatting Xml and others were parsing Xml. So IMO the class should have been split in two or more parts with more specific names.
As always, it depends on the context.
When you work with your own API I would definitely consider it a code smell, because FooHelper indicates that it operates on Foo, but the behavior would most likely belong directly on the Foo class.
However, when you work with existing APIs (such as types in the BCL), you can't change the implementation, so extension methods become one of the ways to address shortcomings in the original API. You could choose to names such classes FooHelper just as well as FooExtension. It's equally smelly (or not).
Depends on the actual content of the classes.
If a huge amount of actual business logic/business rules are in the helper classes, then I would say yes.
If the classes are really just helpers that can be used in other enterprise applications (re-use in the absolute sense of the word -- not copy then customize), then I would say the helpers aren't a code smell.
It is an interesting point, if a word becomes 'boilerplate' in names then its probably a bit whiffy - if not quite a real smell. Perhaps using a 'Helper' folder and then allowing it to appear in the namespace keeps its use without overusing the word?
Application.Helper.SharePoint
Application.Helper.Authentication
and so on
In many cases, I use classes ending with Helper for static classes containing extension methods. Doesn't seem smelly to me. You can't put them into a non-static class, and the class itself does not matter, so Helper is fine, I think. Users of such a class won't see the class name anyway.
The .NET Framework does this as well (for example in the LogicalTreeHelper class from WPF, which just has a few static (non-extension) methods).
Ask yourself if the code would be better if the code in your helper class would be refactored to "real" classes, i.e. objects that fit into your class hierarchy. Code has to be somewhere, and if you can't make out a class/object where it really belongs to, like simple helper functions (hence "Helper"), you should be fine.
I wouldn't say that it is a code smell. In ASP.NET MVC it is quite common.
Maybe its because I've been coding around two semesters now, but the major stumbling block that I'm having at this point is converting the professor's project description and requirements to actual code. Since I'm currently in Algorithms 101, I basically do a bottom-up process, starting with a blank whiteboard and draw out the object and method interactions, then translate that into classes and code.
But now the prof has tossed interfaces and abstract classes into the mix. Intellectually, I can recognize how they work, but am stubbing my toes figuring out how to use these new tools with the current project (simulating a web server).
In my professors own words, mapping the abstract description to Java code is the real trick. So what steps are best used to go from English (or whatever your language is) to computer code? How do you decide where and when to create an interface, or use an abstract class?
So what steps are best used to go from English (or whatever your language is) to computer code?
Experience is what teaches you how to do this. If it's not coming naturally yet (and don't feel bad if it doesn't, because it takes a long time!), there are some questions you can ask yourself:
What are the main concepts of the system? How are they related to each other? If I was describing this to someone else, what words and phrases would I use? These thoughts will help you decide what classes are useful to think about.
What sorts of behaviors do these things have? Are there natural dependencies between them? (For example, a LineItem isn't relevant or meaningful without the context of an Order, nor is an Engine much use without a Car.) How do the behaviors affect the state of the other objects? Do they communicate with each other, and if so, in what way? These thoughts will help you develop the public interfaces of your classes.
That's just the tip of the iceberg, of course. For more about this thought process in general, see Eric Evans's excellent book, Domain-Driven Design.
How do you decide where and when to create an interface, or use an abstract class?
There's no hard and fast prescriptions; again, experience is the best guide here. That said, there's certainly some rules of thumb you can follow:
If several unrelated or significantly different object types all provide the same kind of functionality, use an interface. For example, if the Steerable interface has a Steer(Vector bearing) method, there may be lots of different things that can be steered: Boats, Airplanes, CargoShips, Cars, et cetera. These are completely unrelated things. But they all share the common interface of being able to be steered.
In general, try to favor an interface instead of an abstract base class. This way you can define a single implementation which implements N interfaces. In the case of Java, you can only have one abstract base class, so you're locked into a particular inheritance hierarchy once you say that a class inherits from another one.
Whenever you don't need implementation from a base class, definitely favor an interface over an abstract base class. This would also be handy if you're operating in a language where inheritance doesn't apply. For example, in C#, you can't have a struct inherit from a base class.
In general...
Read a lot of other people's code. Open source projects are great for that. Respect their licenses though.
You'll never get it perfect. It's an iterative process. Don't be discouraged if you don't get it right.
Practice. Practice. Practice.
Research often. Keep tackling more and more challenging projects / designs. Even if there are easy ones around.
There is no magic bullet, or algorithm for good design.
Nowadays I jump in with a design I believe is decent and work from that.
When the time is right I'll implement understanding the result will have to refactored ( rewritten ) sooner rather than later.
Give this project your best shot, keep an eye out for your mistakes and how things should've been done after you get back your results.
Keep doing this, and you'll be fine.
What you should really do is code from the top-down, not from the bottom-up. Write your main function as clearly and concisely as you can using APIs that you have not yet created as if they already existed. Then, you can implement those APIs in similar fashion, until you have functions that are only a few lines long. If you code from the bottom-up, you will likely create a whole lot of stuff that you don't actually need.
In terms of when to create an interface... pretty much everything should be an interface. When you use APIs that don't yet exist, assume that every concrete class is an implementation of some interface, and use a declared type that is indicative of that interface. Your inheritance should be done solely with interfaces. Only create concrete classes at the very bottom when you are providing an implementation. I would suggest avoiding abstract classes and just using delegation, although abstract classes are also reasonable when two different implementations differ only slightly and have several functions that have a common implementation. For example, if your interface allows one to iterate over elements and also provides a sum function, the sum function is a trivial to implement in terms of the iteration function, so that would be a reasonable use of an abstract class. An alternative would be to use the decorator pattern in that case.
You might also find the Google Techtalk "How to Design a Good API and Why it Matters" to be helpful in this regard. You might also be interested in reading some of my own software design observations.
Also, for the coming future, you can keep in pipeline to read the basics on domain driven design to align yourself to the real world scenarios - it gives a solid foundation for requirements mapping to the real classes.