I have a parent bean having one instance variable like below :
public Class ParentBean {
protected boolean show; // this variable will be used to show some UI component
public void action() {
// update show variable here
}
public boolean isShow() {
return show;
}
}
Is it a good design if I want to reuse the "show" variable in a child bean (to show other UI component specific to child bean ) as shown below :
public Class ChildBean extends ParentBean {
// override the action method from parent bean
public void action() {
// update show variable here
show = true /false;
}
}
In effect , show variable is being updated by "childBean" by overriding action() method.
Is this a good design practice ? Otherwise same thing has to be repeated in ChildBean to get this work done.
If you use the show variable for the same purpose in the subclass, as you seem to be doing in this example, then obviously you should reuse it, because otherwise you just end up writing the same code twice, which is contrary to the point of OOP.
In general, in OOP, it is common to override superclass methods in subclasses, as well as modifying superclass instance variables, as long as you know what the variable you are modifying is being used for (you don't want to be randomly changing instance variables in classes that you don't completely understand, or don't have access to the source of, because you don't want any unfortunate side effects), so when it's your own code, this is absolutely fine.
As a general guideline, if your options are either to copy and paste a massive hunk of code and use it unchanged, or subclass and use the superclass' instance variables or functions, it's better to subclass. Otherwise, you're missing out on the point of OOP.
Changing the value in subclass will not affect superclass variable
This is fine with respect to the design. When a subclass object is instantiated, it will have a different copy of variable. and If superclass object is instantiated it will have different copy.
It is. Having a protected variable means you are allowed to modify it into parent or children classes (remember every single instance of each class has its own property values). So, if you have some generic functionality which is valuable for all the children:
Parent class:
public void action(){
//update show variable here
show = true;
}
Appart from that, if you want to add some extra functionality in a specifical child:
Child class:
#Override
public void action(){
super.action();
//Extra functionality goes here
//You can also access parent's 'protected' fields
if (show){
System.out.println("Shown");
}
}
An example of the use:
Parent p = new Parent();
p.action();//Prints nothing
Child c = new Child();
p.action();//Prints 'shown'
I'm going to preface this by saying that this is by no means a major issue, more of something I haven't really heard talked about in terms of programming language design, and I was wondering if anyone had any interesting solutions.
The crux of the problem is this. Sometimes in an object-oriented language, I want to be able to modify an object via one of its methods, but return the object itself instead of what that method returns.
to give a java example:
class MyClass{
public MyClass(List<Integer> list){
//do constructor stuff
}
public MyClass(Integer i){
//what I would like to be able to do
this((new LinkedList<Integer>).add(i));
}
}
I can't create a temporary list in the second constructor, because this() must be the first line. Obviously there are a lot of ways to do this by changing the implementation, like creating an add() method that returns the object, making it the responsibility of the function constructing the object to make the list, etc.
But, considering a lot of the time you can't/don't want to modify or create a subclass (for LinkedList) and you might not want to muddy up the calling code, being able to modify and return an object in the style of ++x could be really useful. Something like
this(#(new LinkedList).add(i) to signify you want to object, not the method return. Does anyone know of a language that allows this is some concise syntactic way? If not, would this be useful at all or am I missing something fundamental here?
Wouldn't this work?
public class MyClass{
public MyClass(List<Integer> list){
//do constructor stuff
}
public static MyClass create(Integer i) {
List<Integer> list = new new LinkedList<Integer>();
list.add(i);
MyClass myClass = new MyClass(list);
return myClass;
}
}
This is somewhat common design pattern called Factory Pattern.
I think the cleanest way to solve this is to have an initialize method called from the constructors.
class MyClass
{
public MyClass(List list){
init(list);
}
public MyClass(Integer i){
LinkedList<Integer> list = new LinkedList<Integer>();
list.add(i);
init(list);
}
protected init(List<Integer> list)
{
// do init stuff here
}
}
Can a class return an object of itself.
In my example I have a class called "Change" which represents a change to the system, and I am wondering if it is in anyway against design principles to return an object of type Change or an ArrayList which is populated with all the recent Change objects.
Yes, a class can have a method that returns an instance of itself. This is quite a common scenario.
In C#, an example might be:
public class Change
{
public int ChangeID { get; set; }
private Change(int changeId)
{
ChangeID = changeId;
LoadFromDatabase();
}
private void LoadFromDatabase()
{
// TODO Perform Database load here.
}
public static Change GetChange(int changeId)
{
return new Change(changeId);
}
}
Yes it can. In fact, that's exactly what a singleton class does. The first time you call its class-level getInstance() method, it constructs an instance of itself and returns that. Then subsequent calls to getInstance() return the already-constructed instance.
Your particular case could use a similar method but you need some way of deciding the list of recent changes. As such it will need to maintain its own list of such changes. You could do this with a static array or list of the changes. Just be certain that the underlying information in the list doesn't disappear - this could happen in C++ (for example) if you maintained pointers to the objects and those objects were freed by your clients.
Less of an issue in an automatic garbage collection environment like Java since the object wouldn't disappear whilst there was still a reference to it.
However, you don't have to use this method. My preference with what you describe would be to have two clases, changelist and change. When you create an instance of the change class, pass a changelist object (null if you don't want it associated with a changelist) with the constructor and add the change to that list before returning it.
Alternatively, have a changelist method which creates a change itself and returns it, remembering the change for its own purposes.
Then you can query the changelist to get recent changes (however you define recent). That would be more flexible since it allows multiple lists.
You could even go overboard and allow a change to be associated with multiple changelists if so desired.
Another reason to return this is so that you can do function chaining:
class foo
{
private int x;
public foo()
{
this.x = 0;
}
public foo Add(int a)
{
this.x += a;
return this;
}
public foo Subtract(int a)
{
this.x -= a;
return this;
}
public int Value
{
get { return this.x; }
}
public static void Main()
{
foo f = new foo();
f.Add(10).Add(20).Subtract(1);
System.Console.WriteLine(f.Value);
}
}
$ ./foo.exe
29
There's a time and a place to do function chaining, and it's not "anytime and everywhere." But, LINQ is a good example of a place that hugely benefits from function chaining.
A class will often return an instance of itself from what is sometimes called a "factory" method. In Java or C++ (etc) this would usually be a public static method, e.g. you would call it directly on the class rather than on an instance of a class.
In your case, in Java, it might look something like this:
List<Change> changes = Change.getRecentChanges();
This assumes that the Change class itself knows how to track changes itself, rather than that job being the responsibility of some other object in the system.
A class can also return an instance of itself in the singleton pattern, where you want to ensure that only one instance of a class exists in the world:
Foo foo = Foo.getInstance();
The fluent interface methods work on the principal of returning an instance of itself, e.g.
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder("123");
sb.Append("456").Append("789");
You need to think about what you're trying to model. In your case, I would have a ChangeList class that contains one or more Change objects.
On the other hand, if you were modeling a hierarchical structure where a class can reference other instances of the class, then what you're doing makes sense. E.g. a tree node, which can contain other tree nodes.
Another common scenario is having the class implement a static method which returns an instance of it. That should be used when creating a new instance of the class.
I don't know of any design rule that says that's bad. So if in your model a single change can be composed of multiple changes go for it.
Why should we make the constructor private in class? As we always need the constructor to be public.
Some reasons where you may need private constructor:
The constructor can only be accessed from static factory method inside the class itself. Singleton can also belong to this category.
A utility class, that only contains static methods.
By providing a private constructor you prevent class instances from being created in any place other than this very class. There are several use cases for providing such constructor.
A. Your class instances are created in a static method. The static method is then declared as public.
class MyClass()
{
private:
MyClass() { }
public:
static MyClass * CreateInstance() { return new MyClass(); }
};
B. Your class is a singleton. This means, not more than one instance of your class exists in the program.
class MyClass()
{
private:
MyClass() { }
public:
MyClass & Instance()
{
static MyClass * aGlobalInst = new MyClass();
return *aGlobalInst;
}
};
C. (Only applies to the upcoming C++0x standard) You have several constructors. Some of them are declared public, others private. For reducing code size, public constructors 'call' private constructors which in turn do all the work. Your public constructors are thus called delegating constructors:
class MyClass
{
public:
MyClass() : MyClass(2010, 1, 1) { }
private:
MyClass(int theYear, int theMonth, int theDay) { /* do real work */ }
};
D. You want to limit object copying (for example, because of using a shared resource):
class MyClass
{
SharedResource * myResource;
private:
MyClass(const MyClass & theOriginal) { }
};
E. Your class is a utility class. That means, it only contains static members. In this case, no object instance must ever be created in the program.
To leave a "back door" that allows another friend class/function to construct an object in a way forbidden to the user. An example that comes to mind would be a container constructing an iterator (C++):
Iterator Container::begin() { return Iterator(this->beginPtr_); }
// Iterator(pointer_type p) constructor is private,
// and Container is a friend of Iterator.
Everyone is stuck on the Singleton thing, wow.
Other things:
Stop people from creating your class on the stack; make private constructors and only hand back pointers via a factory method.
Preventing creating copys of the class (private copy constructor)
This can be very useful for a constructor that contains common code; private constructors can be called by other constructors, using the 'this(...);' notation. By making the common initialization code in a private (or protected) constructor, you are also making explicitly clear that it is called only during construction, which is not so if it were simply a method:
public class Point {
public Point() {
this(0,0); // call common constructor
}
private Point(int x,int y) {
m_x = x; m_y = y;
}
};
There are some instances where you might not want to use a public constructor; for example if you want a singleton class.
If you are writing an assembly used by 3rd parties there could be a number of internal classes that you only want created by your assembly and not to be instantiated by users of your assembly.
This ensures that you (the class with private constructor) control how the contructor is called.
An example : A static factory method on the class could return objects as the factory method choses to allocate them (like a singleton factory for example).
We can also have private constructor,
to enfore the object's creation by a specific class
only(For security reasons).
One way to do it is through having a friend class.
C++ example:
class ClientClass;
class SecureClass
{
private:
SecureClass(); // Constructor is private.
friend class ClientClass; // All methods in
//ClientClass have access to private
// & protected methods of SecureClass.
};
class ClientClass
{
public:
ClientClass();
SecureClass* CreateSecureClass()
{
return (new SecureClass()); // we can access
// constructor of
// SecureClass as
// ClientClass is friend
// of SecureClass.
}
};
Note: Note: Only ClientClass (since it is friend of SecureClass)
can call SecureClass's Constructor.
You shouldn't make the constructor private. Period. Make it protected, so you can extend the class if you need to.
Edit: I'm standing by that, no matter how many downvotes you throw at this.
You're cutting off the potential for future development on the code. If other users or programmers are really determined to extend the class, then they'll just change the constructor to protected in source or bytecode. You will have accomplished nothing besides to make their life a little harder. Include a warning in your constructor's comments, and leave it at that.
If it's a utility class, the simpler, more correct, and more elegant solution is to mark the whole class "static final" to prevent extension. It doesn't do any good to just mark the constructor private; a really determined user may always use reflection to obtain the constructor.
Valid uses:
One good use of a protected
constructor is to force use of static
factory methods, which allow you to
limit instantiation or pool & reuse
expensive resources (DB connections,
native resources).
Singletons (usually not good practice, but sometimes necessary)
when you do not want users to create instances of this class or create class that inherits this class, like the java.lang.math, all the function in this package is static, all the functions can be called without creating an instance of math, so the constructor is announce as static.
If it's private, then you can't call it ==> you can't instantiate the class. Useful in some cases, like a singleton.
There's a discussion and some more examples here.
I saw a question from you addressing the same issue.
Simply if you don't want to allow the others to create instances, then keep the constuctor within a limited scope. The practical application (An example) is the singleton pattern.
Constructor is private for some purpose like when you need to implement singleton or limit the number of object of a class.
For instance in singleton implementation we have to make the constructor private
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
class singletonClass
{
static int i;
static singletonClass* instance;
public:
static singletonClass* createInstance()
{
if(i==0)
{
instance =new singletonClass;
i=1;
}
return instance;
}
void test()
{
cout<<"successfully created instance";
}
};
int singletonClass::i=0;
singletonClass* singletonClass::instance=NULL;
int main()
{
singletonClass *temp=singletonClass::createInstance();//////return instance!!!
temp->test();
}
Again if you want to limit the object creation upto 10 then use the following
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
class singletonClass
{
static int i;
static singletonClass* instance;
public:
static singletonClass* createInstance()
{
if(i<10)
{
instance =new singletonClass;
i++;
cout<<"created";
}
return instance;
}
};
int singletonClass::i=0;
singletonClass* singletonClass::instance=NULL;
int main()
{
singletonClass *temp=singletonClass::createInstance();//return an instance
singletonClass *temp1=singletonClass::createInstance();///return another instance
}
Thanks
You can have more than one constructor. C++ provides a default constructor and a default copy constructor if you don't provide one explicitly. Suppose you have a class that can only be constructed using some parameterized constructor. Maybe it initialized variables. If a user then uses this class without that constructor, they can cause no end of problems. A good general rule: If the default implementation is not valid, make both the default and copy constructor private and don't provide an implementation:
class C
{
public:
C(int x);
private:
C();
C(const C &);
};
Use the compiler to prevent users from using the object with the default constructors that are not valid.
Quoting from Effective Java, you can have a class with private constructor to have a utility class that defines constants (as static final fields).
(EDIT: As per the comment this is something which might be applicable only with Java, I'm unaware if this construct is applicable/needed in other OO languages (say C++))
An example as below:
public class Constants {
private Contants():
public static final int ADDRESS_UNIT = 32;
...
}
EDIT_1:
Again, below explanation is applicable in Java : (and referring from the book, Effective Java)
An instantiation of utility class like the one below ,though not harmful, doesn't serve
any purpose since they are not designed to be instantiated.
For example, say there is no private Constructor for class Constants.
A code chunk like below is valid but doesn't better convey intention of
the user of Constants class
unit = (this.length)/new Constants().ADDRESS_UNIT;
in contrast with code like
unit = (this.length)/Constants.ADDRESS_UNIT;
Also I think a private constructor conveys the intention of the designer of the Constants
(say) class better.
Java provides a default parameterless public constructor if no constructor
is provided, and if your intention is to prevent instantiation then a private constructor is
needed.
One cannot mark a top level class static and even a final class can be instantiated.
Utility classes could have private constructors. Users of the classes should not be able to instantiate these classes:
public final class UtilityClass {
private UtilityClass() {}
public static utilityMethod1() {
...
}
}
You may want to prevent a class to be instantiated freely. See the singleton design pattern as an example. In order to guarantee the uniqueness, you can't let anyone create an instance of it :-)
One of the important use is in SingleTon class
class Person
{
private Person()
{
//Its private, Hense cannot be Instantiated
}
public static Person GetInstance()
{
//return new instance of Person
// In here I will be able to access private constructor
}
};
Its also suitable, If your class has only static methods. i.e nobody needs to instantiate your class
It's really one obvious reason: you want to build an object, but it's not practical to do it (in term of interface) within the constructor.
The Factory example is quite obvious, let me demonstrate the Named Constructor idiom.
Say I have a class Complex which can represent a complex number.
class Complex { public: Complex(double,double); .... };
The question is: does the constructor expects the real and imaginary parts, or does it expects the norm and angle (polar coordinates) ?
I can change the interface to make it easier:
class Complex
{
public:
static Complex Regular(double, double = 0.0f);
static Complex Polar(double, double = 0.0f);
private:
Complex(double, double);
}; // class Complex
This is called the Named Constructor idiom: the class can only be built from scratch by explicitly stating which constructor we wish to use.
It's a special case of many construction methods. The Design Patterns provide a good number of ways to build object: Builder, Factory, Abstract Factory, ... and a private constructor will ensure that the user is properly constrained.
In addition to the better-known uses…
To implement the Method Object pattern, which I’d summarize as:
“Private constructor, public static method”
“Object for implementation, function for interface”
If you want to implement a function using an object, and the object is not useful outside of doing a one-off computation (by a method call), then you have a Throwaway Object. You can encapsulate the object creation and method call in a static method, preventing this common anti-pattern:
z = new A(x,y).call();
…replacing it with a (namespaced) function call:
z = A.f(x,y);
The caller never needs to know or care that you’re using an object internally, yielding a cleaner interface, and preventing garbage from the object hanging around or incorrect use of the object.
For example, if you want to break up a computation across methods foo, bar, and zork, for example to share state without having to pass many values in and out of functions, you could implement it as follows:
class A {
public static Z f(x, y) {
A a = new A(x, y);
a.foo();
a.bar();
return a.zork();
}
private A(X x, Y y) { /* ... */ };
}
This Method Object pattern is given in Smalltalk Best Practice Patterns, Kent Beck, pages 34–37, where it is the last step of a refactoring pattern, ending:
Replace the original method with one that creates an instance of the new class, constructed with the parameters and receiver of the original method, and invokes “compute”.
This differs significantly from the other examples here: the class is instantiable (unlike a utility class), but the instances are private (unlike factory methods, including singletons etc.), and can live on the stack, since they never escape.
This pattern is very useful in bottoms-up OOP, where objects are used to simplify low-level implementation, but are not necessarily exposed externally, and contrasts with the top-down OOP that is often presented and begins with high-level interfaces.
Sometimes is useful if you want to control how and when (and how many) instances of an object are created.
Among others, used in patterns:
Singleton pattern
Builder pattern
On use of private constructors could also be to increase readability/maintainability in the face of domain-driven design.
From "Microsoft .NET - Architecing Applications for the Enterprise, 2nd Edition":
var request = new OrderRequest(1234);
Quote, "There are two problems here. First, when looking at the code, one can hardly guess what’s going
on. An instance of OrderRequest is being created, but why and using which data? What’s 1234? This
leads to the second problem: you are violating the ubiquitous language of the bounded context. The
language probably says something like this: a customer can issue an order request and is allowed to
specify a purchase ID. If that’s the case, here’s a better way to get a new OrderRequest instance:"
var request = OrderRequest.CreateForCustomer(1234);
where
private OrderRequest() { ... }
public OrderRequest CreateForCustomer (int customerId)
{
var request = new OrderRequest();
...
return request;
}
I'm not advocating this for every single class, but for the above DDD scenario I think it makes perfect sense to prevent a direct creation of a new object.
If you create a private constructor you need to create the object inside the class
enter code here#include<iostream>
//factory method
using namespace std;
class Test
{
private:
Test(){
cout<<"Object created"<<endl;
}
public:
static Test* m1(){
Test *t = new Test();
return t;
}
void m2(){
cout<<"m2-Test"<<endl;
}
};
int main(){
Test *t = Test::m1();
t->m2();
return 0;
}
For example, do you use accessors and mutators within your method definitions or just access the data directly? Sometimes, all the time or when in Rome?
Always try to use accessors, even inside the class. The only time you would want to access state directly and not through the public interface is if for some reason you needed to bypass the validation or other logic contained in the accessor method.
Now if you find yourself in the situation where you do need to bypass that logic you ought to step back and ask yourself whether or not this need betrays a flaw in your design.
Edit: Read Automatic vs Explicit Properties by Eric Lippert in which he delves into this very issue and explains things very clearly. It is about C# specifically but the OOP theory is universal and solid.
Here is an excerpt:
If the reason that motivated the
change from automatically implemented
property to explicitly implemented
property was to change the semantics
of the property then you should
evaluate whether the desired semantics
when accessing the property from
within the class are identical to or
different from the desired semantics
when accessing the property from
outside the class.
If the result of that investigation is
“from within the class, the desired
semantics of accessing this property
are different from the desired
semantics of accessing the property
from the outside”, then your edit has
introduced a bug. You should fix the
bug. If they are the same, then your
edit has not introduced a bug; keep
the implementation the same.
In general, I prefer accessors/mutators. That way, I can change the internal implementation of a class, while the class functions in the same way to an external user (or preexisting code that I dont want to break).
The accessors are designed so that you can add property specific logic. Such as
int Degrees
{
set
{
_degrees = value % 360;
}
}
So, you would always want to access that field through the getter and setter, and that way you can always be certain that the value will never get greater than 360.
If, as Andrew mentioned, you need to skip the validation, then it's quite possible that there is a flaw in the design of the function, or in the design of the validation.
Accessors and Mutators are designed to ensure consistency of your data, so even within your class you should always strive to make sure that there's no possible way of injecting unvalidated data into those fields.
EDIT
See this question as well:
OO Design: Do you use public properties or private fields internally?
I don't tend to share with the outside world the 'innards' of my classes and so my internal needs for data (the private method stuff) tends to not do the same sort of stuff that my public interface does, typically.
It is pretty uncommon that I'll write an accessor/mutator that a private method will call, but I suspect I'm in the minority here. Maybe I should do more of this, but I don't tend to.
Anyway, that's my [patina covered] two cents.
I will often start with private auto properties, then refactor if necessary. I'll refactor to a property with a backing field, then replace the backing field with the "real" store, for instance Session or ViewState for an ASP.NET application.
From:
private int[] Property { get; set; }
to
private int[] _property;
private int[] Property
{
get { return _property; }
set { _property = value; }
}
to
private int[] _property;
private int[] Property
{
get
{
if (_property == null)
{
_property = new int[8];
}
return _property;
}
set { _property = value; }
}
to
private int[] Property
{
get
{
if (ViewState["PropertyKey"] == null)
{
ViewState["PropertyKey"] = new int[8];
}
return (int[]) ViewState["PropertyKey"];
}
set { ViewState["PropertyKey"] = value; }
}
Of course, I use ReSharper, so this takes less time to do than to post about.