In the below UML diagram, Account has an aggregation of Orders. Based on most online resources, this would typically mean Account class has something similar to a List as an instance.
But in reality, for a real world web app with persistent storage, that is not usually how the Account Class would be. It won't have a list of orders as instance. Instead some other controller class will just query a datastore asking for all Orders belonging to an Account. So in a UML class diagram for such an app, is this still the right way to represent relations? The cardinality and maybe the concept of aggregation looks right from a database entity perspective. Just that the diamond makes no sense from a Class perspective.
Or should it show a DataStore/DataManager with a getOrdersForAccount() method and connect it to Account class and Orders class through a dependency relation (dotted line with arrow) ?
This depends on what you want to represent.
The class model you have already would be sufficient as a logical domain model, expressing the logical relationships between entities in your domain. This might not be how you implement your software in code precisely, but it will guide you (and others) in understanding the entities and their relationships without getting bogged down in that implementation detail. At this level, your diagram may have a few design choices (strong aggregation for example is arguably a design choice, but it may not be, as is the use of enumerations and keys) but not that many and nothing that really detracts from the underlying logic. If anything, you could loose some design choices here and improve the expression of logic.
What you may also want is to provide a representation of how the OO code is implemented physically as well. This would be an additional class diagram that shows more precisely the implementation detail. You will have far more design choices in this diagram -- whether to use a collection or not for orders (e.g. a list or some other collection type class), what your data access patterns are (Adapters, Managers, ORMs etc.). At this level you will most likely loose the strong aggregate notation, as at this level we are talking about classes referencing each other which is most simply denoted using basic associations. You might want to use arrows and/or dot-notation to indicate end ownership and reference directions so that it's more clear what the relationships between classes are.
So, I think your question is a classic question about levels of abstraction in models and analysis vs design. Thanks for asking it!
The aggregation just means: "if you delete the account you need to delete the orders as well".
I also recommend to just leave the aggregation away (for most cases) since it only adds little extra semantics to your model. In this case it seems obvious to delete the order when the account is deleted. The only thing the aggregation added here is (as in most cases) some confusion or some futile discussions about the worth of that diamond.
If you have a domain where the filled diamond is used it should be documented in the modeling rules. When using the shared aggregation the documentation is even mandatory since there is no semantics per se in the specs (see box on p. 110 of UML 2.5).
It depends on how deep you want to go with UML design.
If you target code generation from UML then you probably need to add the class you mentioned.
It would look a lot like Registry Pattern:
UML Diagram
You can add abstraction so you can change implementation of your DataManager (if your DataManager is third-party then just call the API from DataManagerImplementation).
After that, depending on your implementation, once you have the list, if you need to keep it then add the association Account -> Order, if you can live with the list on the stack then you are good to go.
C++ instanciation example:
DataManagerImplementation *db = new DataManagerImplementation();
// Dependency injection
Account *acc = new Account(db);
Then in 'Account' class:
Account::Account(DataManager *db)
{
// Fetch list at creation
// Here 'orders' could be a member
m_db = db;
vector<Order*> *orders = m_db->GetOrders(this);
}
PS: I also recommend to put arrow (direction) on association/aggregation, otherwise it implies that the association is bi-directional and so that account has a pointer to an order list, and every order also has a pointer to an account, and I am not sure this is needed.
To edit PlantUML: http://www.plantuml.com/plantuml/png/SoWkIImgAStDuN99B4dqJSnBJ4yjyimjo4dDJSqhIIp9pCzJqDMjiLFmBqf9BK9ImuKk05Hcfw2afGHHYIbjfL2McboINsG3bj6oKz1oJoq1iuir79EJyqlpIZIve0m5a566IfYMEgJcfG0T2m00
Related
The image shows the logistics of the Warehouse. Very very simplistic. What is its concept: There are documents: ReceivingWayBill, DispatchingWaybill, ReplacementOrder.
They interact with the main classes: Warehouse, Counterparty, Item.
And the Register class: ItemRemainsInWarehouse. It turns out, the document is confirmation of the operation, reception, sending, and so on. The Register simply stores information about the number of remaining goods.
If you miss a lot of problems of this scheme, such as: the lack of generalization, getters and setters and a heap of everything else.
Who can tell: the relationship between classes, and there is concrete aggregation everywhere, are placed correctly, or can we somehow consider the association in more detail?
It is so hard (maybe impossible) to correct your whole model with provided explanation. I give some improvements.
You should put Multiplicity of you relationships. They are so important. In some relationship, you have 1 (ReplacementOrder , Warehouse) and some of your relatioships are maybe * (Item , ReceivingWayBill)
You put Aggregation between your classes and we know that Aggregation is type of Association. You can put Associations too. You can find a lot of similar questions and answers that explain differences between Association and Aggregation (and Composition). see Question 1, Question 2 and Question 3. But I recommend this answer.
I think, there is NOT a very significant difference between Aggregation and Association. See my example in this question.
Robert C. Martin says (see here):
Association represents the ability of one instance to send a message to another instance.
Aggregation is the typical whole/part relationship. This is exactly the same as an association with the exception that instances
cannot have cyclic aggregation relationships (i.e. a part cannot
contain its whole).
Therefor: some of your relationships are exactly an Aggregation. (relationship between Item and other classes). Your Counterparty has not good API definition. Your other relationships is about using Warehouse class. I think (just guess) the other classes only use Warehouse class services (public methods). In this case, they can be Associations. Otherwise, if they need an instance of Warehouse as a part, they are Aggregations.
Aggregation is evil!
Read the UML specs about the two variants they introduced (p. 110):
none: Indicates that the Property has no aggregation semantics. [hear, hear!]
shared: Indicates that the Property has shared aggregation semantics. Precise semantics of shared aggregation varies by application area and modeler.
composite: Indicates that the Property is aggregated compositely, i.e., the composite object has responsibility for the existence and storage of the composed objects (see the definition of parts in 11.2.3).
Composite aggregation is a strong form of aggregation that requires a part object be included in at most one composite object at a time. If a composite object is deleted, all of its part instances that are objects are deleted with it.
Now, that last sentence clearly indicates where you should use composite (!) aggregation: in security related appications. When you delete a person record in a database you need to also delete all related entities. That often used example with a car being composed of motor, tires, etc. does not really fit. The tires do not vanish when you "delete" the car. Simply because you can not delete it. Even worse is the use of a shared composite since it has no definition per definition (sic!).
So what should you do? Use multiplicities! That is what people usually want to show. There are 0..n, 1, etc. elements related to to the class at the other side. Eventually you name these by using roles to make it explicit.
If you consider DispatchingWaybill and ReceivingWaybill it looks like those are association classes. With the right multiplicities (1-* / *-1) you can leave it this way. (Edit: note the little dots at the association's ends which tell that the class at the opposite has an attribute named after the role.)
Alternatively attach either with a dashed line to an association between the classes where they are currently connected to.
Let's say there are two classes related to each other via some relations. For example, a Student maintains a list of the Classes he takes, and each Class has a list of Students taking it. Then I am afraid of letting the Student directly being able to modify its set of Classes, because each modification would have to be followed by a similar modification of a Class's list of Students, and vice versa.
One solution is to have a class whose sole purpose is to keep track of Class-Student relations, say Registrar. But then if some method in Student requires knowledge of its Class list, the Student needs to be passed the Registrar. This seems bad. It seems Student shouldn't have access to the Registrar, where it can also access other Students. I can think of a solution, creating a class that acts as a mediator between Student and Registrar, showing the Student only what it needs to know, but this seems possibly like overkill. Another solution is to remove from Student any method that needs to access its classes and put it instead in Registrar or some other class that has access to Registrar.
The reason I'm asking is that I'm working on a chess game in Java. I'm thinking about the Piece-Cell relations and the Piece-Player relations. If in the above example it wasn't OK for a Student to have access to the Registrar, is it OK here for a Piece to have access to the Board, since a Piece needs to look around anyway to decide if a move is valid?
What's the standard practice in such cases?
If relations can be changed - classes should be decoupled as much as possible, so along with each class create an interface, do not introduce tied relations between classes.
High level of separation you can achieve using intermediate services/helpers which encapsulates logic of communication between classes, so in this case you should not inject one class to an other even both are abstracted by interfaces, basically Student does not know anything about Class, and Class does not know anything about Student. I'm not sure whether such complexity is makes sense in your case but anyway you can achieve it.
Here is you may find a useful design pattern Mediator which can encapsulate interaction logic between two decoupled entities, take a look at it.
With the mediator pattern, communication between objects is
encapsulated with a mediator object. Objects no longer communicate
directly with each other, but instead communicate through the
mediator. This reduces the dependencies between communicating objects,
thereby lowering the coupling.
What I think you have found in your pretty nice example and explanation is that OO does not solve all problems well. As long as the responsibility is well shaped and sharp, everything is fine. And as long each responsibility fits in exactly one bucket (the class), it is pretty easy to design. But here you have a tradeoff:
If I define for each responsibility a separate class, I will get a bloated design that is pretty difficult to understand (and sometimes to maintain).
If I include for each separate responsibility at least one interface, I will get more classes and interfaces than I need.
If I decide that one of the two classes is responsible for the relation as well, this one object has more knowledge than usual about the other.
And if you introduce in each case a mediator or something similar, your design will be more complex than the problem.
So perhaps you should ask the questions:
What is the likelihood that the relation between the 2 objects will change?
What is the likelihood that the relation will exist between more 1 type of objects at each end?
Is that part of the system a highly visible part, so that a lot of other parts will interface it (and therefore will be dependent on it)?
Take the simplest solution that could possibly work and start with that. As long as the solution is kept simple, it is only your code (you don't design a library for others), there are chances that you can change the design later without hassle.
So in your concrete case,
the board field should have access to the whole board XOR
the figure on the field should have the responsibility of moving XOR
there should be an object type (ChessGame?) that is responsible for the overall knowledge about moving, blocking, attacking ...
I do think that all are valid, and it depends on your special "business case" which one is the most valid.
I'm in a project that takes the Single Responsibility Principle pretty seriously. We have a lot of small classes and things are quite simple. However, we have an anemic domain model - there is no behaviour in any of our model classes, they are just property bags. This isn't a complaint about our design - it actually seems to work quite well
During design reviews, SRP is brought out whenever new behaviour is added to the system, and so new behaviour typically ends up in a new class. This keeps things very easily unit testable, but I am perplexed sometimes because it feels like pulling behaviour out of the place where it's relevant.
I'm trying to improve my understanding of how to apply SRP properly. It seems to me that SRP is in opposition to adding business modelling behaviour that shares the same context to one object, because the object inevitably ends up either doing more than one related thing, or doing one thing but knowing multiple business rules that change the shape of its outputs.
If that is so, then it feels like the end result is an Anemic Domain Model, which is certainly the case in our project. Yet the Anemic Domain Model is an anti-pattern.
Can these two ideas coexist?
EDIT: A couple of context related links:
SRP - http://www.objectmentor.com/resources/articles/srp.pdf
Anemic Domain Model - http://martinfowler.com/bliki/AnemicDomainModel.html
I'm not the kind of developer who just likes to find a prophet and follow what they say as gospel. So I don't provide links to these as a way of stating "these are the rules", just as a source of definition of the two concepts.
Rich Domain Model (RDM) and Single Responsibility Principle (SRP) are not necessarily at odds. RDM is more at odds with a very specialised subclassof SRP - the model advocating "data beans + all business logic in controller classes" (DBABLICC).
If you read Martin's SRP chapter, you'll see his modem example is entirely in the domain layer, but abstracting the DataChannel and Connection concepts as separate classes. He keeps the Modem itself as a wrapper, since that is useful abstraction for client code. It's much more about proper (re)factoring than mere layering. Cohesion and coupling are still the base principles of design.
Finally, three issues:
As Martin notes himself, it's not always easy to see the different 'reasons for change'. The very concepts of YAGNI, Agile, etc. discourage the anticipation of future reasons for change, so we shouldn't invent ones where they aren't immediately obvious. I see 'premature, anticipated reasons for change' as a real risk in applying SRP and should be managed by the developer.
Further to the previous, even correct (but unnecessary anal) application of SRP may result in unwanted complexity. Always think about the next poor sod who has to maintain your class: will the diligent abstraction of trivial behaviour into its own interfaces, base classes and one-line implementations really aid his understanding of what should simply have been a single class?
Software design is often about getting the best compromise between competing forces. For example, a layered architecture is mostly a good application of SRP, but what about the fact that, for example, the change of a property of a business class from, say, a boolean to an enum has a ripple effect across all the layers - from db through domain, facades, web service, to GUI? Does this point to bad design? Not necessarily: it points to the fact that your design favours one aspect of change to another.
I'd have to say "yes", but you have to do your SRP properly. If the same operation applies to only one class, it belongs in that class, wouldn't you say? How about if the same operation applies to multiple classes? In that case, if you want to follow the OO model of combining data and behavior, you'd put the operation into a base class, no?
I suspect that from your description, you're ending up with classes which are basically bags of operations, so you've essentially recreated the C-style of coding: structs and modules.
From the linked SRP paper:
"The SRP is one of the simplest of the principle, and one of the hardest to get right."
The quote from the SRP paper is very correct; SRP is hard to get right. This one and OCP are the two elements of SOLID that simply must be relaxed to at least some degree in order to actually get a project done. Overzealous application of either will very quickly produce ravioli code.
SRP can indeed be taken to ridiculous lengths, if the "reasons for change" are too specific. Even a POCO/POJO "data bag" can be thought of as violating SRP, if you consider the type of a field changing as a "change". You'd think common sense would tell you that a field's type changing is a necessary allowance for "change", but I've seen domain layers with wrappers for built-in value types; a hell that makes ADM look like Utopia.
It's often good to ground yourself with some realistic goal, based on readability or a desired cohesion level. When you say, "I want this class to do one thing", it should have no more or less than what is necessary to do it. You can maintain at least procedural cohesion with this basic philosophy. "I want this class to maintain all the data for an invoice" will generally allow SOME business logic, even summing subtotals or calculating sales tax, based on the object's responsibility to know how to give you an accurate, internally-consistent value for any field it contains.
I personally do not have a big problem with a "lightweight" domain. Just having the one role of being the "data expert" makes the domain object the keeper of every field/property pertinent to the class, as well as all calculated field logic, any explicit/implicit data type conversions, and possibly the simpler validation rules (i.e. required fields, value limits, things that would break the instance internally if allowed). If a calculation algorithm, perhaps for a weighted or rolling average, is likely to change, encapsulate the algorithm and refer to it in the calculated field (that's just good OCP/PV).
I don't consider such a domain object to be "anemic". My perception of that term is a "data bag", a collection of fields that has no concept whatsoever of the outside world or even the relation between its fields other than that it contains them. I've seen that too, and it's not fun tracking down inconsistencies in object state that the object never knew was a problem. Overzealous SRP will lead to this by stating that a data object is not responsible for any business logic, but common sense would generally intervene first and say that the object, as the data expert, must be responsible for maintaining a consistent internal state.
Again, personal opinion, I prefer the Repository pattern to Active Record. One object, with one responsibility, and very little if anything else in the system above that layer has to know anything about how it works. Active Record requires the domain layer to know at least some specific details about the persistence method or framework (whether that be the names of stored procedures used to read/write each class, framework-specific object references, or attributes decorating the fields with ORM information), and thus injects a second reason to change into every domain class by default.
My $0.02.
I've found following the solid principles did in fact lead me away from DDD's rich domain model, in the end, I found I didn't care. More to the point, I found that the logical concept of a domain model, and a class in whatever language weren't mapped 1:1, unless we were talking about a facade of some sort.
I wouldn't say this is exactly a c-style of programming where you have structs and modules, but rather you'll probably end up with something more functional, I realise the styles are similar, but the details make a big difference. I found my class instances end up behaving like higher order functions, partial functions application, lazily evaluated functions, or some combination of the above. It's somewhat ineffable for me, but that's the feeling I get from writing code following TDD + SOLID, it ended up behaving like a hybrid OO/Functional style.
As for inheritance being a bad word, i think that's more due to the fact that the inheritance isn't sufficiently fine grained enough in languages like Java/C#. In other languages, it's less of an issue, and more useful.
I like the definition of SRP as:
"A class has only one business reason to change"
So, as long as behaviours can be grouped into single "business reasons" then there is no reason for them not to co-exist in the same class. Of course, what defines a "business reason" is open to debate (and should be debated by all stakeholders).
Before I get into my rant, here's my opinion in a nutshell: somewhere everything has got to come together... and then a river runs through it.
I am haunted by coding.
=======
Anemic data model and me... well, we pal around a lot. Maybe it's just the nature of small to medium sized applications with very little business logic built into them. Maybe I am just a bit 'tarded.
However, here's my 2 cents:
Couldn't you just factor out the code in the entities and tie it up to an interface?
public class Object1
{
public string Property1 { get; set; }
public string Property2 { get; set; }
private IAction1 action1;
public Object1(IAction1 action1)
{
this.action1 = action1;
}
public void DoAction1()
{
action1.Do(Property1);
}
}
public interface IAction1
{
void Do(string input1);
}
Does this somehow violate the principles of SRP?
Furthermore, isn't having a bunch of classes sitting around not tied to each other by anything but the consuming code actually a larger violation of SRP, but pushed up a layer?
Imagine the guy writing the client code sitting there trying to figure out how to do something related to Object1. If he has to work with your model he will be working with Object1, the data bag, and a bunch of 'services' each with a single responsibility. It'll be his job to make sure all those things interact properly. So now his code becomes a transaction script, and that script will itself contain every responsibility necessary to properly complete that particular transaction (or unit of work).
Furthermore, you could say, "no brah, all he needs to do is access the service layer. It's like Object1Service.DoActionX(Object1). Piece of cake." Well then, where's the logic now? All in that one method? Your still just pushing code around, and no matter what, you'll end up with data and the logic being separated.
So in this scenario, why not expose to the client code that particular Object1Service and have it's DoActionX() basically just be another hook for your domain model? By this I mean:
public class Object1Service
{
private Object1Repository repository;
public Object1Service(Object1Repository repository)
{
this.repository = repository;
}
// Tie in your Unit of Work Aspect'ing stuff or whatever if need be
public void DoAction1(Object1DTO object1DTO)
{
Object1 object1 = repository.GetById(object1DTO.Id);
object1.DoAction1();
repository.Save(object1);
}
}
You still have factored out the actual code for Action1 from Object1 but for all intensive purposes, have a non-anemic Object1.
Say you need Action1 to represent 2 (or more) different operations that you would like to make atomic and separated into their own classes. Just create an interface for each atomic operation and hook it up inside of DoAction1.
That's how I might approach this situation. But then again, I don't really know what SRP is all about.
Convert your plain domain objects to ActiveRecord pattern with a common base class to all domain objects. Put common behaviour in the base class and override the behaviour in derived classes wherever necessary or define the new behaviour wherever required.
I 'm concern about what techniques should I use to choose the right object in OOP
Is there any must-read book about OOP in terms of how to choose objects?
Best,
Just write something that gets the job done, even if it's ugly, then refactor continuously:
eliminate duplicate code (don't repeat yourself)
increase cohesion
reduce coupling
But:
don't over-engineer; keep it simple
don't write stuff you ain't gonna need
It's not a precise recipe, just some general guidelines. Keep practicing.
P.S.
Code objects are not related to tangible real-life objects; they are just constructs that hold related information together.
Don't believe what the Java books/schools teach about objects; they're lying.
You probably mean "the right class", rather than "the right object". :-)
There are a few techniques, such as text analysis (a.k.a. underlining the nouns) and Class Responsibility Collaborator (CRC).
With "underlining the nouns", you basically start with a written, natural language (i.e. plain English) description of the problem you want to solve and underline the nouns. That gives you a list of candidate classes. You will need to perform several passes to refine it into a list of classes to implement.
For CRC, check out the Wikipedia.
I suggest The OPEN Toolbox of Techniques for full reference.
Hope it helps.
I am assuming that there is understanding of what is sctruct, type, class, set, state, alphabet, scalar and vector and relationship.
Object is a noun, method is a verb. Object members can represent identity, state or scalar value per field. Relationships between objects usually are represented with references, where references are members of objects. In cases, when relationships are complex, multidirectional, have arity greater than 2, represent some sort of grouping or containment, then relationships can be expressed as objects.
For other, broader technical reasons objects are most likely the only way to represent any form of information in OOP languages.
I am adding a second answer due to demian's comment:
Sometimes the class is so obvious
because it's tangible, but other times
the concept of object it's to abstract
like a db connector.
That is true. My preferred approach is to perform a behavioural analysis of the system (using use cases, for example), and then derive system operations. Once you have a stable list of system operations (such as PrintDocument, SaveDocument, SpellCheck, MergeMail, etc. for a word processor) you need to assign each of them to a class. If you have developed a list of candidate classes with some of the techniques that I mentioned earlier, you will be able to allocate some of the operations. But some will remain unallocated. These will signal the need of more abstract or unintuitive classes, which you will need to make up, using your good judgment.
The whole method is documented in a white paper at www.openmetis.com.
You should check out Domain-Driven Design, by Eric Evans. It provides very useful concepts in thinking about the objects in your model, what their function are in the domain, and how they could be organized to work together. It's not a cookbook, and probably not a beginner book - but then, I read it at different stages of my career, and every time I found something valuable in it...
(source: domaindrivendesign.org)
Information-Expert, Tell-Don't-Ask, and SRP are often mentioned together as best practices. But I think they are at odds. Here is what I'm talking about.
Code that favors SRP but violates Tell-Don't-Ask & Info-Expert:
Customer bob = ...;
// TransferObjectFactory has to use Customer's accessors to do its work,
// violates Tell Don't Ask
CustomerDTO dto = TransferObjectFactory.createFrom(bob);
Code that favors Tell-Don't-Ask & Info-Expert but violates SRP:
Customer bob = ...;
// Now Customer is doing more than just representing the domain concept of Customer,
// violates SRP
CustomerDTO dto = bob.toDTO();
Please fill me in on how these practices can co-exist peacefully.
Definitions of the terms,
Information Expert: objects that have the data needed for an operation should host the operation.
Tell Don't Ask: don't ask objects for data in order to do work; tell the objects to do the work.
Single Responsibility Principle: each object should have a narrowly defined responsibility.
I don't think that they are so much at odds as they are emphasizing different things that will cause you pain. One is about structuring code to make it clear where particular responsibilities are and reducing coupling, the other is about reducing the reasons to modify a class.
We all have to make decisions each and every day about how to structure code and what dependencies we are willing to introduce into designs.
We have built up a lot of useful guidelines, maxims and patterns that can help us to make the decisions.
Each of these is useful to detect different kinds of problems that could be present in our designs. For any specific problem that you may be looking at there will be a sweet spot somewhere.
The different guidelines do contradict each other. Just applying every piece of guidance you have heard or read will not make your design better.
For the specific problem you are looking at today you need to decide what the most important factors that are likely to cause you pain are.
You can talk about "Tell Don't Ask" when you ask for object's state in order to tell object to do something.
In your first example TransferObjectFactory.createFrom just a converter. It doesn't tell Customer object to do something after inspecting it's state.
I think first example is correct.
Those classes are not at odds. The DTO is simply serving as a conduit of data from storage that is intended to be used as a dumb container. It certainly doesn't violate the SRP.
On the other hand the .toDTO method is questionable -- why should Customer have this responsibility? For "purity's" sake I would have another class who's job it was to create DTOs from business objects like Customer.
Don't forget these principles are principles, and when you can et away with simpler solutions until changing requirements force the issue, then do so. Needless complexity is definitely something to avoid.
I highly recommend, BTW, Robert C. Martin's Agile Patterns, Practices and principles for much more in depth treatments of this subject.
DTOs with a sister class (like you have) violate all three principles you stated, and encapsulation, which is why you're having problems here.
What are you using this CustomerDTO for, and why can't you simply use Customer, and have the DTOs data inside the customer? If you're not careful, the CustomerDTO will need a Customer, and a Customer will need a CustomerDTO.
TellDontAsk says that if you are basing a decision on the state of one object (e.g. a customer), then that decision should be performed inside the customer class itself.
An example is if you want to remind the Customer to pay any outstanding bills, so you call
List<Bill> bills = Customer.GetOutstandingBills();
PaymentReminder.RemindCustomer(customer, bills);
this is a violation. Instead you want to do
Customer.RemindAboutOutstandingBills()
(and of course you will need to pass in the PaymentReminder as a dependency upon construction of the customer).
Information Expert says the same thing pretty much.
Single Responsibility Principle can be easily misunderstood - it says that the customer class should have one responsibility, but also that the responsibility of grouping data, methods, and other classes aligned with the 'Customer' concept should be encapsulated by only one class. What constitutes a single responsibility is extremely hard to define exactly and I would recommend more reading on the matter.
Craig Larman discussed this when he introduced GRASP in Applying UML and Patterns to Object-Oriented Analysis and Design and Iterative Development (2004):
In some situations, a solution suggested by Expert is undesirable, usually because of problems in coupling and cohesion (these principles are discussed later in this chapter).
For example, who should be responsible for saving a Sale in a database? Certainly, much of the information to be saved is in the Sale object, and thus Expert could argue that the responsibility lies in the Sale class. And, by logical extension of this decision, each class would have its own services to save itself in a database. But acting on that reasoning leads to problems in cohesion, coupling, and duplication. For example, the Sale class must now contain logic related to database handling, such as that related to SQL and JDBC (Java Database Connectivity). The class no longer focuses on just the pure application logic of “being a sale.” Now other kinds of responsibilities lower its cohesion. The class must be coupled to the technical database services of another subsystem, such as JDBC services, rather than just being coupled to other objects in the domain layer of software objects, so its coupling increases. And it is likely that similar database logic would be duplicated in many persistent classes.
All these problems indicate violation of a basic architectural principle: design for a separation of major system concerns. Keep application logic in one place (such as the domain software objects), keep database logic in another place (such as a separate persistence services subsystem), and so forth, rather than intermingling different system concerns in the same component.[11]
Supporting a separation of major concerns improves coupling and cohesion in a design. Thus, even though by Expert we could find some justification for putting the responsibility for database services in the Sale class, for other reasons (usually cohesion and coupling), we'd end up with a poor design.
Thus the SRP generally trumps Information Expert.
However, the Dependency Inversion Principle can combine well with Expert. The argument here would be that Customer should not have a dependency of CustomerDTO (general to detail), but the other way around. This would mean that CustomerDTO is the Expert and should know how to build itself given a Customer:
CustomerDTO dto = new CustomerDTO(bob);
If you're allergic to new, you could go static:
CustomerDTO dto = CustomerDTO.buildFor(bob);
Or, if you hate both, we come back around to an AbstractFactory:
public abstract class DTOFactory<D, E> {
public abstract D createDTO(E entity);
}
public class CustomerDTOFactory extends DTOFactory<CustomerDTO, Customer> {
#Override
public CustomerDTO createDTO(Customer entity) {
return new CustomerDTO(entity);
}
}
I don't 100% agree w/ your two examples as being representative, but from a general perspective you seem to be reasoning from the assumption of two objects and only two objects.
If you separate the problem out further and create one (or more) specialized objects to take on the individual responsibilities you have, and then have the controlling object pass instances of the other objects it is using to the specialized objects you have carved off, you should be able to observe a happy compromise between SRP (each responsibility has handled by a specialized object), and Tell Don't Ask (the controlling object is telling the specialized objects it is composing together to do whatever it is that they do, to each other).
It's a composition solution that relies on a controller of some sort to coordinate and delegate between other objects without getting mired in their internal details.