I assume either option is correct: Registerer/Registrator/Registrar. So the question is not only about English. I want to address software developers.
How would you as an English speaker / employee in English speaking company name the class?
Example:
class SomethingRegisterer {
func register(something: Something) { ... }
}
Usage example: registration of dependencies, registration of request handlers, etc.
If you think that it is an inappropriate question for this site, because of its subjective nature, let me know. But it is a real problem that is eating me from the inside (as well as my PR reviewers).
I'd use the postfix "Registrar" as it is "an official responsible for keeping a register or official records." (as defined by the Oxford dictionary) e.g.
class EmployeeRegistrar {
func register(employee: Employee) { ... }
}
The other two names (i.e. Registerer and Registrator) are much more unusual in use.
Related
Suppose we have Book class which contains year_published public field. If I want to implement NullObject design pattern, I will need to define NullBook class which behaves same as Book but does not do anything.
Question is, what should be the behavior of NullBook when it's fields are being assigned?
Book book = find_book(id_value); //this method returns a NullBook instance because it cannot find the book
book.year_published = 2016; //What should we do here?!
The first thing you should do is to make your properties private.
class NullBook {
private year_published;
// OR solution2 private year_published = null;
public setYearPublished(year_published) {
this.year_published = null;
// OR solution2 do nothing!
}
}
You can also define the field private in the parent class, so the children will have to implement the setter to acces the field
class Book {
private year_published;
public setYearPublished(year_published) {
this.year_published = year_published;
}
}
class NullBook extends Book {
public setYearPublished(year_published) {
parent::setYearPublished(null);
}
}
Why use getters and setters?
https://stackoverflow.com/a/1568230/2377164
Thing is: patterns are about balancing. Yes, it is in general good practice to not return null, but to having else to return; but well: what is returned should still make sense!
And to a certain degree, I don't see how having a "NullBook" really helps with the design of your application. Especially as you allow access to various internal fields. You exactly asked the correct question: what should be the published year, or author, or ... of such a "NullBook"?!
What happens for example when some piece of code does a "lookup" on books from different "sources"; and then tries to sort those books on the published year. You sure don't want your NullBook to ever be part of such data.
Thus I fail to see the value in having this class, to the contrary: I see it creating a potential for "interesting" bugs; thus my answer is: step back and re-consider if you really need that class.
There are alternatives to null-replacing objects: maybe your language allows for Optionals; or, you rework those methods that could return null ... to return a collection/array of books; and in doubt: that list/array is simply empty.
Long story short: allowing other classes direct access to private fields is a much more of an import design smell; so you shouldn't be too focused on NullObjects, while giving up on such essential things as Information Hiding so easily on the other hand.
I refer to it as the "delivery boy". I've seen several variants of it but the issue is that a class has dependency for the sole purpose of passing it on to collaborators and never using the dependency itself.
(I'm using PHP because it's what I'm most familiar with but this is language agnostic)
class Dependency{}
class B {
public function setDependency(Dependency $dependency) {
//...
}
}
class A {
private $b;
private $dependency;
public function __construct(Dependency $dependency, B $b) {
$this->dependency = $dependency;
$this->b = $b;
}
public function foo() {
$this->b->setDependency($this->dependency);
}
}
Probably the most common variant I see in the wild is abusing inheritance for this purpose, having a property in the parent class which exists so that the child classes have access to the dependency even if the parent class never actually uses the dependency itself.
class Dependency{}
class A {
protected $dependency;
public function __construct(Dependency $dependency) {
$this->dependency = $dependency;
}
}
class B extends A {
public function foo() {
$this->dependency->bar();
}
}
I see this in code far more than I'd like and it doesn't make me very happy! I just wondered if there was a name for this so that I can link people to reading materials on why it's a bad idea. As it stands, I don't know what to search for!
I'm not aware of any name, but I kind of like Delivery boy... though I suppose some might consider the name borderline offensive.
Typically this problem is solved with either Dependency Injection or a Service Locator, although way too many people use Singleton for this (inappropriately).
I'm not familiar enough with PHP to know if PHP offers a real DI solution (as opposed to poor man's DI), but I think a service locator would be acceptable if there isn't (even though service locator is often a code smell in itself).
The problem related to inheritance in the second snippet looks like to me "Broken Hierarchy". This smell occurs when the base class and its derived class do not share an IS-A relationship. It is very common to find code that uses inheritance just for convenience (for reuse) and not because it makes sense to have a hierarchy where the participating classes are are related (by IS-A relationship).
(I borrowed the smell terminology (i.e. Broken Hierarchy) from the book "Refactoring for software design smells")
Say I have a class A
class A
{
Z source;
}
Now, the context tells me that 'Z' can be an instance of different classes (say, B and C) which doesn't share any common class in their inheritance tree.
I guess the naive approach is to make 'Z' an Interface class, and make classes B and C implement it.
But something still doesn't convince me because every time an instance of class A is used, I need to know the type of 'source'. So all finishes in multiple 'ifs' making 'is instanceof' which doesn't sound quite nice. Maybe in the future some other class implements Z, and having hardcoded 'ifs' of this type definitely could break something.
The escence of the problem is that I cannot resolve the issue by adding functions to Z, because the work done in each instance type of Z is different.
I hope someone can give me and advice, maybe about some useful design pattern.
Thanks
Edit: The work 'someone' does in some place when get some instance of A is totally different depending of the class behind the interface Z. That's the problem, the entity that does the 'important job' is not Z, is someone else that wants to know who is Z.
Edit2: Maybe a concrete example would help:
class Picture
{
Artist a;
}
interface Artist
{
}
class Human : Artist { }
class Robot : Artist {}
Now somewhere I have an instance of Picture,
Picture p = getPicture();
// Now is the moment that depending if the type of `p.a` different jobs are done
// it doesn't matter any data or logic inside Human or Robot
The point of using an interface is to hide these different implementations; A should just know the intent or high-level purpose of the method(s).
The work done by each implementation of Z may be different, but the method signature used to invoke that work can be the same. Class A can just call method Z.foo(), and depending on whether the implementation of Z is B or C, different code will be executed.
The only time you need to know the real implementation type is when you need to carry out completely unrelated processing on the two different types, and they don't share an interface. But in that case, why are they being processed by the same class A? Now, there are cases where this may make sense, such as when B and C are classes generated from XML Schemas, and you can't modify them - but generally it indicates that the design can be improved.
Updated now that you've added the Picture example. I think this confirms my point - although the implementation of getPicture() is different, the purpose and the return type are the same. In both cases, the Artist returns a Picture.
If the caller wants to treat Robot-created and Human-created pictures in the same way, then they use the Artist interface. They do not need to distinguish between Human or Robot, because they just want a picture! The details of how the picture is created belong in the subclass, and the caller should not see these details. If the caller cares about precisely how a picture is created, then the caller should paint it, not the Robot or Human, and the design would be quite different.
If your subclasses are performing totally unrelated tasks (and this is not what your Artist example shows!) then you might use a very vague interface such as the standard Java Runnable; in this case, the caller really has no idea what the run() method will do - it just knows how to run things that are Runnable.
Links
The following questions/articles suggest some alternatives to instanceof:
Avoiding instanceof in Java
Alternative to instanceof approach in this case
And the following articles also gives example code, using an example that seems similar to yours:
http://www.javapractices.com/topic/TopicAction.do?Id=31
and the following articles discuss the tradeoffs of instanceof versus other approaches such as the Visitor pattern and Acyclic Visitor:
https://sites.google.com/site/steveyegge2/when-polymorphism-fails
http://butunclebob.com/ArticleS.UncleBob.VisitorVersusInstanceOf
I think you need to post more information, because as it stands what I see is a misunderstanding of OOP principles. If you used a common interface type, then by Liskov substitution principle it shouldn't matter which type source is.
I'm gonna call your A, B, and C classes Alpha, Beta, and Gamma.
Perhaps Alpha can be split into two versions, one which uses Betas and one which uses Gammas. This would avoid the instanceof checks in Alpha, which as you've surmised are indeed a code smell.
abstract class Alpha
{
abstract void useSource();
}
class BetaAlpha extends Alpha
{
Beta source;
void useSource() { source.doSomeBetaThing(); }
}
class GammaAlpha extends Alpha
{
Gamma source;
void useSource() { source.doSomeGammaThing(); }
}
In fact this is extremely common. Consider a more concrete example of a Stream class that can use either Files or Sockets. And for the purpose of the example, File and Socket are not derived from any common base class. In fact they may not even be under our control, so we can't change them.
abstract class Stream
{
abstract void open();
abstract void close();
}
class FileStream extends Stream
{
File file;
void open() { file.open(); }
void close() { file.close(); }
}
class SocketStream extends Stream
{
Socket socket;
void open() { socket.connect(); }
void close() { socket.disconnect(); }
}
This is quite a common problem I run into. Let's hear your solutions. I'm going to use an Employee-managing application as an example:-
We've got some entity classes, some of which implement a particular interface.
public interface IEmployee { ... }
public interface IRecievesBonus { int Amount { get; } }
public class Manager : IEmployee, IRecievesBonus { ... }
public class Grunt : IEmployee /* This company sucks! */ { ... }
We've got a collection of Employees that we can iterate over. We need to grab all the objects that implement IRecievesBonus and pay the bonus.
The naive implementation goes something along the lines of:-
foreach(Employee employee in employees)
{
IRecievesBonus bonusReciever = employee as IRecievesBonus;
if(bonusReciever != null)
{
PayBonus(bonusReciever);
}
}
or alternately in C#:-
foreach(IRecievesBonus bonusReciever in employees.OfType<IRecievesBonus>())
{
PayBonus(bonusReciever);
}
We cannot modify the IEmployee interface to include details of the child type as we don't want to pollute the super-type with details that only the sub-type cares about.
We do not have an existing collection of only the subtype.
We cannot use the Visitor pattern because the element types are not stable. Also, we might have a type which implements both IRecievesBonus and IDrinksTea. Its Accept method would contain an ambiguous call to visitor.Visit(this).
Often we're forced down this route because we can't modify the super-type, nor the collection e.g. in .NET we may need to find all the Buttons on this Form via the child Controls collection. We may need to do something to the child types that depends on some aspect of the child type (e.g. the bonus amount in the example above).
Strikes me as odd that there isn't an "accepted" way to do this, given how often it comes up.
1) Is the type conversion worth avoiding?
2) Are there any alternatives I haven't thought of?
EDIT
Péter Török suggests composing Employee and pushing the type conversion further down the object tree:-
public interface IEmployee
{
public IList<IEmployeeProperty> Properties { get; }
}
public interface IEmployeeProperty { ... }
public class DrinksTeaProperty : IEmployeeProperty
{
int Sugars { get; set; }
bool Milk { get; set; }
}
foreach (IEmployee employee in employees)
{
foreach (IEmployeeProperty property in employee.Propeties)
{
// Handle duplicate properties if you need to.
// Since this is just an example, we'll just
// let the greedy ones have two cups of tea.
DrinksTeaProperty tea = property as DrinksTeaProperty;
if (tea != null)
{
MakeTea(tea.Sugers, tea.Milk);
}
}
}
In this example it's definitely worth pushing these traits out of the Employee type - particularly because some managers might drink tea and some might not - but we still have the same underlying problem of the type conversion.
Is it the case that it's "ok" so long as we do it at the right level? Or are we just moving the problem around?
The holy grail would be a variant on the Visitor pattern where:-
You can add element members without modifying all the visitors
Visitors should only visit types they're interested in visiting
The visitor can visit the member based on an interface type
Elements might implement multiple interfaces which are visited by different visitors
Doesn't involve casting or reflection
but I appreciate that's probably unrealistic.
I would definitely try to resolve this with composition instead of inheritance, by associating the needed properties/traits to Employee, instead of subclassing it.
I can give an example partly in Java, I think it's close enough to your language (C#) to be useful.
public enum EmployeeProperty {
RECEIVES_BONUS,
DRINKS_TEA,
...
}
public class Employee {
Set<EmployeeProperty> properties;
// methods to add/remove/query properties
...
}
And the modified loop would look like this:
foreach(Employee employee in employees) {
if (employee.getProperties().contains(EmployeeProperty.RECEIVES_BONUS)) {
PayBonus(employee);
}
}
This solution is much more flexible than subclassing:
it can trivially handle any combination of employee properties, while with subclassing you would experience a combinatorial explosion of subclasses as the number of properties grow,
it trivially allows you to change Employee properties runtime, while with subclassing this would require changing the concrete class of your object!
In Java, enums can have properties or (even virtual) methods themselves - I don't know whether this is possible in C#, but in the worst case, if you need more complex properties, you can implement them with a class hierarchy. (Even in this case, you are not back to square one, since you have an extra level of indirection which gives you the flexibility described above.)
Update
You are right that in the most general case (discussed in the last sentence above) the type conversion problem is not resolved, just pushed one level down on the object graph.
In general, I don't know a really satisfying solution to this problem. The typical way to handle it is using polymorphism: pull up the common interface and manipulate the objects via that, thus eliminating the need for downcasts. However, in cases when the objects in question do not have a common interface, what to do? It may help to realize that in these cases the design does not reflect reality well: practically, we created a marker interface solely to enable us to put a bunch of distinct objects into a common collection, but there is no semantical relationship between the objects.
So I believe in these cases the awkwardness of downcasts is a signal that there may be a deeper problem with our design.
You could implement a custom iterator that only iterates over the IRecievesBonus types.
Today I read a book and the author wrote that in a well-designed class the only way to access attributes is through one of that class methods. Is it a widely accepted thought? Why is it so important to encapsulate the attributes? What could be the consequences of not doing it? I read somewhere earlier that this improves security or something like that. Any example in PHP or Java would be very helpful.
Is it a widely accepted thought?
In the object-oriented world, yes.
Why is it so important to encapsulate the attributes? What could be the consequences of not doing it?
Objects are intended to be cohesive entities containing data and behavior that other objects can access in a controlled way through a public interface. If an class does not encapsulate its data and behavior, it no longer has control over the data being accessed and cannot fulfill its contracts with other objects implied by the public interface.
One of the big problems with this is that if a class has to change internally, the public interface shouldn't have to change. That way it doesn't break any code and other classes can continue using it as before.
Any example in PHP or Java would be very helpful.
Here's a Java example:
public class MyClass {
// Should not be < 0
public int importantValue;
...
public void setImportantValue(int newValue) {
if (newValue < 0) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("value cannot be < 0");
}
}
...
}
The problem here is that because I haven't encapsulated importantValue by making it private rather than public, anyone can come along and circumvent the check I put in the setter to prevent the object from having an invalid state. importantValue should never be less than 0, but the lack of encapsulation makes it impossible to prevent it from being so.
What could be the consequences of not
doing it?
The whole idea behind encapsulation is that all knowledge of anything related to the class (other than its interface) is within the class itself. For example, allowing direct access to attributes puts the onus of making sure any assignments are valid on the code doing the assigning. If the definition of what's valid changes, you have to go through and audit everything using the class to make sure they conform. Encapsulating the rule in a "setter" method means you only have to change it in one place, and any caller trying anything funny can get an exception thrown at it in return. There are lots of other things you might want to do when an attribute changes, and a setter is the place to do it.
Whether or not allowing direct access for attributes that don't have any rules to bind them (e.g., anything that fits in an integer is okay) is good practice is debatable. I suppose that using getters and setters is a good idea for the sake of consistency, i.e., you always know that you can call setFoo() to alter the foo attribute without having to look up whether or not you can do it directly. They also allow you to future-proof your class so that if you have additional code to execute, the place to put it is already there.
Personally, I think having to use getters and setters is clumsy-looking. I'd much rather write x.foo = 34 than x.setFoo(34) and look forward to the day when some language comes up with the equivalent of database triggers for members that allow you to define code that fires before, after or instead of a assignments.
Opinions on how "good OOD" is achieved are dime a dozen, and also very experienced programmers and designers tend to disagree about design choices and philosophies. This could be a flame-war starter, if you ask people across a wide varieties of language background and paradigms.
And yes, in theory are theory and practice the same, so language choice shouldn't influence high level design very much. But in practice they do, and good and bad things happen because of that.
Let me add this:
It depends. Encapsulation (in a supporting language) gives you some control over how you classes are used, so you can tell people: this is the API, and you have to use this. In other languages (e.g. python) the difference between official API and informal (subject to change) interfaces is by naming convention only (after all, we're all consenting adults here)
Encapsulation is not a security feature.
Another thought to ponder
Encapsulation with accessors also provides much better maintainability in the future. In Feanor's answer above, it works great to enforce security checks (assuming your instvar is private), but it can have much further reaching benifits.
Consider the following scenario:
1) you complete your application, and distribute it to some set of users (internal, external, whatever).
2) BigCustomerA approaches your team and wants an audit trail added to the product.
If everyone is using the accessor methods in their code, this becomes almost trivial to implement. Something like so:
MyAPI Version 1.0
public class MyClass {
private int importantValue;
...
public void setImportantValue(int newValue) {
if (newValue < 0) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("value cannot be < 0");
}
importantValue = newValue;
}
...
}
MyAPI V1.1 (now with audit trails)
public class MyClass {
private int importantValue;
...
public void setImportantValue(int newValue) {
if (newValue < 0) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("value cannot be < 0");
}
this.addAuditTrail("importantValue", importantValue, newValue);
importantValue = newValue;
}
...
}
Existing users of the API make no changes to their code and the new feature (audit trail) is now available.
Without encapsulation using accessors your faced with a huge migration effort.
When coding for the first time, it will seem like a lot of work. Its much faster to type: class.varName = something vs class.setVarName(something); but if everyone took the easy way out, getting paid for BigCustomerA's feature request would be a huge effort.
In Object Oriente Programming there is a principle that is known as (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open/closed_principle):
POC --> Principle of Open and Closed. This principle stays for: a well class design should be opened for extensibility (inheritance) but closed for modification of internal members (encapsulation). It means that you could not be able to modify the state of an object without taking care about it.
So, new languages only modify internal variables (fields) through properties (getters and setters methods in C++ or Java). In C# properties compile to methods in MSIL.
C#:
int _myproperty = 0;
public int MyProperty
{
get { return _myproperty; }
set { if (_someVarieble = someConstantValue) { _myproperty = value; } else { _myproperty = _someOtherValue; } }
}
C++/Java:
int _myproperty = 0;
public void setMyProperty(int value)
{
if (value = someConstantValue) { _myproperty = value; } else { _myproperty = _someOtherValue; }
}
public int getMyProperty()
{
return _myproperty;
}
Take theses ideas (from Head First C#):
Think about ways the fields can misused. What can go wrong if they're not set properly.
Is everything in your class public? Spend some time thinking about encapsulation.
What fields require processing or calculation? They are prime candidates.
Only make fields and methods public if you need to. If you don't have a reason to declare something public, don't.