Business logic in command design pattern - oop

I use the command design pattern to deal with player actions.
For example, below is the command that handles a dice roll.
interface ICommand
{
public function execute(Game $game) : void;
}
class RollDiceCommand implements ICommand
{
private $player;
public function __construct(Player $player)
{
$this->player = $player;
}
public function execute(Game $game) : void
{
$dice = DiceFacade::roll(new NumberGenerator());
// Currently a business logic goes here
if ($dice->isDouble()) {
$player->incrementDoubleCount();
if ($player->getDoubleCount() === 3) {
$command = new GoToJailCommand();
$command->execute();
return;
}
} else {
// The next player turn
$game->nextPlayer();
}
$command = MoveForwardCommand($this->player);
$command->execute($dice->getValue());
// ...
}
}
Is it good idea to store an additional business logic in the command?
Should I call an another command directly from the roll command or I need to avoid it? The idea of throwing an event in the command seems better to me. What do you think about it?
Thank you!

The most used form of Command pattern in DDD (the one from CQRS) is not the same as the Go4 Command pattern. It is just a DTO with no execute() method.
In DDD the applicative logic is in the command handler/application service, not the command itself.
Note that a large part of the logic you currently have in execute() is domain logic and shouldn't even be in a command handler. Go to jail, Next player, Move forward - these look like domain rules that should be in the Domain layer.
Should I call an another command directly from the roll command or I
need to avoid it? The idea of throwing an event in the command seems
better to me. What do you think about it?
It depends if you consider the followup move to be part of the main action or an indirect consequence. Indirect commands are often executed as part of a separate transaction.

The Command pattern is useful when you want to encapsulate requests as an object. That allows you to pass parameters to them when they're instantiated, to group them together (executing them as a block), to log them, and even undo them.
I'm not seeing (yet) a reason you need this.
Is it good idea to store an additional business logic in the command?
One reason it's bad to store business logic (in the presentation layer) is that if you want to add another version of your application (say, a mobile version), you have to repeat the business logic code in the new application (in its presentation layer). Also, it's harder to maintain and test the business logic, because it's not really very well encapsulated (it's spread out).
Here, however, you've encapsulated some of it in a Command object, which may not be bad (depending on "where" you see this code). For the game of Monopoly, will you have multiple clients (different presentation layers?) or is this a pet project (one implementation)? If there are going to be different presentation layers, then it's best to keep the domain logic out of them. There's nothing in your sample code (but I'm not good with PHP) with Command that looks too tied to presentation, so it's probably OK.
Generally, if you're trying to encapsulate domain logic, the GoF Façade pattern is useful. You'd have a Façade class in the domain layer that handles the high-level operations (e.g., rollAndMove($dice)). It seems you already use a Façade for the dice roll. Player could alternatively be a class that plays the roll of the Façade, since the domain logic of taking a turn would be a reasonable responsibility for that class (IMO). Of course, if Player ends up with too many methods, it's perhaps better to use a separate class for the Façade.
The idea of throwing an event in the command seems better to me. What do you think about it?
I don't see a problem with combining both patterns, but perhaps you don't really need Command for what it's intended to be?
You're right that the execute() would be very short code (just call the Facade's method). However, using a Command object allows you to save the state of the game (e.g., GoF Memento pattern) if you wanted to undo the command later, or as stated above you could log the information in a standard way, etc. If you don't need those things, I would avoid using Command as it's adding complexity without the intent of the pattern.

Related

Polymorphism versus switch case tradeoffs

I haven't found any clear articles on this, but I was wondering about why polymorphism is the recommended design pattern over exhaustive switch case / pattern matching. I ask this because I've gotten a lot of heat from experienced developers for not using polymorphic classes, and it's been troubling me. I've personally had a terrible time with polymorphism and a wonderful time with switch cases, the reduction in abstractions and indirection makes readability of the code so much easier in my opinion. This is in direct contrast with books like "clean code" which are typically seen as industry standards.
Note: I use TypeScript, so the following examples may not apply in other languages, but I think the principle generally applies as long as you have exhaustive pattern matching / switch cases.
List the options
If you want to know what the possible values of an action, with an enum, switch case, this is trivial. For classes this requires some reflection magic
// definitely two actions here, I could even loop over them programmatically with basic primitives
enum Action {
A = 'a',
B = 'b',
}
Following the code
Dependency injection and abstract classes mean that jump to definition will never go where you want
function doLetterThing(myEnum: Action) {
switch (myEnum) {
case Action.A:
return;
case Action.B;
return;
default:
exhaustiveCheck(myEnum);
}
}
versus
function doLetterThing(action: BaseAction) {
action.doAction();
}
If I jump to definition for BaseAction or doAction I will end up on the abstract class, which doesn't help me debug the function or the implementation. If you have a dependency injection pattern with only a single class, this means that you can "guess" by going to the main class / function and looking for how "BaseAction" is instantiated and following that type to the place and scrolling to find the implementation. This seems generally like a bad UX for a developer though.
(small note about whether dependency injection is good, traits seem to do a good enough job in cases where they are necessary (though either done prematurely as a rule rather than as a necessity seems to lead to more difficult to follow code))
Write less code
This depends, but if have to define an extra abstract class for your base type, plus override all the function types, how is that less code than single line switch cases? With good types here if you add an option to the enum, your type checker will flag all the places you need to handle this which will usually involve adding 1 line each for the case and 1+ line for implementation. Compare this with polymorphic classes which you need to define a new class, which needs the new function syntax with the correct params and the opening and closing parens. In most cases, switch cases have less code and less lines.
Colocation
Everything for a type is in one place which is nice, but generally whenever I implement a function like this is I look for a similarly implemented function. With a switch case, it's extremely adjacent, with a derived class I would need to find and locate in another file or directory.
If I implemented a feature change such as trimming spaces off the ends of a string for one type, I would need to open all the class files to make sure if they implement something similar that it is implemented correctly in all of them. And if I forget, I might have different behaviour for different types without knowing. With a switch the co location makes this extremely obvious (though not foolproof)
Conclusion
Am I missing something? It doesn't make sense that we have these clear design principles that I basically can only find affirmative articles about but don't see any clear benefits, and serious downsides compared to some basic pattern matching style development
Consider the solid-principles, in particular OCP and DI.
To extend a switch case or enum and add new functionality in the future, you must modify the existing code. Modifying legacy code is risky and expensive. Risky because you may inadvertently introduce regression. Expensive because you have to learn (or re-learn) implementation details, and then re-test the legacy code (which presumably was working before you modified it).
Dependency on concrete implementations creates tight coupling and inhibits modularity. This makes code rigid and fragile, because a change in one place affects many dependents.
In addition, consider scalability. An abstraction supports any number of implementations, many of which are potentially unknown at the time the abstraction is created. A developer needn't understand or care about additional implementations. How many cases can a developer juggle in one switch, 10? 100?
Note this does not mean polymorphism (or OOP) is suitable for every class or application. For example, there are counterpoints in, Should every class implement an interface? When considering extensibility and scalability, there is an assumption that a code base will grow over time. If you're working with a few thousand lines of code, "enterprise-level" standards are going to feel very heavy. Likewise, coupling a few classes together when you only have a few classes won't be very noticeable.
Benefits of good design are realized years down the road when code is able to evolve in new directions.
I think you are missing the point. The main purpose of having a clean code is not to make your life easier while implementing the current feature, rather it makes your life easier in future when you are extending or maintaining the code.
In your example, you may feel implementing your two actions using switch case. But what happens if you need to add more actions in future? Using the abstract class, you can easily create a new action type and the caller doesn't need to be modified. But if you keep using switch case it will be lot more messier, especially for complex cases.
Also, following a better design pattern (DI in this case) will make the code easier to test. When you consider only easy cases, you may not find the usefulness of using proper design patterns. But if you think broader aspect, it really pays off.
"Base class" is against the Clean Code. There should not be a "Base class", not just for bad naming, also for composition over inheritance rule. So from now on, I will assume it is an interface in which other classes implement it, not extend (which is important for my example). First of all, I would like to see your concerns:
Answer for Concerns
This depends, but if have to define an extra abstract class for your
base type, plus override all the function types, how is that less code
than single line switch cases
I think "write less code" should not be character count. Then Ruby or GoLang or even Python beats the Java, obviously does not it? So I would not count the lines, parenthesis etc. instead code that you should test/maintain.
Everything for a type is in one place which is nice, but generally
whenever I implement a function like this is I look for a similarly
implemented function.
If "look for a similarly" means, having implementation together makes copy some parts from the similar function then we also have some clue here for refactoring. Having Implementation class differently has its own reason; their implementation is completely different. They may follow some pattern, lets see from Communication perspective; If we have Letter and Phone implementations, we should not need to look their implementation to implement one of them. So your assumption is wrong here, if you look to their code to implement new feature then your interface does not guide you for the new feature. Let's be more specific;
interface Communication {
sendMessage()
}
Letter implements Communication {
sendMessage() {
// get receiver
// get sender
// set message
// send message
}
}
Now we need Phone, so if we go to Letter implementation to get and idea to how to implement Phone then our interface does not enough for us to guide our implementation. Technically Phone and Letter is different to send a message. Then we need a Design pattern here, maybe Template Pattern? Let's see;
interface Communication {
default sendMessage() {
getMessageFactory().sendMessage(getSender(), getReceiver(), getBody())
}
getSender()
getReceiver()
getBody()
}
Letter implements Communication {
getSender() { returns sender }
getReceiver() {returns receiver }
getBody() {returns body}
getMessageFactory {returns LetterMessageFactory}
}
Now when we need to implement Phone we don't need to look the details of other implementations. We exactly now what we need to return and also our Communication interface's default method handles how to send the message.
If I implemented a feature change such as trimming spaces off the ends
of a string for one type, I would need to open all the class files to
make sure if they implement something similar that it is implemented
correctly in all of them...
So if there is a "feature change" it should be only its implemented class, not in all classes. You should not change all of the implementations. Or if it is same implementation in all of them, then why each implements it differently? It should be kept as the default method in their interface. Then if feature change required, only default method is changed and you should update your implementation and test in one place.
These are the main points that I wanted to answer your concerns. But I think the main point is you don't get the benefit. I was also struggling before I work on a big project that other teams need to extend my features. I will divide benefits to topics with extreme examples which may be more helpful to understand:
Easy to read
Normally when you see a function, you should not feel to go its implementation to understand what is happening there. It should be self-explanatory. Based on this fact; action.doAction(); -> or lets say communication.sendMessage() if they implement Communicate interface. I don't need to go for its base class, search for implementations etc. for debugging. Even implementing class is "Letter" or "Phone" I know that they send message, I don't need their implementation details. So I don't want to see all implemented classes like in your example "switch Letter; Phone.." etc. In your example doLetterThing responsible for one thing (doAction), since all of them do same thing, then why you are showing your developer all these cases?. They are just making the code harder to read.
Easy to extend
Imagine that you are extending a big project where you don't have an access to their source(I want to give extreme example to show its benefit easier). In the java world, I can say you are implementing SPI (Service Provider Interface). I can show you 2 example for this, https://github.com/apereo/cas and https://github.com/keycloak/keycloak where you can see that interface and implementations are separated and you just implement new behavior when it is required, no need to touch the original source. Why this is important? Imagine the following scenario again;
Let's suppose that Keycloak calls communication.sendMessage(). They don't know implementations in build time. If you extend Keycloak in this case, you can have your own class that implements Communication interface, let's say "Computer". Know if you have your SPI in the classpath, Keycloak reads it and calls your computer.sendMessage(). We did not touch the source code but extended the capabilities of Message Handler class. We can't achieve this if we coded against switch cases without touching the source.

What OOP patterns can be used to implement a process over multiple "step" classes?

In OOP everything is an object with own attributes and methods. However, often you want to run a process that spans over multiple steps that need to be run in sequence. For example, you might need to download an XML file, parse it and run business actions accordingly. This includes at least three steps: downloading, unmarshalling, interpreting the decoded request.
In a really bad design you would do this all in one method. In a slightly better design you would put the single steps into methods or, much better, new classes. Since you want to test and reuse the single classes, they shouldn't know about each other. In my case, a central control class runs them all in sequence, taking the output of one step and passing it to the next. I noticed that such control-and-command classes tend to grow quickly and are rather not flexible or extendible.
My question therefore is: what OOP patterns can be used to implement a business process and when to apply which one?
My research so far:
The mediator pattern seems to be what I'm using right now, but some definitions say it's only managing "peer" classes. I'm not sure it applies to a chain of isolated steps.
You could probably call it a strategy pattern when more than one of the aforementioned mediators is used. I guess this would solve the problem of the mediator not being very flexible.
Using events (probably related to the Chain of Responsibility pattern) I could make the single steps listen for special events and send different events. This way the pipeline is super-flexible, but also hard to follow and to control.
Chain of Responsibility is the best for this case. It is pretty much definition of CoR.
If you are using spring you can consider interesting spring based implementation of this pattern:
https://www.javacodegeeks.com/2012/11/chain-of-responsibility-using-spring-autowired-list.html
Obviously without spring it is very similar.
Is dependency injection not sufficient ? This makes your code reusable and testable (as you requested) and no need to use some complicated design pattern.
public final class SomeBusinessProcess {
private final Server server;
private final Marshaller marshaller;
private final Codec codec;
public SomeBusinessProcess(Server server, Marshaller marshaller, Codec codec) {
this.server = server;
this.marshaller = marshaller;
this.codec = codec;
}
public Foo retrieve(String filename) {
File f = server.download(filename);
byte[] content = marshaller.unmarshal(f);
return codec.decode(content);
}
}
I believe that a Composite Command (a vairation of the Command Pattern) would fit what you describe. The application of those is frequent in Eclipse.

What are scattering and tangling in aop

I am trying to understand the separation of concerns used within AOP. Therefore i would appreciate if someone could explain me what does mean code scattering and code tangling in AOP using some basic HelloWorld examples. How would i know afterwards if a given concern is not a system-core concern but rather an aspect? Many thanks.
I'm afraid I'll use logging as an example, which is the one we always use, but I hope it makes it easy to understand. Consider this helloworld program with logging:
public class HelloWorld {
private static Logger logger = Logger.getLogger(HelloWorld.class);
public static void main(String []argv) {
logger.entering("HelloWorld","main");
System.out.println("Hello World");
logger.exiting("HelloWorld","main");
}
}
My class only has 8 lines (ignoring whitespace) - 3 of them are logging, almost half! Logging has nothing to do with the primary goal of this class which is to print Hello World. Logging is tangled up with the primary goal of this class. If we could remove it and express it another way then we'd have half the code and what the class is primarily trying to achieve would be even clearer. Additionally being tangled up may harm capabilities like reuse - this code can't be used to print helloworld without it doing some logging and needing some kind of logging infrastructure around.
Now consider a real system where there are multiple classes, and they are all doing logging. Now suppose I decide I want to change one of the logging methods I'm using - I want all my calls to entering changed to info and to include some extra information. Nightmare! My logging is scattered across my codebase. There isn't one place to make this change, there might be thousands.
If I captured that scattered, crosscutting concern in an aspect, there would be just one place to make the change.
Identifying what might be an aspect:
consider the primary function of your classes - what are they fundamentally being built for. Is there other code in there that isn't strictly related to that, but you find you are needing to do it (e.g. begin and commit a transaction, authenticate with some security service).
do you find yourself doing a very similar thing over and over - either across multiple classes or even just over multiple methods within one class.
Scattering can be a small scale concern. Maybe every method in one of your classes is repeating some pattern, but no other classes are using it. No harm in creating a small aspect for the class that just addresses the scattering within those methods.

How much responsibility should a method have?

This is most certainly a language agnostic question and one that has bothered me for quite some time now. An example will probably help me explain the dilemma I am facing:
Let us say we have a method which is responsible for reading a file, populating a collection with some objects (which store information from the file), and then returning the collection...something like the following:
public List<SomeObject> loadConfiguration(String filename);
Let us also say that at the time of implementing this method, it would seem infeasible for the application to continue if the collection returned was empty (a size of 0). Now, the question is, should this validation (checking for an empty collection and perhaps the subsequent throwing of an exception) be done within the method? Or, should this methods sole responsibility be to perform the load of the file and ignore the task of validation, allowing validation to be done at some later stage outside of the method?
I guess the general question is: is it better to decouple the validation from the actual task being performed by a method? Will this make things, in general, easier at a later stage to change or build upon - in the case of my example above, it may be the case at a later stage where a different strategy is added to recover from the event of an empty collection being return from the 'loadConfiguration' method..... this would be difficult if the validation (and resulting exception) was being done in the method.
Perhaps I am being overly pedantic in the quest for some dogmatic answer, where instead it simply just relies on the context in which a method is being used. Anyhow, I would be very interested in seeing what others have to say regarding this.
Thanks all!
My recommendation is to stick to the single responsibility principle which says, in a nutshell, that each object should have 1 purpose. In this instance, your method has 3 purposes and then 4 if you count the validation aspect.
Here's my recommendation on how to handle this and how to provide a large amount of flexibility for future updates.
Keep your LoadConfig method
Have it call the a new method for reading the file.
Pass the previous method's return value to another method for loading the file into the collection.
Pass the object collection into some validation method.
Return the collection.
That's taking 1 method initially and breaking it into 4 with one calling 3 others. This should allow you to change pieces w/o having any impact on others.
Hope this helps
I guess the general question is: is it
better to decouple the validation from
the actual task being performed by a
method?
Yes. (At least if you really insist on answering such a general question – it’s always quite easy to find a counter-example.) If you keep both the parts of the solution separate, you can exchange, drop or reuse any of them. That’s a clear plus. Of course you must be careful not to jeopardize your object’s invariants by exposing the non-validating API, but I think you are aware of that. You’ll have to do some little extra typing, but that won’t hurt you.
I will answer your question by a question: do you want various validation methods for the product of your method ?
This is the same as the 'constructor' issue: is it better to raise an exception during the construction or initialize a void object and then call an 'init' method... you are sure to raise a debate here!
In general, I would recommend performing the validation as soon as possible: this is known as the Fail Fast which advocates that finding problems as soon as possible is better than delaying the detection since diagnosis is immediate while later you would have to revert the whole flow....
If you're not convinced, think of it this way: do you really want to write 3 lines every time you load a file ? (load, parse, validate) Well, that violates the DRY principle.
So, go agile there:
write your method with validation: it is responsible for loading a valid configuration (1)
if you ever need some parametrization, add it then (like a 'check' parameter, with a default value which preserves the old behavior of course)
(1) Of course, I don't advocate a single method to do all this at once... it's an organization matter: under the covers this method should call dedicated methods to organize the code :)
To deflect the question to a more basic one, each method should do as little as possible. So in your example, there should be a method that reads in the file, a method that extracts the necessary data from the file, another method to write that data to the collection, and another method that calls these methods. The validation can go in a separate method, or in one of the others, depending on where it makes the most sense.
private byte[] ReadFile(string fileSpec)
{
// code to read in file, and return contents
}
private FileData GetFileData(string fileContents)
{
// code to create FileData struct from file contents
}
private void FileDataCollection: Collection<FileData> { }
public void DoItAll (string fileSpec, FileDataCollection filDtaCol)
{
filDtaCol.Add(GetFileData(ReadFile(fileSpec)));
}
Add validation, verification to each of the methods as appropriate
You are designing an API and should not make any unnecessary assumptions about your client. A method should take only the information that it needs, return only the information requested, and only fail when it is unable to return a meaningful value.
So, with that in mind, if the configuration is loadable but empty, then returning an empty list seems correct to me. If your client has an application specific requirement to fail when provided an empty list, then it may do so, but future clients may not have that requirement. The loadConfiguration method itself should fail when it really fails, such as when it is unable to read or parse the file.
But you can continue to decouple your interface. For example, why must the configuration be stored in a file? Why can't I provide a URL, a row in a database, or a raw string containing the configuration data? Very few methods should take a file path as an argument since it binds them tightly to the local file system and makes them responsible for opening, reading, and closing files in addition to their core logic. Consider accepting an input stream as an alternative. Or if you want to allow for elaborate alternatives -- like data from a database -- consider accepting a ConfigurationReader interface or similar.
Methods should be highly cohesive ... that is single minded. So my opinion would be to separate the responsibilities as you have described. I sometimes feel tempted to say...it is just a short method so it does not matter...then I regret it 1.5 weeks later.
I think this depends on the case: If you could think of a scenario where you would use this method and it returned an empty list, and this would be okay, then I would not put the validation inside the method. But for e.g. a method which inserts data into a database which have to be validated (is the email address correct, has a name been specified, ... ) then it should be ok to put validation code inside the function and throw an exception.
Another alternative, not mentioned above, is to support Dependency Injection and have the method client inject a validator. This would allow the preservation of the "strong" Resource Acquisition Is Initialization principle, that is to say Any Object which Loads Successfully is Ready For Business (Matthieu's mention of Fail Fast is much the same notion).
It also allows a resource implementation class to create its own low-level validators which rely on the structure of the resource without exposing clients to implementation details unnecessarily, which can be useful when dealing with multiple disparate resource providers such as Ryan listed.

Selecting the Correct View for an Object Type

I've had this problem many times before, and I've never had a solution I felt good about.
Let's say I have a Transaction base class and two derived classes AdjustmentTransaction and IssueTransaction.
I have a list of transactions in the UI, and each transaction is of the concrete type AdjustmentTransaction or IssueTransaction.
When I select a transaction, and click an "Edit" button, I need to decide whether to show an AdjustmentTransactionEditorForm or an IssueTransactionEditorForm.
The question is how do I go about doing this in an OO fashion without having to use a switch statement on the type of the selected transaction? The switch statement works but feels kludgy. I feel like I should be able to somehow exploit the parallel inheritance hierarchy between Transactions and TransactionEditors.
I could have an EditorForm property on my Transaction, but that is a horrible mixing of my UI peanut butter with my Model chocolate.
Thanks in advance.
You need to map your "EditorForm" to a transaction at some point. You have a couple options:
A switch statement...like you, I think this stinks, and scales poorly.
An abstract "EditorForm" property in base Transaction class, this scales better, but has poor seperation of concerns.
A Type -> Form mapper in your frontend. This scales fairly well, and keeps good seperation.
In C#, I'd implement a Type -> Form mapper like this:
Dictionary <Type,Type> typeMapper = new Dictionary<Type,Type>();
typeMapper.Add(typeof(AdjustTransaction), typeof(AdjustTransactionForm));
// etc, in this example, I'm populating it by hand,
// in real life, I'd use a key/value pair mapping config file,
// and populate it at runtime.
then, when edit is clicked:
Type formToGet;
if (typeMapper.TryGetValue(CurrentTransaction.GetType(), out formToGet))
{
Form newForm = (Form)Activator.CreateInstance(formToGet);
}
You probably don't want to tie it to the inheritance tree--that will bind you up pretty good later when you get a slight requirements change.
The relationship should be specified somewhere in an external file. Something that describes the relationship:
Editing AdujustmentTransaction = AdjustmentTransactionEditorForm
Editing IssueTransaction = IssueTransactionEditorForm
With a little bit of parsing and some better language than I've used here, this file could become very generalized and reusable--you could reuse forms for different objects if required, or change which form is used to edit an object without too much effort.
(You might want users named "Joe" to use "JoeIssueTransactionEditorForm" instead, this could pretty easily be worked into your "language")
This is essentially Dependency Injection--You can probably use Spring to solve the problem in more general terms.
Do I miss something in the question? I just ask because the obvious OO answer would be: Polymorph
Just execute Transaction.editWindow() (or however you want to call it), and
overwrite the method in AdjustmentTransaction and IssueTrasaction with the required functionality. The call to element.editWindow() then opens the right dialog for you.
An alternative to the Dictionary/Config File approach would be
1) to define a interface for each of the transaction editors.
2) In your EXE or UI assembly have each of the forms register itself with the assembly that creates the individual transaction.
3) The class controlling the registration should be a singleton so you don't have multiple form instances floating around.
3) When a individual transaction is created it pulls out the correct form variable from the registration object and assigns it do an internal variable.
4) When the Edit method is called it just uses the Show method of the internal method to start the chain of calls that will result in the display of that transacton editor.
This eliminates the need for config files and dictionaries. It continues to separate the UI from the object. Plus you don't need any switch statement
The downside is having to write the interface for each every form in addition to the form itself.
If you have a great deal of different types of editors (dozens) then in that case I recommend that you use the Command Pattern
You have a master command that contains the dictonary recommend by Jonathan. That commands in turns will use that dictornary to execute one of a number of other command that calls the correct form with the correct object. The forms continue to be separate from the object themselves. The forms reside in the Command assembly. In addition you don't have to update the EXE to add another editor only the Command assembly. Finally by putting things inside of Command you can implement Undo/Redo a lot easier. (Implement a Unexecute as well as a Execute)