Say I have a class that looks like the following:
internal class SomeClass
{
IDependency _someDependency;
...
internal string SomeFunctionality_MakesUseofIDependency()
{
...
}
}
And then I want to add functionality that is related but makes use of a different dependency to achieve its purpose. Perhaps something like the following:
internal class SomeClass
{
IDependency _someDependency;
IDependency2 _someDependency2;
...
internal string SomeFunctionality_MakesUseofIDependency()
{
...
}
internal string OtherFunctionality_MakesUseOfIDependency2()
{
...
}
}
When I write unit tests for this new functionality (or update the unit tests that I have for the existing functionality), I find myself creating a new instance of SomeClass (the SUT) whilst passing in null for the dependency that I don't need for the particular bit of functionality that I'm looking to test.
This seems like a bad smell to me but the very reason why I find myself going down this path is because I found myself creating new classes for each piece of new functionality that I was introducing. This seemed like a bad thing as well and so I started attempting to group similar functionality together.
My question: should all dependencies of a class be consumed by all its functionality i.e. if different bits of functionality use different dependencies, it is a clue that these should probably live in separate classes?
When every instance method touches every instance variable then the class is maximally cohesive. When no instance method shares an instance variable with any other, the class is minimally cohesive. While it is true that we like cohesion to be high, it's also true that the 80-20 rule applies. Getting that last little increase in cohesion may require a mamoth effort.
In general if you have methods that don't use some variables, it is a smell. But a small odor is not sufficient to completely refactor the class. It's something to be concerned about, and to keep an eye on, but I don't recommend immediate action.
Does SomeClass maintain an internal state, or is it just "assembling" various pieces of functionality? Can you rewrite it that way:
internal class SomeClass
{
...
internal string SomeFunctionality(IDependency _someDependency)
{
...
}
internal string OtherFunctionality(IDependency2 _someDependency2)
{
...
}
}
In this case, you may not break SRP if SomeFunctionality and OtherFunctionality are somehow (functionally) related which is not apparent using placeholders.
And you have the added value of being able to select the dependency to use from the client, not at creation/DI time. Maybe some tests defining use cases for those methods would help clarifying the situation: If you can write a meaningful test case where both methods are called on same object, then you don't break SRP.
As for the Facade pattern, I have seen it too many times gone wild to like it, you know, when you end up with a 50+ methods class... The question is: Why do you need it? For efficiency reasons à la old-timer EJB?
I usually group methods into classes if they use a shared piece of state that can be encapsulated in the class. Having dependencies that aren't used by all methods in a class can be a code smell but not a very strong one. I usually only split up methods from classes when the class gets too big, the class has too many dependencies or the methods don't have shared state.
My question: should all dependencies of a class be consumed by all its functionality i.e. if different bits of functionality use different dependencies, it is a clue that these should probably live in separate classes?
It is a hint, indicating that your class may be a little incoherent ("doing more than just one thing"), but like you say, if you take this too far, you end up with a new class for every piece of new functionality. So you would want to introduce facade objects to pull them together again (it seems that a facade object is exactly the opposite of this particular design rule).
You have to find a good balance that works for you (and the rest of your team).
Looks like overloading to me.
You're trying to do something and there's two ways to do it, one way or another. At the SomeClass level, I'd have one dependency to do the work, then have that single dependent class support the two (or more) ways to do the same thing, most likely with mutually exclusive input parameters.
In other words, I'd have the same code you have for SomeClass, but define it as SomeWork instead, and not include any other unrelated code.
HTH
A Facade is used when you want to hide complexity (like an interface to a legacy system) or you want to consolidate functionality while being backwards compatible from an interface perspective.
The key in your case is why you have the two different methods in the same class. Is the intent to have a class which groups together similar types of behavior even if it is implemented through unrelated code, as in aggregation. Or, are you attempting to support the same behavior but have alternative implementations depending on the specifics, which would be a hint for a inheritance/overloading type of solution.
The problem will be whether this class will continue to grow and in what direction. Two methods won't make a difference but if this repeats with more than 3, you will need to decide whether you want to declare it as a facade/adapter or that you need to create child classes for the variations.
Your suspicions are correct but the smell is just the wisp of smoke from a burning ember. You need to keep an eye on it in case it flares up and then you need to make a decision as how you want to quench the fire before it burns out of control.
Related
I'm looking for a way of condensing some of my AS3 code to avoid almost duplicate commands.
The issue is that I have multiple variables with almost the same name e.g. frenchLanguage, englishLanguage, germanLanguage, spanishLanguage
My Controller class contains public static variables (these are accessed across multiple classes) and I need a way to be able to call a few of these variables dynamically. If the variables are in the class you are calling them from you can do this to access them dynamically:
this["spanish"+"Language"]
In AS3 it's not possible to write something like:
Controller.this["spanish"+"Language"]
Is there any way to achieve this? Although everything is working I want to be able to keep my code as minimal as possible.
It is possible to access public static properties of a class this way (assuming the class name is Controller as in your example:
Controller['propertyName']
I'm not sure how this helps to have "minimal code", but this would be a different topic/question, which might need some more details on what you want to achive.
Having said that, I like the approach DodgerThud suggests in the comments of grouping similar values in a (dynamic) Object or Dictonary and give it a proper name.
Keep in mind, that if the string you pass in as the key to the class or dynamic object is created from (textual) user input you should have some checks for the validity of that data, otherwise your programm might crash or expose other fields to the user.
It would make sense to utilize a Dictionary object for a set of variables inherited: it provides a solid logic and it happens to work...
I do not think this is what you are trying to accomplish. I may be wrong.
Classes in AS3 are always wrapped within a package - this is true whether you have compiled from Flash, Flex, Air, or any other...
Don't let Adobe confuse you. This was only done in AS3 to use Java-Based conventions. Regardless, a loosely typed language is often misunderstood, unfortunately. So:
this["SuperObject"]["SubObject"]["ObjectsMethod"][ObjectsMethodsVariable"](args..);
... is technically reliable because the compiler avoids dot notation but at runtime it will collect a lot of unnecessary data to maintain those types of calls.
If efficiency becomes an issue..
Use:
package packages {
import flash.*.*:
class This implements ISpecialInterface {
// Data Objects and Function Model
// for This Class
}
package packages {
import...
class ISpecialInterface extends IEventDispatcher
This is a bit of a generic software design question. Suppose you have a base class and lots of classes that derive from it (around 10).
There is some common functionality that is being shared between some of the classes (3-4 of derived classes need it). Basically a field for a UI control, an abstract method to create a UI control and the common code that uses the abstract method to recycle the UI piece (8-9 lines of code) using the abstract method. Something like this:
class BaseClass {
...
protected UIControl control;
protected abstract UIControl CreateUI();
protected void RecycleUI() {
if (/* some condition is met */) {
if (this.control != null) {
control.Dispose();
}
this.control = this.CreateUI();
this.AddToUITree(control);
}
}
...
}
Do you think it is OK to put this to base class instead of replicating the code in derived classes.
Drawback is that this piece of code is only used for some of the base classes and completely irrelevant for the other classes.
One alternative is to create an intermediate class that derives from BaseClass and use it as the base to the ones that need the functionality. I felt like creating a derived class for a couple line of code for a very specific purpose felt heavy. It doesn't feel like it is worth interrupting the inheritance tree for this. We try to keep the hierarchy as simple as possible so that it is easy to follow and understand the inheritance tree. Maybe if this was C++ where multiple inheritance is an option, it wouldn't be a big issue but multiple inheritance is not available.
Another option is to create a utility method and an interface to create/update the UI control:
interface UIContainer {
UIControl CreateUIControl();
UIControl GetUIControl();
void SetUIControl(UIControl control);
}
class UIControlUtil {
public void RecycleUI(UIContainer container) {
if (/* some condition is met */) {
if (container.GetUIControl() != null) {
container.GetUIControl().Dispose();
}
UIControl control = container.CreateUI();
container.SetUIControl(control);
container.AddToUITree(control);
}
}
}
I don't like this option because it bleeds UI logic externally which is less secure as its UI state can be manipulated externally. Also derived classes have to implement getter/setter now. One advantage is that there is another class outside of the aforementioned inheritance tree and it needs this functionality and it can use this utility function as well.
Do you have any other suggestions? Should I just suppress the urges that brew inside me to have common code not repeated?
One alternative is to create an intermediate class that derives from
BaseClass and use it as the base to the ones that need the
functionality.
Well, this is what I thought is the most appropriate. But it depends. The main question here is the following: are objects, that require UI recycling and really different from those, that do not? If they are really different, you have to create a new base class for them. If difference is really negligible, I think it's ok to leave things in a base class.
Do not forget about LSP.
We try to keep the hierarchy as simple as possible so that it is easy
to follow and understand the inheritance tree
I think more important here is to keep things not only simple, but also close to your real world things so that modeling new entities would be easy. Seeming easiness now may cause real troubles in the future.
Are static classes pretty much always frowned upon, or is there ever a good time to use them?
For example, would it make sense to implement something ubiquitous in your application like security in a static class? You could still use property injection on the static class to change out the implementation, and if you were to use something like MEF to inject the implementation then I would think it wouldn't get in the way of your tests.
I use static classes mainly for stateless helper classes and when I want to create extension methods. I try to avoid static classes that have state because as you mention it can get in the way of the tests.
Let's say you decide to add state to a static class. To test the methods of this class that depend on its state you will have to find a way to change this state during the tests. This means that you have to:
Prepare the state before each test.
Clear the state after each test.
This means that the class will need to offer a way (by means of internal methods or internal property setters) to alter its state which can be dangerous. If you want to create immutable classes or classes that encapsulate completely their implementation details then you will not be able to test them easily (if not at all) and your test might break more often from changes to the implementation. Even with MEF it will not be easy to do this.
Of course static class sometimes offer attractive solutions for problems like logging and,as mentioned in your question, security. In these cases I would go for a static class that delegates all calls to a private readonly field. This way the class of this field can be unit tested normally. You can then test the static class in your integration tests.
By the way have a look at .NET's design guidelines for static classes. It doesn't include anything relevant to your question but it includes valuable advice.
I have inherited a project that has an awkwardly big interface declared (lets call it IDataProvider). There are methods for all aspects of the application bunched up inside the file. Not that it's a huge problem but i'd rather have them split into smaller files with descriptive name. To refactor the interface and break it up in multiple interfaces (let's say IVehicleProvider, IDriverProvider etc...) will require massive code refactoring, because there are a lot of classes that implement the interface. I'm thinking of two other ways of sorting things out: 1) Create multiple files for each individual aspect of the application and make the interface partial or 2) Create multiple interfaces like IVehicleProvider, IDriverProvider and have IDataProvider interface inhertit from them.
Which of the above would you rather do and why? Or if you can think of better way, please tell.
Thanks
This book suggests that interfaces belong, not to the provider, but rather to the client of the interface. That is, that you should define them based on their users rather than the classes that implement them. Applied to your situation, users of IDataProvider each use (probably) only a small subset of the functionality of that big interface. Pick one of those clients. Extract the subset of functionality that it uses into a new interface, and remove that functionality from IDataProvider (but if you want to let IDataProvider extend your new interface to preserve existing behavior, feel free). Repeat until done - and then get rid of IDataProvider.
This is difficult to answer without any tags or information telling us the technology or technologies in which you are working.
Assuming .NET, the initial refactoring should be very minimal.
The classes that implement the original interface already implement it in its entirety.
Once you create the smaller interfaces, you just change:
public class SomeProvider : IAmAHugeInterface { … }
with:
public class SomeProvider : IProvideA, IProvideB, IProvideC, IProvideD { … }
…and your code runs exactly the way it did before, as long as you haven't added or removed any members from what was there to begin with.
From there, you can whittle down the classes on an as-needed or as-encountered basis and remove the extra methods and interfaces from the declaration.
Is it correct that most if not all of the classes which implement this single big interface have lots of methods which either don't do anything or throw exceptions?
If that isn't the case, and you have great big classes with lots of different concerns bundled into it then you will be in for a painful refactoring, but I think handling this refactoring now is the best approach - the alternatives you suggest simply push you into different bad situations, deferring the pain for little gain.
One thing to can do is apply multiple interfaces to a single class (in most languages) so you can just create your new interfaces and replace the single big interface with the multiple smaller ones:
public class BigNastyClass : IBigNastyInterface
{
}
Goes to:
public class BigNastyClass : ISmallerInferface1, ISmallerInterface2 ...
{
}
If you don't have huge classes which implement the entire interface, I would tackle the problem on a class by class basis. For each class which implements this big interface introduce a new specific interface for just that class.
This way you only need to refactor your code base one class at a time.
DriverProvider for example will go from:
public class DriverProvider : IBigNastyInterface
{
}
To:
public class DriverProvider : IDriverProvider
{
}
Now you simply remove all the unused methods that weren't doing anything beyond simply satisfying the big interface, and fix up any methods where DriverProvider's need to be passed in.
I would do the latter. Make the individual, smaller interfaces, and then make the 'big' interface an aggregation of them.
After that, you can refactor the big interface away in the consumers of it as applicable.
I have a question, and I'm going to tag this subjective since that's what I think it evolves into, more of a discussion. I'm hoping for some good ideas or some thought-provokers. I apologize for the long-winded question but you need to know the context.
The question is basically:
How do you deal with concrete types in relation to IoC containers? Specifically, who is responsible for disposing them, if they require disposal, and how does that knowledge get propagated out to the calling code?
Do you require them to be IDisposable? If not, is that code future-proof, or is the rule that you cannot use disposable objects? If you enforce IDisposable-requirements on interfaces and concrete types to be future-proof, whose responsibility is objects injected as part of constructor calls?
Edit: I accepted the answer by #Chris Ballard since it's the closest one to the approach we ended up with.
Basically, we always return a type that looks like this:
public interface IService<T> : IDisposable
where T: class
{
T Instance { get; }
Boolean Success { get; }
String FailureMessage { get; } // in case Success=false
}
We then return an object implementing this interface back from both .Resolve and .TryResolve, so that what we get in the calling code is always the same type.
Now, the object implementing this interface, IService<T> is IDisposable, and should always be disposed of. It's not up to the programmer that resolves a service to decide whether the IService<T> object should be disposed or not.
However, and this is the crucial part, whether the service instance should be disposed or not, that knowledge is baked into the object implementing IService<T>, so if it's a factory-scoped service (ie. each call to Resolve ends up with a new service instance), then the service instance will be disposed when the IService<T> object is disposed.
This also made it possible to support other special scopes, like pooling. We can now say that we want minimum 2 service instances, maximum 15, and typically 5, which means that each call to .Resolve will either retrieve a service instance from a pool of available objects, or construct a new one. And then, when the IService<T> object that holds the pooled service is disposed of, the service instance is released back into its pool.
Sure, this made all code look like this:
using (var service = ServiceContainer.Global.Resolve<ISomeService>())
{
service.Instance.DoSomething();
}
but it's a clean approach, and it has the same syntax regardless of the type of service or concrete object in use, so we chose that as an acceptable solution.
Original question follows, for posterity
Long-winded question comes here:
We have a IoC container that we use, and recently we discovered what amounts to a problem.
In non-IoC code, when we wanted to use, say, a file, we used a class like this:
using (Stream stream = new FileStream(...))
{
...
}
There was no question as to whether this class was something that held a limited resource or not, since we knew that files had to be closed, and the class itself implemented IDisposable. The rule is simply that every class we construct an object of, that implements IDisposable, has to be disposed of. No questions asked. It's not up to the user of this class to decide if calling Dispose is optional or not.
Ok, so on to the first step towards the IoC container. Let's assume we don't want the code to talk directly to the file, but instead go through one layer of indirection. Let's call this class a BinaryDataProvider for this example. Internally, the class is using a stream, which is still a disposable object, so the above code would be changed to:
using (BinaryDataProvider provider = new BinaryDataProvider(...))
{
...
}
This doesn't change much. The knowledge that the class implements IDisposable is still here, no questions asked, we need to call Dispose.
But, let's assume that we have classes that provide data that right now doesn't use any such limited resources.
The above code could then be written as:
BinaryDataProvider provider = new BinaryDataProvider();
...
OK, so far so good, but here comes the meat of the question. Let's assume we want to use an IoC container to inject this provider instead of depending on a specific concrete type.
The code would then be:
IBinaryDataProvider provider =
ServiceContainer.Global.Resolve<IBinaryDataProvider>();
...
Note that I assume there is an independent interface available that we can access the object through.
With the above change, what if we later on want to use an object that really should be disposed of? None of the existing code that resolves that interface is written to dispose of the object, so what now?
The way we see it, we have to pick one solution:
Implement runtime checking that checks that if a concrete type that is being registered implements IDisposable, require that the interface it is exposed through also implements IDisposable. This is not a good solution
Enfore a constraint on the interfaces being used, they must always inherit from IDisposable, in order to be future-proof
Enforce runtime that no concrete types can be IDisposable, since this is specifically not handled by the code using the IoC container
Just leave it up to the programmer to check if the object implements IDisposable and "do the right thing"?
Are there others?
Also, what about injecting objects in constructors? Our container, and some of the other containers we've looked into, is capable of injecting a fresh object into a parameter to a constructor of a concrete type. For instance, if our BinaryDataProvider need an object that implements the ILogging interface, if we enforce IDispose-"ability" on these objects, whose responsibility is it to dispose of the logging object?
What do you think? I want opinions, good and bad.
One option might be to go with a factory pattern, so that the objects created directly by the IoC container never need to be disposed themselves, eg
IBinaryDataProviderFactory factory =
ServiceContainer.Global.Resolve<IBinaryDataProviderFactory>();
using(IBinaryDataProvider provider = factory.CreateProvider())
{
...
}
Downside is added complexity, but it does mean that the container never creates anything which the developer is supposed to dispose of - it is always explicit code which does this.
If you really want to make it obvious, the factory method could be named something like CreateDisposableProvider().
(Disclaimer: I'm answering this based on java stuff. Although I program C# I haven't proxied anything in C# but I know it's possible. Sorry about the java terminology)
You could let the IoC framework inspect the object being constructed to see if it supports
IDisposable. If not, you could use a dynamic proxy to wrap the actual object that the IoC framework provides to the client code. This dynamic proxy could implement IDisposable, so that you'd always deliver a IDisposable to the client. As long as you're working with interfaces that should be fairly simple ?
Then you'd just have the problem of communicating to the developer when the object is an IDisposable. I'm not really sure how this'd be done in a nice manner.
You actually came up with a very dirty solution: your IService contract violates the SRP, wich is a big no-no.
What I recommend is to distinguish so-called "singleton" services from so-called "prototype" services. Lifetime of "singleton" ones is managed by the container, which may query at runtime whether a particular instance implements IDisposable and invoke Dispose() on shutdown if so.
Managing prototypes, on the other hand, is totally the responsibility of the calling code.