I have the following desing in DDD
Post Aggregate with
Body: HTML of the post
Banner entity with
Html: HTML of the banner
The Banner entity belongs to Post aggregate, so I want to create a method BodyWithBanners in the Post aggregate.
The point of this method will be to search into the HTML of the Post.Body and insert the HTML of the Banner.
So far, so good.
However I have intention of reuse this functionallity in abstract: "Insert some HTML inside another HTML". So I'm creating a diffent class for doing that: BannerReplacer
Here comes the problem, how should I invoke this new class?
Just create an instance inside the Post.BodyWithBanners method (breaking Dependency Injection)
Passing the BannerReplacer in the constructor of the Post aggregate (This can be a nightmare for creating Post instances)
Passing the BannerReplacer to the BodyWithBanners method (which implies the client using Post must handle the BannerReplacer)
I have chosen for now the first option, but I don't feel really confortable with it, I believe there must be a better way of doing this.
I have chosen for now the first option, but I don't feel really comfortable with it, I believe there must be a better way of doing this.
Much of the time, the first option is fine -- so you should practice being comfortable with it. That mostly means thinking more about what dependency injection is for, and having a clear picture in your mind for whether or not those forces are at play here.
If Banner is an entity, in the domain-driven-design sense, then it is probably something analogous to an in memory state machine. It's got a data structure that it manages, and some functions for changing that data structure, or answering interesting questions about that data structure, but it doesn't have I/O, database, network etc concerns.
That in turn suggests that you can run it the same way in all contexts - you don't need a bunch of substitute implementations to make it testable. You just instantiate one and call its methods.
If it runs the same way in all contexts, then it doesn't need configurable behavior. If you don't need to be able to configure the behavior, then you don't need dependency injection (because all copies of this entity will use (copies of) the same dependencies.
When you do have a configurable behavior, then the analysis is going to need to look at scope. If you need to be able to change that behavior from one invocation to the next, then the caller is going to need to know about it. If the behavior changes less frequently than that, then you can start looking into whether "constructor injection" makes sense.
You know that you intend to use a single BannerReplacer for a given method invocation, so you can immediately start with a method that looks like:
class Banner {
void doTheThing(arg, bannerReplacer) {
/* do the bannerReplacer thing */
}
}
Note that this signature has no dependency at all on the lifetime of the bannerReplacer. More particularly, the BannerReplacer might have a longer lifetime than Banner, or a shorter one. We only care that the lifetime is longer than the doTheThing method.
class Banner {
void doTheThing(arg) {
this.doTheThing(arg, new BannerReplacer())
}
// ...
}
Here, the caller doesn't need to know about BannerReplacer at all; we'll use a new copy of the default implementation every time. Caller's that care which implementation is used can pass in their own.
class Banner {
bannerReplacer = new BannerReplacer()
void doTheThing(arg) {
this.doTheThing(arg, this.bannerReplacer)
}
// ...
}
Same idea as before; we're just using an instance of the BannerReplacer with a longer lifetime.
class Banner {
Banner() {
this(new BannerReplacer())
}
Banner(bannerReplacer) {
this.bannerReplacer = bannerReplacer;
}
void doTheThing(arg) {
this.doTheThing(arg, this.bannerReplacer)
}
// ...
}
Same idea as before, but now we are allowing the "injection" of a default implementation that can outlive the given instance of Banner.
In the long term, the comfort comes from doing the analysis to understand the requirements of the current problem, so that you can choose the appropriate tool.
Related
Background
I'm in the process of reworking and refactoring a huge codebase which was written with neither testability nor maintainability in mind. There is a lot of global/static state going on. A function needs a database connection, so it just conjures one up using a global static method: $conn = DatabaseManager::getConnection($connName);. Or it wants to load a file, so it does it using $fileContents = file_get_contents($hardCodedFilename);.
Much of this code does not have proper tests and has only ever been tested directly in production. So the first thing I am intending on doing is write unit tests, to ensure the functionality is correct after refactoring. Now sadly code like the examples above is barely unit testable, because none of the external dependencies (database connections, file handles, ...) can be properly mocked.
Abstraction
To work around this I have created very thin wrappers around for example the system functions, that can be used in places where non-mockable function calls were used before. (I'm giving these examples in PHP, but I assume they are applicable for any other OOP language as well. Also this is a highly shortened example, in reality I am dealing with much larger classes.)
interface Time {
/**
* Returns the current time in seconds since the epoch.
* #return int for example: 1380872620
*/
public function current();
}
class SystemTime implements Time {
public function current() {
return time();
}
}
These can be used in the code like so:
class TimeUser {
/**
* #var Time
*/
private $time;
/**
* Prints out the current time.
*/
public function tellsTime() {
// before:
echo time();
// now:
echo $this->time->current();
}
}
Since the application only depends on the interface, I can replace it in a test with a mocked Time instance, which for example allows to predefine the value to return for the next call to current().
Injection
So far so basic. My actual question is how to get the proper instances into the classes that depend upon them. From my Understanding of Dependency injection, services are meant to be passed down by the application into the components that need them. Usually these services would be created in a {{main()}} method or at some other starting point and then strung along until they reach the components where they are needed.
This model likely works well when creating a new application from scratch, but for my situation it's less than ideal, since I want to move gradually to a better design. So I've come up with the following pattern, which automatically provides the old functionality while leaving me with the flexibility of substituting services.
class TimeUser {
/**
* #var Time
*/
private $time;
public function __construct(Time $time = null) {
if ($time === null) {
$time = new SystemTime();
}
$this->time = $time;
}
}
A service can be passed into the constructor, allowing for mocking of the service in a test, yet during "regular" operation, the class knows how to create its own collaborators, providing a default functionality, identical to what was needed before.
Problem
I've been told that this approach is unclean and subverts the idea of dependency injection. I do understand that the true way would be to pass down dependencies, like outlined above, but I don't see anything wrong with this simpler approach. Keep in mind also that this is a huge system, where potentially hundreds of services would need to be created up front (Service locator would be an alternative, but for now I am trying to go this other direction).
Can someone shed some light onto this issue and provide some insight into what would be a better way to achieve a refactoring in my case?
I think You've made first good step.
Last year I was on DutchPHP and there was a lecture about refactoring, lecturer described 3 major steps of extracting responsibilyty froma god class:
Extract code to private method (it should be simple copy paste since
$this is the same)
Extract code to separate class and pull
dependency
Push dependency
I think you are somewhere between 1st and 2nd step. You have a backdoor for unit tests.
Next thing according to above algorithm is to create some static factory (lecturer named it ApplicationFactory) which will be used instead of creation of instance in TimeUser.
ApplicationFactory is some kind of ServiceLocator pattern. This way you will inverse dependency (according to SOLID principle).
If you are happy with that you should remove passing Time instance into constructor and use ServiceLocator only (without backdoor for unit tests, You should stub service locator)
If you are not, then You have to find all places where TimeUser is being instantiated and inject Time implemenation:
new TimeUser(ApplicationFactory::getTime());
After some time yours ApplicationFactory will become very big. Then You have to made a decision:
Split it into smaller factories
Use some dependency injection container (Symfony DI, AurynDI or
something like that)
Currently my team is doing something similar. We are extracting responsibilities to seperate classes and inject them. We have an ApplicationFactory but we use it as service locator at as hight level as possible so classes bellow gets all dependencies injected and don't know anything about ApplicationFactory. Our application factory is big and now we are preparing to replace it with SymfonyDI.
You asked for a good mechanism to do this.
You've described some stages you might force the program to go through to accomplish this, but you are still apparantly planning to do this by hand at apparantly a very high cost.
If you really want to get this done on a huge code base, you might consider automating the steps using a program transformation engine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program_transformation
Such a tool can let you write explicit rules for modifying code. Done right, this can make code changes reliably. That doesn't minimize your need for testing, but can let you spend more time writing tests and less time hand-changing the code (erroneously).
I'm currently learning the API for Autofac, and I'm trying to get my head around what seems to me like a very common use case.
I have a class (for this simple example 'MasterOfPuppets') that has a dependency it receives via constructor injection ('NamedPuppet'), this dependency needs a value to be built with (string name):
public class MasterOfPuppets : IMasterOfPuppets
{
IPuppet _puppet;
public MasterOfPuppets(IPuppet puppet)
{
_puppet = puppet;
}
}
public class NamedPuppet : IPuppet
{
string _name;
public NamedPuppet(string name)
{
_name = name;
}
}
I register both classes with their interfaces, and than I want to resolve IMasterOfPuppets, with a string that will be injected into the instance of 'NamedPuppet'.
I attempted to do it in the following way:
IMasterOfPuppets master = bs.container.Resolve<IMasterOfPuppets>(new NamedParameter("name", "boby"));
This ends with a runtime error, so I guess Autofac only attempts to inject it to the 'MasterOfPuppets'.
So my question is, how can I resolve 'IMasterOfPuppets' only and pass parameter arguments to it's dependency, in the most elegant fashion?
Do other ioc containers have better solutions for it?
Autofac doesn't support passing parameters to a parent/consumer object and having those parameters trickle down into child objects.
Generally I'd say requiring the consumer to know about what's behind the interfaces of its dependencies is bad design. Let me explain:
From your design, you have two interfaces: IMasterOfPuppets and IPuppet. In the example, you only have one type of IPuppet - NamedPuppet. Keeping in mind that the point of even having the interface is to separate the interface from the implementation, you might also have this in your system:
public class ConfigurablePuppet : IPuppet
{
private string _name;
public ConfigurablePuppet(string name)
{
this._name = ConfigurationManager.AppSettings[name];
}
}
Two things to note there.
First, you have a different implementation of IPuppet that should work in place of any other IPuppet when used with the IMasterOfPuppets consumer. The IMasterOfPuppets implementation should never know that the implementation of IPuppet changed... and the thing consuming IMasterOfPuppets should be even further removed.
Second, both the example NamedPuppet and the new ConfigurablePuppet take a string parameter with the same name, but it means something different to the backing implementation. So if your consuming code is doing what you show in the example - passing in a parameter that's intended to be the name of the thing - then you probably have an interface design problem. See: Liskov substitution principle.
Point being, given that the IMasterOfPuppets implementation needs an IPuppet passed in, it shouldn't care how the IPuppet was constructed to begin with or what is actually backing the IPuppet. Once it knows, you're breaking the separation of interface and implementation, which means you may as well do away with the interface and just pass in NamedPuppet objects all the time.
As far as passing parameters, Autofac does have parameter support.
The recommended and most common type of parameter passing is during registration because at that time you can set things up at the container level and you're not using service location (which is generally considered an anti-pattern).
If you need to pass parameters during resolution Autofac also supports that. However, when passing during resolution, it's more service-locator-ish and not so great becausee, again, it implies the consumer knows about what it's consuming.
You can do some fancy things with lambda expression registrations if you want to wire up the parameter to come from a known source, like configuration.
builder.Register(c => {
var name = ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["name"];
return new NamedPuppet(name);
}).As<IPuppet>();
You can also do some fancy things using the Func<T> implicit relationship in the consumer:
public class MasterOfPuppets : IMasterOfPuppets
{
IPuppet _puppet;
public MasterOfPuppets(Func<string, IPuppet> puppetFactory)
{
_puppet = puppetFactory("name");
}
}
Doing that is the equivalent of using a TypedParameter of type string during the resolution. But, as you can see, that comes from the direct consumer of IPuppet and not something that trickles down through the stack of all resolutions.
Finally, you can also use Autofac modules to do some interesting cross-cutting things the way you see in the log4net integration module example. Using a technique like this allows you to insert a specific parameter globally through all resolutions, but it doesn't necessarily provide for the ability to pass the parameter at runtime - you'd have to put the source of the parameter inside the module.
Point being Autofac supports parameters but not what you're trying to do. I would strongly recommend redesigning the way you're doing things so you don't actually have the need to do what you're doing, or so that you can address it in one of the above noted ways.
Hopefully that should get you going in the right direction.
Let's say I have a few controllers. Each controller can at some point create new objects which will need to be stored on the server. For example I can have a RecipeCreationViewController which manages a form. When this form is submitted, a new Recipe object is created and needs to be saved on the server.
What's the best way to design the classes to minimize complexity and coupling while keeping the code as clean and readable as possible?
Singleton
Normally I would create a singleton NetworkAdapter that each controller can access directly in order to save objects.
Example:
[[[NetworkAdapter] sharedAdapter] saveObject:myRecipe];
But I've realized that having classes call singletons on their own makes for coupled code which is hard to debug since the access to the singleton is hidden in the implementation and not obvious from the interface.
Direct Reference
The alternative is to have each controller hold a reference to the NetworkAdapter and have this be passed in by the class that creates the controller.
For example:
[self.networkAdapter saveObject:myRecipe];
Delegation
The other approach that came to mind is delegation. The NetworkAdapter can implement a "RemoteStorageDelegate" protocol and each controller can have a remoteStorageDelegate which it can call methods like saveObject: on. The advantage being that the controllers don't know about the details of a NetworkAdapter, only that the object that implements the protocol knows how to save objects.
For example:
[self.remoteStorageDelegate saveObject:myRecipe];
Direct in Model
Yet another approach would be to have the model handle saving to the network directly. I'm not sure if this is a good idea though.
For example:
[myRecipe save];
What do you think of these? Are there any other patterns that make more sense for this?
I would also stick with Dependency Injection in your case. If you want to read about that you will easily find good articles in the web, e.g. on Wikipedia. There are also links to DI frameworks in Objective C.
Basically, you can use DI if you have two or more components, which must interact but shouldn't know each other directly in code. I'll elaborate your example a bit, but in C#/Java style because I don't know Objective C syntax. Let's say you have
class NetworkAdapter implements NetworkAdapterInterface {
void save(object o) { ... }
}
with the interface
interface NetworkAdapterInterface {
void save(object o);
}
Now you want to call that adapter in a controller like
class Controller {
NetworkAdapterInterface networkAdapter;
Controller() {
}
void setAdapter(NetworkAdapterInterface adapter) {
this.networkAdapter = adapter;
}
void work() {
this.networkAdapter.save(new object());
}
}
Calling the Setter is where now the magic of DI can happen (called Setter Injection; there is also e.g. Constructor Injection). That means that you haven't a single code line where you call the Setter yourself, but let it do the DI framework. Very loose coupled!
Now how does it work? Typically with a common DI framework you can define the actual mappings between components in a central code place or in a XML file. Image you have
<DI>
<component="NetworkAdapterInterface" class="NetworkAdapter" lifecycle="singleton" />
</DI>
This could tell the DI framework to automatically inject a NetworkAdapter in every Setter for NetworkAdapterInterface it finds in your code. In order to do this, it will create the proper object for you first. If it builds a new object for every injection, or only one object for all injections (Singleton), or e.g. one object per Unit of Work (if you use such a pattern), can be configured for each type.
As a sidenote: If you are unit testing your code, you can also use the DI framework to define completely other bindings, suitable for your test szenario. Easy way to inject some mocks!
Is there a language which has a feature that can prevent a class accessing any other class, unless an instance or reference is contained?
isolated class Example {
public Integer i;
public void doSomething()
{
i = 5; // This is ok because i belongs to this class
/*
* This is forbidden because this class can only
* access anything contained within, nothing outside
*/
System.out.println("This does not work.");
}
}
[edit]An example use case might be a plugin system. I could define a plugin object with references to certain objects that class can manipulate, but nothing else is permissible. It could potentially make security concerns much easier.[/edit]
I'm not aware of any class-based access modifiers with such intent, but I believe access modifiers to be misguided anyway.
Capability-based security or, more specifically, the object-capability model seems to be what you want.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-capability_model
The basic idea is that in order to do anything with an object, you need to hold a reference to it. Withhold the reference and no access is possible.
Global things (such as System.out.println) and a few other things are problematic features of a language, because anyone can access them without a reference.
Languages such as E, or tools like google caja (for Javascript) allow proper object-capability models. Here an example in JS:
function Example(someObj) {
this.someObj = someObj;
this.doStuff() = function() {
this.someObj.foo(); //allowed, we have been given a reference to it
alert("foobar"); //caja may deny/proxy access to global "alert"
}
}
Any language where you must include headers would probably count: Just don't include any headers.
However, I would wager that there's no language that explicitly forbids external access. What's the point? You can't do anything if you can't access the outside world. And, why would the reference to Integer be okay, but System.out.println not be?
If you clarify the potential use-case, we can probably help you better...
Edit for your Edit:
I thought you might be going there.
If this is for security, it's flawed from the start. Let's examine:
class EvilCode {
void DoNiceThings() {
HardDrive.Format();
}
}
What incentive do I have to voluntarily place a keyword on my class? I'm certainly not going to because I'm nice, since I'm not!
One thing to consider is that any time you're loading native code that's not your own (native, in this case, means not scripted), you're potentially allowing a bad guy to run his code. No language features are going to protect you from that.
The proper answer depends on your target language. Java has Security descriptors, .NET lets you create AppDomains with restricted permissions, etc. Unfortunately, I'm not an expert in these fields.
So, I was reading the Google testing blog, and it says that global state is bad and makes it hard to write tests. I believe it--my code is difficult to test right now. So how do I avoid global state?
The biggest things I use global state (as I understand it) for is managing key pieces of information between our development, acceptance, and production environments. For example, I have a static class named "Globals" with a static member called "DBConnectionString." When the application loads, it determines which connection string to load, and populates Globals.DBConnectionString. I load file paths, server names, and other information in the Globals class.
Some of my functions rely on the global variables. So, when I test my functions, I have to remember to set certain globals first or else the tests will fail. I'd like to avoid this.
Is there a good way to manage state information? (Or am I understanding global state incorrectly?)
Dependency injection is what you're looking for. Rather than have those functions go out and look for their dependencies, inject the dependencies into the functions. That is, when you call the functions pass the data they want to them. That way it's easy to put a testing framework around a class because you can simply inject mock objects where appropriate.
It's hard to avoid some global state, but the best way to do this is to use factory classes at the highest level of your application, and everything below that very top level is based on dependency injection.
Two main benefits: one, testing is a heck of a lot easier, and two, your application is much more loosely coupled. You rely on being able to program against the interface of a class rather than its implementation.
Keep in mind if your tests involve actual resources such as databases or filesystems then what you are doing are integration tests rather than unit tests. Integration tests require some preliminary setup whereas unit tests should be able to run independently.
You could look into the use of a dependency injection framework such as Castle Windsor but for simple cases you may be able to take a middle of the road approach such as:
public interface ISettingsProvider
{
string ConnectionString { get; }
}
public class TestSettings : ISettingsProvider
{
public string ConnectionString { get { return "testdatabase"; } };
}
public class DataStuff
{
private ISettingsProvider settings;
public DataStuff(ISettingsProvider settings)
{
this.settings = settings;
}
public void DoSomething()
{
// use settings.ConnectionString
}
}
In reality you would most likely read from config files in your implementation. If you're up for it, a full blown DI framework with swappable configurations is the way to go but I think this is at least better than using Globals.ConnectionString.
Great first question.
The short answer: make sure your application is a function from ALL its inputs (including implicit ones) to its outputs.
The problem you're describing doesn't seem like global state. At least not mutable state. Rather, what you're describing seems like what is often referred to as "The Configuration Problem", and it has a number of solutions. If you're using Java, you may want to look into light-weight injection frameworks like Guice. In Scala, this is usually solved with implicits. In some languages, you will be able to load another program to configure your program at runtime. This is how we used to configure servers written in Smalltalk, and I use a window manager written in Haskell called Xmonad whose configuration file is just another Haskell program.
An example of dependency injection in an MVC setting, here goes:
index.php
$container = new Container();
include_file('container.php');
container.php
container.add("database.driver", "mysql");
container.add("database.name","app");
...
$container.add(new Database($container->get('database.driver', "database.name")), 'database');
$container.add(new Dao($container->get('database')), 'dao');
$container.add(new Service($container->get('dao')));
$container.add(new Controller($container->get('service')), 'controller');
$container.add(new FrontController(),'frontController');
index.php continues here:
$frontController = $container->get('frontController');
$controllerClass = $frontController->getController($_SERVER['request_uri']);
$controllerAction = $frontController->getAction($_SERVER['request_uri']);
$controller = $container->get('controller');
$controller->$action();
And there you have it, the controller depends on a service layer object which depends on
a dao(data access object) object which depends on a database object with depends on the
database driver, name etc