This question already has answers here:
Closed 13 years ago.
Extension methods are really interesting for what they do, but I don't feel 100% confortable with the idea of creating a "class member" outside the class.
I prefer to avoid this practice as much as I can, but sometimes it looks better to use extension methods.
Which situations you think are good practices of usage for this feature?
I think that best place for extension methods is "helper" methods or "shortcuts" that make existing API easier and cleanier by providing default values to arguments of existing methods or hiding repeating chains of method calls.
Contrary to the common beliefs that you can "extend" classes for which you do not have access to the source code, you cannot. You have no access to private methods and objects, all you can do is to polish public API and bend it to your likings (not recommended).
They're great for interfaces (where you can add "composite" behaviour which only uses existing methods on the interface) - LINQ to Objects is the prime example of this.
They're also useful for creating fluent interfaces without impacting on the types that are being used. My favourite example is probably inappropriate for production code, but handy for unit tests:
DateTime birthday = 19.June(1976) + 8.Hours();
Basically anywhere that you don't want to or can't add behaviour to the type itself, but you want to make it easier to use the type, extension methods are worth considering. If you find yourself writing a bunch of static methods to do with a particular type, think about whether extension methods wouldn't make the calls to those methods look nicer.
When the class is not extensible and you don't have control over the source code. Or if it is extensible, but you prefere to be able to use the existing type instead of your own type. I would only do the latter if the extension doesn't change the character of the class, but merely supplies (IMO) missing functionality.
In my opinion, extension methods are useful to enhance the readability and thus maintainability of code. They seem to be be best on entities where either you have no access to the original class, or where the method breaks "Single Responsibility Principle" of the original class. An example of the latter we have here is DSLs. The DSL models are extended with extension methods are used to make T4 templating easier but no methods are added the model unless they are specifically related to the model.
The ideal use for them is when you have an interface that will be implemented in many places, so you don't want to put a huge burden on implementors, but you want the interface to be convenient to use from the caller's perspective as well.
So you put the "helpers" into a set of extension methods, leaving the interface itself nice and lean.
interface IZoomable
{
double ZoomLevel { get; set; }
}
public static void SetDefaultZoom(this IZoomable z)
{
z.ZoomLevel = 100;
}
Extension methods are a great way to add functionality to classes that you don't own (no source), are in the framework or that you don't want to inherit for whatever reason.
I like them, but you are right. They should be used judiciously.
Related
I am new to Swift and OOP. For example, I have a class that manages the system-wide configurations.
class system_conf {
init()
getValue1()
getValue2()
...
setValue1()
setValue2()
...
reloadValues()
activateX()
activeteY()
...
}
This class should have only one instance and many other classes will use it. What's the recommended way for this case?
Should I pass around this instance?
Should I consider to use Singleton?
Should I use static functions directly?
Should I create a global instance, so every other class can access it directly?
or?
It seems your class is a configuration class. If you intend to pass it to a bunch of classes, you should wonder if you need to write unit tests for them.
If so, assuming you are either using a singleton or static methods or a global var, take a moment to think about how you would mock this configuration class for each of your tests. It's not easy, is it?
If your class is a kind of mediator, a global var or static methods are fine (or any other alternative you suggested). However, in your case, it would be better to pass your object in any initializer/constructor of each class using it. Then, testing would definitely be easier. Also, passing it via an interface is even better: you can mock it super easily (mock up libraries mostly work with interfaces only).
So there is no unique answer to your question. It is just a matter of compromises and scaling. If your app is small, any of the method you listed above is perfectly fine. However, if you app tends to get bigger, a proxy solution would be better for maintainability and testability.
If you fancy reading, you should glance at this article from Misko Hevery, especially this chapter.
In c# we have the protected accessor which allows class members to be visible on inherited clases but not for the rest.
In Swift this doesn't exist so I wonder what's a correct approach for something like this:
I want to have a variable (internal behavior) and and a public method using this variable on a base class. This variable will be used also on inherited clases.
Options I see
Forget about base class and implement variable and methods everywhere I need it. WRONG, duplicated code
Implement inheritance by composition. I'd create a class containing common methods and this will be used by composition instead of inheritance. LESS WRONG but still repeating code that could be avoided with inheritance
Implement inheritance and make variable internal on base class. WRONG since exposes things without any justification except allowing visibility on inherited clases.
Implementation Details for Base Class
I want to have a NSOperationQueue instance and and a public method to cancel queued operations. I add new operations to this queue from inherited classes.
In Swift the correct answer is almost always protocols and extensions. It is almost never inheritance. Sometimes Cocoa stands in our way, because there are classes in Cocoa more often than protocols, but the goal is almost always protocols and extensions. Subclassing is our last choice.
Your particular case is confusing because NSOperationQueue already has a public method to cancel queued operations (cancelAllOperations). If you want to protect the queue from outside access (prevent callers from using addOperation directly for instance), then you should put the queue inside another type (i.e. composition), and forward what you want to the queue. More details on the specific problem you're solving would allow us to help suggest other Swift-like solutions.
If in the end you need something that looks like protected or friend, the correct solution is private. Put your subclass or your friend in the same file with the target, and mark the private thing private. Alternately, put the things that need to work together in a framework, and mark the attribute internal. The Swift Blog provides a good explanation of why this is an intentional choice.
Coming from Objective-C, I am very fond of header files which expose the interface of a piece of code. Swift has always bothered me a bit because even the most organized code still tends to bury the public/private API's among the rest of the code, making you dig for details.
Are there any practices or tricks where I can define the public interface of a class or module external to the implementation? Right now I'm just making comments at the top of the Swift file and it feels arcane.
As far as I know you can not just declare a method in a class and implement it at other places in Swift.
I feel you want that for clarity and organizing your methods into class. To achieve that in Swift I follow some techniques that I would be happy to share with you:
Organize methods in groups based on access i.e. public, private and internal. Public methods on top as you want your client to look at them first, then internal and last private.
You may sub organize related methods together for making it easy to understand, maintain and navigate through.
Some time it is good to break above rules to group public and private method if they are related and has heavy dependancies.
You may group related methods that do a specific task in to extensions. I generally follow this pattern for implementing specific protocol or delegate in a class. This you could do in a separate file as well.
This is not direct answer to your question but I have tried to address the core of it by targeting organization of methods in a class.
So I've been exploring the options here and it looks like you can define an interface using a protocol, and having your class conform to that protocol. Kind of out of the way, but if a public interface is the goal, this achieves that.
// Foo.swift
protocol PublicFoo {
func publiclyExposedMethod(arg:AnyObject) -> AnyObject
var publiclyExposedVariable:AnyObject
}
class Foo : PublicFoo {
var publiclyExposedVariable:AnyObject = // something
func publiclyExposedMethod(arg:AnyObject) -> AnyObject {
// do stuff...
}
}
Similar question but not quite the same thing
I was thinking that with extension methods in the same namespace as the interface you could get a similar effect to multiple inheritance in that you don't need to have duplicate code implementing the same interface the same way in 10 different classes.
What are some of the downsides of doing this? I think the pros are pretty obvious, it's the cons that usually come back to bite you later on.
One of the cons I see is that the extension methods can't be virtual, so you need to be sure that you actually do want them implemented the same way for every instance.
The problem that I see with building interface capability via extension methods is that you are no longer actually implementing the interface and so can't use the object as the interface type.
Say I have a method that takes an object of type IBar. If I implement the IBar interface on class Foo via extension methods, then Foo doesn't derive from IBar and can't be used interchangeably with it (Liskov Substitution principle). Sure, I get the behavior that I want added to Foo, but I lose the most important aspect of creating interfaces in the first place -- being able to define an abstract contract that can be implemented in a variety of ways by various classes so that dependent classes need not know about concrete implementations.
If I needed multiple inheritance (and so far I've lived without it) badly enough, I think I'd use composition instead to minimize the amount of code duplication.
A decent way to think about this is that instance methods are something done by the object, while extension methods are something done to the object. I am fairly certain the Framework Design Guidelines say you should implement an instance method whenever possible.
An interface declares "I care about using this functionality, but not how it is accomplished." That leaves implementers the freedom to choose the how. It decouples the intent, a public API, from the mechanism, a class with concrete code.
As this is the main benefit of interfaces, implementing them entirely as extension methods seems to defeat their purpose. Even IEnumerable<T> has an instance method.
Edit: Also, objects are meant to act on the data they contain. Extension methods can only see an object's public API (as they are just static methods); you would have to expose all of an object's state to make it work (an OO no-no).
I am looking at nServiceBus and came over this interface
namespace NServiceBus
{
public interface IMessage
{
}
}
What is the use of an empty interface?
Usually it's to signal usage of a class. You can implement IMessage to signal that your class is a message. Other code can then use reflection to see if your objects are meant to be used as messages and act accordingly.
This is something that was used in Java a lot before they had annotations. In .Net it's cleaner to use attributes for this.
#Stimpy77 Thanks! I hadn't thought of it that way.
I hope you'll allow me to rephrase your comment in a more general way.
Annotations and attributes have to be checked at runtime using reflection. Empty interfaces can be checked at compile-time using the type-system in the compiler. This brings no overhead at runtime at all so it is faster.
Also known as a Marker Interface:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marker_interface_pattern
In java Serializable is the perfect example for this. It defines no methods but every class that "implements" it has to make sure, that it is really serializable and holds no reference to things that cannot be serialized, like database connections, open files etc.
In Java, empty interfaces were usually used for "tagging" classes - these days annotations would normally be used.
It's just a way of adding a bit of metadata to a class saying, "This class is suitable for <this> kind of use" even when no common members will be involved.
Normally it's similar to attributes. Using attributes is a preferred to empty interfaces (at least as much as FxCop is aware). However .NET itself uses some of these interfaces like IRequiresSessionState and IReadOnlySessionState. I think there is performance loss in metadata lookup when you use attributes that made them use interfaces instead.
An empty interface acts simply as a placeholder for a data type no better specified in its interface behaviour.
In Java, the mechanism of the interface extension represents a good example of use. For example, let's say that we've the following
interface one {}
interface two {}
interface three extends one, two {}
Interface three will inherit the behaviour of 'one' and 'two', and so
class four implements three { ... }
has to specify the two methods, being of type 'three'.
As you can see, from the above example, empty interface can be seen also as a point of multiple inheritance (not allowed in Java).
Hoping this helps to clarify with a further viewpoint.
They're called "Mark Interfaces" and are meant to signal instances of the marked classes.
For example... in C++ is a common practice to mark as "ICollectible" objects so they can be stored in generic non typed collections.
So like someone over says, they're to signal some object supported behavior, like ability to be collected, serialized, etc.
Been working with NServiceBus for the past year. While I wouldn't speak for Udi Dahan my understanding is that this interface is indeed used as a marker primarily.
Though I'd suggest you ask the man himself if he'd had thoughts of leaving this for future extension. My bet is no, as the mantra seems to be to keep messages very simple or at least practically platform agnostic.
Others answer well on the more general reasons for empty interfaces.
I'd say its used for "future" reference or if you want to share some objects, meaning you could have 10 classes each implementing this interface.
And have them sent to a function for work on them, but if the interface is empty, I'd say its just "pre"-work.
Empty interfaces are used to document that the classes that implement a given interface have a certain behaviour
For example in java the Cloneable interface in Java is an empty interface. When a class implements the Cloneable interface you know that you can call run the clone() on it.
Empty interfaces are used to mark the class, at run time type check can be performed using the interfaces.
For example
An application of marker interfaces from the Java programming language is the Serializable interface. A class implements this interface to indicate that its non-transient data members can be written to an ObjectOutputStream. The ObjectOutputStream private method writeObject() contains a series of instanceof tests to determine writeability, one of which looks for the Serializable interface. If any of these tests fails, the method throws a NotSerializableException.
An empty interface can be used to classify classes under a specific purpose. (Marker Interface)
Example : Database Entities
public interface IEntity {
}
public class Question implements IEntity {
// Implementation Goes Here
}
public class Answer implements IEntity {
// Implementation Goes Here
}
For Instance, If you will be using Generic Repository(ex. IEntityRepository), using generic constraints, you can prevent the classes that do not implement the IEntity interface from being sent by the developers.