I am working on a legacy code, where Configuration interface looks like following:
public interface Configuration {
public List<ConfigurationData> configurationDataList;
}
As of now there is only 1 client using Configuration, but different clients will start using it in near future. I can also foresee enriched configuration which cannot be put in List, I may need to store in Map, let's say.
As my refactor exercise, I want to encapsulate internal data type of Configuration, so that even if I change List<> to Map<> it doesn't affect existing client.
Please let me know best practices around this.
If you're Map structure remains flat you can add the Map as an additional accessor, and refactor the List accessor so that it just flattens the values in the map. This way you don't double up your data and it just becomes a different shape.
From a practices point of view, it probably a good idea to mark the List as deprecated to discourage people from using it. This way you have a couple of versions before you can retire it.
You can "safely" drop the List when you next update the major version, when there is some other breaking change.
Related
I have a use case to store given object as JSON in local file system and my current implementation looks like below. Let's say I want to store the same object in different format in some remote location or database in the future. It require modifications in the constructor and implementation(addConfig) in ConfigStore. But, parameters of addConfig will remain same which means it will require changes only in the places where we construct the ConfigStore object.
Here, I am programming to an implementation. Though I introduce interface and modify my ConfigStore class to implement it, I still need to update all places which create instance of ConfigStore when I move to different format or data store later. So, does it really make sense to use interface for this particular use case? If yes, what are the advantages?
I know the concept of interface and I have been using it widely. But, I am trying to understand if "Program to interfaces but not implementations" is really applicable in this use case. I see many of my team mates are using interface just for the similar kind of purpose (i.e) what if we move to different store later and so, I want to get some thoughts here.
ConfigStore {
#Autowired private final String mPathRoot;
#Autowired private final ObjectMapper mObjectMapper;
public void addConfig(Config config, String countryCode) {
// Code goes here
}
}
In my opinion, coding to an interface principal should always be adopted. If you find yourself with a design in which you need to update all places that uses "ConfigStore" for new format than you need to take a closer look at your overall design.
I can think of two common pitfalls when adopting "program to interface":
Creation of specific object
Need for different parameters or sequence for different implementation of the interface.
Regarding the latter, it is usually solvable by rethinking your abstractions. There is no ready answer for that.
However, regarding the first pitfall, the best way to solve this is by using "dependency injection" and one of the "Factory" patterns to "hide away the mess". This way only relevant factory code will need to be updated for new "formats".
Hope this helps.
I've created the custom class ZMaterial that can be instantiated passing an ID to the constructor which sets the properties for a single material using SELECTs and BAPIs. This class is basically used to READ and UPDATE a single material.
Now I need to create a service to return a list of materials. I already have the procedural code for it in a static method (for now actually a function module), but I would like to keep using a full OOP approach and instantiate a list of my custom material object. The first approach I found is to enhance the static method to instantiate a list of my single material object after the selects are executed and I have the data in internal tables, but it does not seem the most OOP.
The second option in my mind is to create a new class ZMaterialList with one property being a list of objects ZMaterial and then a constructor with the necessary input parameters for the database select. The problem I see with this option is that I create a full class just for the constructor.
What do you think is the best way to proceed?
Create a separate class to produce the list of materials. The single responsibility principle says each class should do exactly one thing. In all but the most simple cases, using a thing is a different responsibility than producing it.
Don’t make a ZMaterialList class. A list’s focus would be managing the list items, i.e. adding, removing, iterating, sorting etc. But you should be fine with a regular STANDARD TABLE OF REF TO ZMaterial.
Make a ZMaterialReader, -Repository, -Query or -Factory class or the like, depending on the precise way you want to produce the ZMaterials. Readers read by keys, repositories read and write, queries use varying sets of selection criteria, factories instantiate with possibly different sets of inputs.
You can well let that class use the original FUNCTION underneath. It’s good style to exploit what’s already there. Just make sure you trust that code, put it in a test harness, and keep it afar from the rest of your oo code.
Extract all public interaction of ZMaterial to an interface and use only that interface. That allows you to offer alternative implementations of ZMaterial, ones that differ in the way they are produced or how they store their data.
Split single production from mass production. Reading MARA to retrieve a single material is okay. But you don’t want thousands of ZMaterials reading MARA individually - that wrecks performance.
Now you’ve got the interface, you could offer a second implementation of ZMaterial whose constructor receives all relevant data and relies on it already having been validated to avoid additional SELECTs.
You could also offer an implementation that doesn’t store its data at all but only stores pointers to rows in internal tables somewhere else. See the flyweight pattern for ideas.
If you expect mass updates on the materials, such as “reclassify all of these as B”, consider extracting these list-oriented operations to separate classes as well.
I've been working with NHibernate for quite a while and have come to realize that my architecture might be a bit...dated. This is for an NHibernate library that is living behind several apps that are related to each other.
First off, I have a DomainEntity base class with an ID and an EntityID (which is a guid that I use when I expose an item to the web or through an API, instead of the internal integer id - I think I had a reason for it at one point, but I'm not sure it's really valid now). I have a Repository base class where T inherits from DomainEntity that provides a set of generalized search methods. The inheritors of DomainEntity may also implement several interfaces that track things like created date, created by, etc., that are largely a log for the most recent changes to the object. I'm not fond of using a repository pattern for this, but it wraps the logic of setting those values when an object is saved (provided that object is saved through the repository and not saved as part of saving something else).
I would like to rid myself of the repositories. They don't make me happy and really seem like clutter these days, especially now that I'm not querying with hql and now that I can use extension methods on the Session object. But how do I hook up this sort of functionality cleanly? Let's assume for the purposes of discussion that I have something like structuremap set up and capable of returning an object that exposes context information (current user and the like), what would be a good flexible way of providing this functionality outside of the repository structure? Bonus points if this can be hooked up along with a convention-based mapping setup (I'm looking into replacing the XML files as well).
If you dislike the fact that repositories can become bloated over time then you may want to use something like Query Objects.
The basic idea is that you break down a single query into an individual object that you can then apply it to the database.
Some example implementation links here.
One of the big uses of code generation in c++ is to support message serialisation. Typically, you want to support specifying message contents and layout in the same step and produce code for that message type that can give you objects capable of being serialised to/from communication streams. In the past, this has usually resulted in code that looks like:
class MyMessage : public SerialisableObject
{
// message members
int myNumber_;
std::string myString_;
std::vector<MyOtherSerialisableObject> aBunchOfThingsIWantToSerialise_;
public:
// ctor, dtor, accesors, mutators, then:
virtual void Serialise(SerialisationStream & stream)
{
stream & myNumber_;
stream & myString_;
stream & aBunchOfThingsIWantToSerialise_;
}
};
The problem with using this kind of design is that violates an important rule of good architecture: you should not have to specify the intent of a design twice. Duplication of intent, like duplicated code and other common development duplication, leaves room for one place in the code to become divergent with the other, causing errors.
In the above, the duplication is the list of members. Potential errors include adding a member to the class but forgetting to add it to the serialisation list, serialising a member twice (possibly by not using the same order as the member declaration or possibly due to a misspelling of a similar member, among other ways), or serialising something that is not a member (which might produce a compiler error, unless name lookup finds something at a different scope than the object that matches lookup rules). That kind of mistake is the same reason we no longer try to match every heap allocation with a delete (instead using smart pointers) or ever file open with a close (using RAII ctor//dtor mechanisms) - we don't want to have to match up our intent in multiple places because there are times we - or another engineer less familiar with the intent - make mistakes.
Generally, therefore, this has been one of the things that code generation could take care of. You might create a file MyMessage.cg to specify both layout and members in one step
serialisable MyMessage
{
int myNumber_;
std::string myString_;
std::vector<MyOtherSerialisableObject> aBunchOfThingsIWantToSerialise_;
};
that would be run through a code generation utility and produce the code.
I was wondering if it was possible yet to do this in c++0x without external code generation. Are there any new language mechanisms that make it possible to specify a class as serialisable once, and the names and layout of it's members are used to layout the message during serialisation?
To be clear, I know that there are tricks with boost tuples and fusion that can come close to this kind of behavior even in the pre-c++0x language. Those usages, though, being based on indexing into the tuple rather than by-member-name access, have all been brittle to changing the layout, as other places in the code that access the messages would then also need to be reordered. Some kind of by-member-name access is necessary to not have to duplicate the layout specification in places in the code that use the messages.
Also, I know it might be nice to take this up to the next level and ask for specifying when some of the members shouldn't be serialised. Other languages that offer serialisation built in often offer some kind of attribute to do this, so
int myNonSerialisedNumber_ [[noserialise]];
might seem natural. However, I personally think it is bad design to have serialisable objects where everything is not serialised, since the lifetime of messages is in the transport to/from the communications layer, separate from other data lifetimes. Also, you could have an object which has a purely serialisable as on of it's members, so such functionality doesn't by anything the language doesn't already offer.
Is this possible? Or did the standards committee leave out this kind of introspective capability? I don't need it to look like the code gen file above - any simple method for compiletime specification of layout and members in a single step would solve this common problem.
This is both possible and practical in C++11 – in fact it was possible back in C++03, the syntax was just a little too unwieldy. I wrote a small library based around the same idea - see the following:
www.github.com/molw5/framework
Sample syntax:
class Object : serializable <Object,
value <NAME(“Field 1”), int>,
value <NAME(“Field 2”), float>,
value <NAME(“Field 3”), double>>
{
};
Most of the underlying code could be reproduced, in principal, in C++03 – some of the implementation details without variadic templates would have been...tricky, but I believe it would have been possible to recover the core functionality. What you could not reproduce in C++03 was the NAME macro above and the syntax relies fairly heavily on it. The macro provides the machinery necessary to generate a unique typename from a string, that is the following:
NAME(“Field 1”)
expands to
type_string <'F', 'i', 'e', 'l', 'd', ' ', '1'>
through the use of some common macros and constexpr (for character extraction). Back in C++03 something similar to the type_string above would need to be entered manually.
C++, of any form, supports neither introspection nor reflection (to the extent that they are different).
One nice thing about doing serialization manually (ie: without introspection or reflection) is that you can provide object versioning. You can support older forms of the serialization, and simply create reasonable defaults for the data that wasn't in the old versions. Or if a new version removes some data, you can simply serialize and discard it.
It seems to me that what you need is Boost.Serialization.
I'm not sure how to name data store classes when designing a program's data access layer (DAL).
(By data store class, I mean a class that is responsible to read a persisted object into memory, or to persist an in-memory object.)
It seems reasonable to name a data store class according to two things:
what kinds of objects it handles;
whether it loads and/or persists such objects.
⇒ A class that loads Banana objects might be called e.g. BananaSource.
I don't know how to go about the second point (ie. the Source bit in the example). I've seen different nouns apparently used for just that purpose:
repository: this sounds very general. Does this denote something read-/write-accessible?
store: this sounds like something that potentially allows write access.
context: sounds very abstract. I've seen this with LINQ and object-relational mappers (ORMs).
P.S. (several months later): This is probably appropriate for containers that contain "active" or otherwise supervised objects (the Unit of Work pattern comes to mind).
retriever: sounds like something read-only.
source & sink: probably not appropriate for object persistence; a better fit with data streams?
reader / writer: quite clear in its intention, but sounds too technical to me.
Are these names arbitrary, or are there widely accepted meanings / semantic differences behind each? More specifically, I wonder:
What names would be appropriate for read-only data stores?
What names would be appropriate for write-only data stores?
What names would be appropriate for mostly read-only data stores that are occasionally updated?
What names would be appropriate for mostly write-only data stores that are occasionally read?
Does one name fit all scenarios equally well?
As noone has yet answered the question, I'll post on what I have decided in the meantime.
Just for the record, I have pretty much decided on calling most data store classes repositories. First, it appears to be the most neutral, non-technical term from the list I suggested, and it seems to be well in line with the Repository pattern.
Generally, "repository" seems to fit well where data retrieval/persistence interfaces are something similar to the following:
public interface IRepository<TResource, TId>
{
int Count { get; }
TResource GetById(TId id);
IEnumerable<TResource> GetManyBySomeCriteria(...);
TId Add(TResource resource);
void Remove(TId id);
void Remove(TResource resource);
...
}
Another term I have decided on using is provider, which I'll be preferring over "repository" whenever objects are generated on-the-fly instead of being retrieved from a persistence store, or when access to a persistence store happens in a purely read-only manner. (Factory would also be appropriate, but sounds more technical, and I have decided against technical terms for most uses.)
P.S.: Some time has gone by since writing this answer, and I've had several opportunities at work to review someone else's code. One term I've thus added to my vocabulary is Service, which I am reserving for SOA scenarios: I might publish a FooService that is backed by a private Foo repository or provider. The "service" is basically just a thin public-facing layer above these that takes care of things like authentication, authorization, or aggregating / batching DTOs for proper "chunkiness" of service responses.
Well so to add something to you conclusion:
A repository: is meant to only care about one entity and has certain patterns like you did.
A store: is allowed to do a bit more, also working with other entities.
A reader/writer: is separated to allow semantically show and inject only reading and wrting functionality into other classes. It's coming from the CQRS pattern.
A context: is more or less bound to a ORM mapper as you mentioned and is usually used under the hood of a repository or store, some use it directly instead of making a repository on top. But it's harder to abstract.