Related
I'm not so sure the title is a good match for this question I want to put on the table.
I'm planning to create a web MVC framework as my graduation dissertation and in a previous conversation with my advisor trying to define some achivements, he convinced me that I should choose a modular design in this project.
I already had some things developed by then and stopped for a while to analyze how much modular it would be and I couldn't really do it because I don't know the real meaning of "modular".
Some things are not very cleary for me, like for example, just referencing another module blows up the modularity of my system?
Let's say I have a Database Access module and it OPTIONALY can use a Cache module for storing results of complex queries. As anyone can see, I at least will have a naming dependency for the cache module.
In my conception of "modular design", I can distribute each component separately and make it interact with others developed by other people. In this case I showed, if someone wants to use my Database Access module, they will have to take the Cache as well, even if he will not use it, just for referencing/naming purposes.
And so, I was wondering if this is really a modular design yet.
I came up with an alternative that is something like creating each component singly, without don't even knowing about the existance of other components that are not absolutely required for its functioning. To extend functionalities, I could create some structure based on Decorators and Adapters.
To clarify things a little bit, here is an example (in PHP):
Before
interface Cache {
public function isValid();
public function setValue();
public function getValue();
}
interface CacheManager {
public function get($name);
public function put($name, $value);
}
// Some concrete implementations...
interface DbAccessInterface {
public doComplexOperation();
}
class DbAccess implements DbAccessInterface {
private $cacheManager;
public function __construct(..., CacheManager $cacheManager = null) {
// ...
$this->cacheManager = $cacheManager;
}
public function doComplexOperation() {
if ($this->cacheManager !== null) {
// return from cache if valid
}
// complex operation
}
}
After
interface Cache {
public function isValid();
public function setValue();
public function getValue();
}
interface CacheManager {
public function get($name);
public function put($name, $value);
}
// Some concrete implementations...
interface DbAccessInterface {
public function doComplexOperation();
}
class DbAccess implements DbAccessInterface {
public function __construct(...) {
// ...
}
public function doComplexQuery() {
// complex operation
}
}
// And now the integration module
class CachedDbAcess implements DbAccessInterface {
private $dbAccess;
private $cacheManager;
public function __construct(DbAccessInterface $dbAccess, CacheManager $cacheManager) {
$this->dbAccess = $dbAccess;
$this->cacheManager = $cacheManager;
}
public function doComplexOperation() {
$cache = $this->cacheManager->get("Foo")
if($cache->isValid()) {
return $cache->getValue();
}
// Do complex operation...
}
}
Now my question is:
Is this the best solution? I should do this for all the modules that do not have as a requirement work together, but can be more efficient doing so?
Anyone would do it in a different way?
I have some more further questions involving this, but I don't know if this is an acceptable question for stackoverflow.
P.S.: English is not my first language, maybe some parts can get a little bit confuse
Some resources (not theoretical):
Nuclex Plugin Architecture
Python Plugin Application
C++ Plugin Architecture (Use NoScript on that side, they have some weird login policies)
Other SO threads (design pattern for plugins in php)
Django Middleware concept
Just referencing another module blows up the modularity of my system?
Not necessarily. It's a dependency. Having a dependencies is perfectly normal. Without dependencies modules can't interact with each other (unless you're doing such interaction indirectly which in general is a bad practice since it hides dependencies and complicates the code). Modular desing implies managing of dependencies, not removing them.
One tool - is using interfaces. Referencing module via interface makes a so called soft dependency. Such module can accept any implementation of an interface as a dependency so it is more independant and as a result - more maintainable.
The other tool - designing modules (and their interfaces) that have only single responcibility. This also makes them more granular, independant and maintainable.
But there is a line which you should not cross - blindly applying these tools may leed to a too modular and too generic desing. Making things too granular makes the whole system more complex. You should not solve universe problems, making generic modules, that all developers can use (unless it is your goal). First of all your system should solve your domain tasks and make things generic enough, but not more than that.
I came up with an alternative that is something like creating each component singly, without don't even knowing about the existance of other components that are not absolutely required for its functioning
It is great if you came up with this idea by yourself. The statement itself, is a key to modular programming.
Plugin architecture is the best in terms of extensibility, but imho it is hard to maintenance especially in intra application. And depending the complexity of plugin architecture, it can make your code more complex by adding plugin logics, etc.
Thus, for intra modular design, I choose the N-Tier, interface based architecture. Basically, the architecture relays on those tiers:
Domain / Entity
Interface [Depend on 1]
Services [Depend on 1 and 2]
Repository / DAL [Depend on 1 and 2]
Presentation Layer [Depend on 1,2,3,4]
Unfortunately, I don't think this is achieveable neatly in php projects as it need separated project / dll references in each tier. However, following the architecture can help to modularize the application.
For each modules, we need to do interface-based design. It can help to enhance the modularity of your code, because you can change the implementation later, but still keep the consumer the same.
I have provided an answer similiar to this interface-based design, at this stackoverflow question.
Lastly but not least, if you want to make your application modular to the UI, you can do Service Oriented Architecture. This is simply make your application as bunch of services, and then make the UI to consume the service. This design can help to separate your UI with your logic. You can later use different UI such as desktop app, but still use the same logic. Unfortunately, I don't have any reliable source for SOA.
EDIT:
I misunderstood the question. This is my point of view about modular framework. Unfortunately, I don't know much about Zend so I will give examples in C#:
It consist of modules, from the smallest to larger modules. Example in C# is you can using the Windows Form (larger) at your application, and also the Graphic (smaller) class to draw custom shapes in the screen.
It is extensible, or replaceable without making change to base class. In C# you can assign FormLoad event (extensible) to the Form class, inherit the Form or List class (extensible) or overridding form draw method to create a custom window graphic (replaceable).
(optional) it is easy to use. In normal DI interface design, we usually inject smaller modules into a larger (high level) module. This will require an IOC container. Refer to my question for detail.
Easy to configure, and does not involve any magical logic such as Service Locator Pattern. Search Service Locator is an Anti Pattern in google.
I don't know much about Zend, however I guess that the modularity in Zend can means that it can be extended without changing the core (replacing the code) inside framework.
If you said that:
if someone wants to use my Database Access module, they will have to take the Cache as well, even if he will not use it, just for referencing/naming purposes.
Then it is not modular. It is integrated, means that your Database Access module will not work without Cache. In reference of C# components, it choose to provide List<T> and BindingList<T> to provide different functionality. In your case, imho it is better to provide CachedDataAccess and DataAccess.
I'm currently working on a test WiX project to see what I can do with it.
Recently, I've stumbled upon the fact that I can override the ProcessPragma method in my preprocessor extension to write WiX source code at compile time. Having a preprocessor function that returns an xml string without the compiler going berserk sounds neat. So I looked into it, but the response in this wix-users thread is quite brief and doesn't explain much. Google doesn't return anything interesting beyond that. So I dug through the WiX source code to learn more.
The xml documentation for the method is as follows:
/// <summary>
/// Processes a pragma defined in the extension.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="sourceLineNumbers">The location of this pragma's PI.</param>
/// <param name="prefix">The prefix of the pragma to be processed by the extension.</param>
/// <param name="pragma">The name of the pragma.</param>
/// <param name="args">The pragma's arguments.</param>
/// <param name="writer">The xml writer.</param>
/// <returns>false if the pragma is not defined.</returns>
/// <comments>Don't return false for any condition except for unrecognized pragmas.
Throw errors that are fatal to the compile. use core.OnMessage for warnings and messages.</comments>
So as a test, I had the XmlWriter produce a dummy property and then return true.
Now, to actually call it in my WiX project. In Preprocessor.cs, I found the following:
switch (reader.NodeType)
{
case XmlNodeType.ProcessingInstruction:
switch (reader.LocalName)
{
// other cases such as define, include, foreach,
// and other preprocessor directives
case "pragma":
this.PreprocessPragma(reader.Value, writer);
break;
}
break;
Which hinted that the syntax for using a pragma would be: <?pragma prefix.name?>
But this gives me the following warning: The pragma 'prefix.name' is unknown. Please ensure you have referenced the extension that defines this pragma.
I have a feeling I'm on the right track, as it gives me a warning related to pragmas, but I honestly have no clue what I'm doing here. It seems like it's uncharted territory.
Does anyone know what I'm doing wrong, or point me in the right direction?
UPDATE
Seems like my project was the problem. I used my extension in another project and it worked like a charm.
And for anyone reading this in the future, the syntax is <?pragma prefix.name args?> where the arguments are just a string. And as a side note, you don't close the XmlWriter in your override method.
First, ensure you are passing the -ext path\to\YourPragmaExtensionAssembly.dll to candle.exe. Candle will load your extension, look for the AssemblyDefaultWixExtension attribute that points to the class that inherits from WixExtension, then ask for your PreprocessorExtension class if you override the PreprocessorExtension property.
It's a little bit of wiring up that could be simplified in future versions (like v4.0) of the WiX toolset. But there is an example in the WiX v3.x toolset at: src\ext\PreProcExampleExtension\wixext that should show the way.
If I write the following code:
public void Execute()
{
var stream = new MemoryStream();
...
}
then code analysis will flag this as:
Warning 1 CA2000 : Microsoft.Reliability : In method 'ServiceUser.Execute()', call System.IDisposable.Dispose on object 'stream' before all references to it are out of scope. C:\Dev\VS.NET\DisposeTest\DisposeTest\ServiceUser.cs 14 DisposeTest
However, if I create a factory pattern, I still might be required to dispose of the object, but now FxCop/Code Analysis doesn't complain. Rather, it complains about the factory method, not the code that calls it. (I think I had an example that did complain about the factory method, but the one I post here doesn't, so I struck that out)
Is there a way, for instance using attributes, to move the responsibility of the IDisposable object out of the factory method and onto the caller instead?
Take this code:
public class ServiceUser
{
public void Execute()
{
var stream = StreamFactory.GetStream();
Debug.WriteLine(stream.Length);
}
}
public static class StreamFactory
{
public static Stream GetStream()
{
return new MemoryStream();
}
}
In this case, there are no warnings. I'd like FxCOP/CA to still complain about my original method. It is still my responsibility to handle that object.
Is there any way I can tell FxCOP/CA about this? For instance, I recently ventured into the annotation attributes that ReSharper has provided, in order to tell its analysis engine information it would otherwise not be able to understand.
So I envision something like this:
public static class StreamFactory
{
[return: CallerResponsibility]
public static Stream GetStream()
{
return new MemoryStream();
}
}
Or is this design way off?
There is a difference between FxCop 10 (which ships with the Windows 7 and .NET 4.0 SDK) and Code Analysis 2010 (which ships with Visual Studio Premium and higher). Code Analysis 2010 has a set of additional rules, which includes a highly improved version of the IDisposable rules.
With Code Analysis 2010 under Visual Studio Premium, the Factory isn't being flagged (as the rule now sees the IDisposable variable is returned to the calling method). The Receiving method, however, isn't flagged either, due to one of the corner case exceptions to the rule. There is a list of method names that will cause the rule to trigger. If you rename your GetStream method to CreateStream, suddenly the rule will trigger:
Warning 4 CA2000 : Microsoft.Reliability : In method 'ServiceUser.Execute()',
call System.IDisposable.Dispose on object 'stream' before all references to it are out
of scope. BadProject\Class1.cs 14 BadProject
I was unable to locate the list of method pre-fixes that will work. I've tried a few and Create~, Open~ trigger the rule, many others that you might expect to work, don't, including Build~, Make~, Get~.
Additionally there is a long list of bugs surrounding this rule. The rule was altered in Visual Studio 2010 to trigger fewer false positives, but now it sometimes misses items it should have flagged (and would have flagged in the previous version). There wasn't enough time to fix the rules in the Visual Studio 2010 time frame (check the bug report comments).
With the upcoming Roslyn compilers, Code Analysis will probably see a major upgrade, until then there are only minor updates to be expected. The current build of Visual Studio Dev11 does not trigger where you want it.
So concluding, no your attribute wouldn't help much, as the rule already detects that you're passing the IDisposable as a return value. Thus Code Analysis knows it's not good to dispose it before returning. If you're using the undocumented naming rules, the rule will trigger. Maybe an attribute could extend the naming rules, but I'd rather have Microsoft would actually fix the actual rule.
I created a connect bug requesting the naming guideline to be documented in the rules documentation.
Comment from Microsoft:
Posted by Microsoft on 1/19/2012 at 10:41 AM
Hello,
Thank you for taking the time to investigate this and file the request for the documentation update. However after some discussion with our documentation team, we have decided to not document the naming convention as you requested.
As you indicated on the stackoverflow thread, there have historically been a lot of reliability issues with this rule, and keying off of the names was an internal implementation detail added to try to reduce the number of false positives. However this is not considered prescriptive guidance for how developers should name their methods, it was added after a survey of common coding practices. We believe the long-term fix is to improve the reliability of the rule, not add naming guidance to our public documentation based on internal implementation details that will continue to change as the rule is improved.
Best Regards,
Visual Studio Code Analysis Team
My VB project is large enough that it requires several files. It was originally developed as a Console App and I created each file as a MODULE. All modules could use subroutines, data structures and constants from other MODULES and everything worked fine. I needed to add basic windowing to the app and this required that the app be converted from a Console App to a Windows Forms App. The main window is Form1 which is not a MODULE but a CLASS. The problem is that some MODULE based functions cannot access subroutines, data and constants that are defined within the CLASS Form1 unless they are incorporated into the CLASS file and this makes the CLASS file very large. If I add a new Class file to the project, it also cannot interoperate with Class Form1 in the same way that multi-MODULE code interoperates.
How does one spread CLASS code across several files and still allow it to interoperate as if it were in a single file? Alternatively, how does one create several CLASS files that operate the way multiple MODULE files operate.
I am sure that there are all kinds of best practices that I am violating but the goal to to get some prototype software working and interfaced to some lab equipment.
Thank you in advance
Use a partial class (Partial keyword on the class declaration). Each partial "bit" of the class will be merged at compile time. All partial bits must be in the same project.
Modules are default shared and do not require initialization with the New keyword. When you made your console app a windows app, it became a class...You could change it to the same behavior as a module simply by making it a Public shared Class and making all properties and methods inside shared as well.
so while you can access your methods and properties in your modules without initialization, you would need to use the NEW method to initialize your Class methods.
To access the Class from the module you would simply have to use:
SomeModulemethod
dim x as new CLASS
CLASS.SOMEMETHOD
someModuleMethod End
You could also use Partial Classing to split up your Classes, but it is much better to decide if you really need a separate class for what you want to do.
Specifically, when you create an interface/implementor pair, and there is no overriding organizational concern (such as the interface should go in a different assembly ie, as recommended by the s# architecture) do you have a default way of organizing them in your namespace/naming scheme?
This is obviously a more opinion based question but I think some people have thought about this more and we can all benefit from their conclusions.
The answer depends on your intentions.
If you intend the consumer of your namespaces to use the interfaces over the concrete implementations, I would recommend having your interfaces in the top-level namespace with the implementations in a child namespace
If the consumer is to use both, have them in the same namespace.
If the interface is for predominantly specialized use, like creating new implementations, consider having them in a child namespace such as Design or ComponentModel.
I'm sure there are other options as well, but as with most namespace issues, it comes down to the use-cases of the project, and the classes and interfaces it contains.
I usually keep the interface in the same namespace of as the concrete types.
But, that's just my opinion, and namespace layout is highly subjective.
Animals
|
| - IAnimal
| - Dog
| - Cat
Plants
|
| - IPlant
| - Cactus
You don't really gain anything by moving one or two types out of the main namespace, but you do add the requirement for one extra using statement.
What I generally do is to create an Interfaces namespace at a high level in my hierarchy and put all interfaces in there (I do not bother to nest other namespaces in there as I would then end up with many namespaces containing only one interface).
Interfaces
|--IAnimal
|--IVegetable
|--IMineral
MineralImplementor
Organisms
|--AnimalImplementor
|--VegetableImplementor
This is just the way that I have done it in the past and I have not had many problems with it, though admittedly it might be confusing to others sitting down with my projects. I am very curious to see what other people do.
I prefer to keep my interfaces and implementation classes in the same namespace. When possible, I give the implementation classes internal visibility and provide a factory (usually in the form of a static factory method that delegates to a worker class, with an internal method that allows a unit tests in a friend assembly to substitute a different worker that produces stubs). Of course, if the concrete class needs to be public--for instance, if it's an abstract base class, then that's fine; I don't see any reason to put an ABC in its own namespace.
On a side note, I strongly dislike the .NET convention of prefacing interface names with the letter 'I.' The thing the (I)Foo interface models is not an ifoo, it's simply a foo. So why can't I just call it Foo? I then name the implementation classes specifically, for example, AbstractFoo, MemoryOptimizedFoo, SimpleFoo, StubFoo etc.
(.Net) I tend to keep interfaces in a separate "common" assembly so I can use that interface in several applications and, more often, in the server components of my apps.
Regarding namespaces, I keep them in BusinessCommon.Interfaces.
I do this to ensure that neither I nor my developers are tempted to reference the implementations directly.
Separate the interfaces in some way (projects in Eclipse, etc) so that it's easy to deploy only the interfaces. This allows you to provide your external API without providing implementations. This allows dependent projects to build with a bare minimum of externals. Obviously this applies more to larger projects, but the concept is good in all cases.
I usually separate them into two separate assemblies. One of the usual reasons for a interface is to have a series of objects look the same to some subsystem of your software. For example I have all my Reports implementing the IReport Interfaces. IReport is used is not only used in printing but for previewing and selecting individual options for each report. Finally I have a collection of IReport to use in dialog where the user selects which reports (and configuring options) they want to print.
The Reports reside in a separate assembly and the IReport, the Preview engine, print engine, report selections reside in their respective core assembly and/or UI assembly.
If you use the Factory Class to return a list of available reports in the report assembly then updating the software with new report becomes merely a matter of copying the new report assembly over the original. You can even use the Reflection API to just scan the list of assemblies for any Report Factories and build your list of Reports that way.
You can apply this techniques to Files as well. My own software runs a metal cutting machine so we use this idea for the shape and fitting libraries we sell alongside our software.
Again the classes implementing a core interface should reside in a separate assembly so you can update that separately from the rest of the software.
I give my own experience that is against other answers.
I tend to put all my interfaces in the package they belongs to. This grants that, if I move a package in another project I have all the thing there must be to run the package without any changes.
For me, any helper functions and operator functions that are part of the functionality of a class should go into the same namespace as that of the class, because they form part of the public API of that namespace.
If you have common implementations that share the same interface in different packages you probably need to refactor your project.
Sometimes I see that there are plenty of interfaces in a project that could be converted in an abstract implementation rather that an interface.
So, ask yourself if you are really modeling a type or a structure.
A good example might be looking at what Microsoft does.
Assembly: System.Runtime.dll
System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable<T>
Where are the concrete types?
Assembly: System.Colleections.dll
System.Collections.Generic.List<T>
System.Collections.Generic.Queue<T>
System.Collections.Generic.Stack<T>
// etc
Assembly: EntityFramework.dll
System.Data.Entity.IDbSet<T>
Concrete Type?
Assembly: EntityFramework.dll
System.Data.Entity.DbSet<T>
Further examples
Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.ILogger<T>
- Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.Logger<T>
Microsoft.Extensions.Options.IOptions<T>
- Microsoft.Extensions.Options.OptionsManager<T>
- Microsoft.Extensions.Options.OptionsWrapper<T>
- Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.Memory.MemoryCacheOptions
- Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.SqlServer.SqlServerCacheOptions
- Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.Redis.RedisCacheOptions
Some very interesting tells here. When the namespace changes to support the interface, the namespace change Caching is also prefixed to the derived type RedisCacheOptions. Additionally, the derived types are in an additional namespace of the implementation.
Memory -> MemoryCacheOptions
SqlServer -> SqlServerCatchOptions
Redis -> RedisCacheOptions
This seems like a fairly easy pattern to follow most of the time. As an example I (since no example was given) the following pattern might emerge:
CarDealership.Entities.Dll
CarDealership.Entities.IPerson
CarDealership.Entities.IVehicle
CarDealership.Entities.Person
CarDealership.Entities.Vehicle
Maybe a technology like Entity Framework prevents you from using the predefined classes. Thus we make our own.
CarDealership.Entities.EntityFramework.Dll
CarDealership.Entities.EntityFramework.Person
CarDealership.Entities.EntityFramework.Vehicle
CarDealership.Entities.EntityFramework.SalesPerson
CarDealership.Entities.EntityFramework.FinancePerson
CarDealership.Entities.EntityFramework.LotVehicle
CarDealership.Entities.EntityFramework.ShuttleVehicle
CarDealership.Entities.EntityFramework.BorrowVehicle
Not that it happens often but may there's a decision to switch technologies for whatever reason and now we have...
CarDealership.Entities.Dapper.Dll
CarDealership.Entities.Dapper.Person
CarDealership.Entities.Dapper.Vehicle
//etc
As long as we're programming to the interfaces we've defined in root Entities (following the Liskov Substitution Principle) down stream code doesn't care where how the Interface was implemented.
More importantly, In My Opinion, creating derived types also means you don't have to consistently include a different namespace because the parent namespace contains the interfaces. I'm not sure I've ever seen a Microsoft example of interfaces stored in child namespaces that are then implement in the parent namespace (almost an Anti-Pattern if you ask me).
I definitely don't recommend segregating your code by type, eg:
MyNamespace.Interfaces
MyNamespace.Enums
MyNameSpace.Classes
MyNamespace.Structs
This doesn't add value to being descriptive. And it's akin to using System Hungarian notation, which is mostly if not now exclusively, frowned upon.
I HATE when I find interfaces and implementations in the same namespace/assembly. Please don't do that, if the project evolves, it's a pain in the ass to refactor.
When I reference an interface, I want to implement it, not to get all its implementations.
What might me be admissible is to put the interface with its dependency class(class that references the interface).
EDIT: #Josh, I juste read the last sentence of mine, it's confusing! of course, both the dependency class and the one that implements it reference the interface. In order to make myself clear I'll give examples :
Acceptable :
Interface + implementation :
namespace A;
Interface IMyInterface
{
void MyMethod();
}
namespace A;
Interface MyDependentClass
{
private IMyInterface inject;
public MyDependentClass(IMyInterface inject)
{
this.inject = inject;
}
public void DoJob()
{
//Bla bla
inject.MyMethod();
}
}
Implementing class:
namespace B;
Interface MyImplementing : IMyInterface
{
public void MyMethod()
{
Console.WriteLine("hello world");
}
}
NOT ACCEPTABLE:
namespace A;
Interface IMyInterface
{
void MyMethod();
}
namespace A;
Interface MyImplementing : IMyInterface
{
public void MyMethod()
{
Console.WriteLine("hello world");
}
}
And please DON'T CREATE a project/garbage for your interfaces ! example : ShittyProject.Interfaces. You've missed the point!
Imagine you created a DLL reserved for your interfaces (200 MB). If you had to add a single interface with two line of codes, your users will have to update 200 MB just for two dumb signaturs!