Related
"Code to interfaces" is considered good practice. Such code is easy to unit test and enables loose coupling. Users only know the interfaces and the onus of wiring concrete objects is upon the top-most level (this can be done in some init code or with the help of frameworks).
My question is about following the practice of code to interfaces: does it imply that a concrete class can never declare any public method which is not present in its interface?
Otherwise, it will force users to depend upon the concrete implementation. This will make such methods difficult for unit testing; if the test fails, determining if it failed due to an issue in the caller code or due to the concrete method will require extra effort. This will also break the Dependency Inversion Principle. It will induce type-checking and down-casting, which are considered bad practice.
That is totally acceptable provided that the new methods aren't crucial to the operating of the class, and in particular to how it functions when someone thinks of it as the superclass or interface.
ArrayList provides good examples. It has methods that let you manage its internal memory, like ensureCapacity(int) or trimToSize(). Those are sometimes helpful if you know you're working with an ArrayList and need to be more precise about memory allocation, but they're not required for the basic operation of the ArrayList, and in particular, they're not required for having it operate as a general List.
In fact, interfaces themselves can add new methods in this way. Consider NavigableSet, which extends Set. It adds a whole bunch of methods that rely on the ordering of the set's elements (give me the first, the last, a subtree starting from here, etc). None of those methods are defined on Set, and even the fact that the elements are ordered isn't defined by the Set contract; but the Set methods all work just fine without the additional methods and ordering.
The advice to "code to the interface" is a good start, but it's a bit over-generalized. A refinement of that advice would be, "code to the most general interface that you need." If you don't need ArrayLists's methods (or its contract, such as its random-access performance), code to List; but if you do need them, then by all means use them.
#yshavit's third paragraph hits it right. Implement an extension of the "not enough" base interface, as exampled with public interface NavigableSet<E> extends SortedSet<E> (which, BTW, extends Set<E> extends Collection<E> extends Iterable<E>).
It's his second paragraph that troubles me. Why have "non-crucial" methods of the API that are not surfaced in some interface being implemented? In the ArrayList example, why not have the size management methods declared in an interface? Perhaps ManagedSize which would describe clear behavior for ArrayList (and other) classes to implement, along with the several other interfaces it implements (my JRE source says: public class ArrayList<E> extends AbstractList<E> implements List<E>, RandomAccess, Cloneable, java.io.Serializable).
With such an approach, there is no need to decide which methods are "non-crucial," only to be surprised by some client code that depends on things like ensureSize to help avoid relocation during a time-critical phase, or trimToSize to release excessive overalloaction when it's algorthmically known that further growth will not be needed. Not that I'm promoting such algorthms as best practice, but even non-functional "behavior management" methods deserve their place in the light.
Finally, while I agree with sentiment of "Know Where the Lines Are, and yet Color As You See Fit" it doesn't give practical guidance. Here's attempt at such:
Always start by coding to an interface, ie. all concrete public methods should be declared in an interface:
Use multiple interfaces as needed
Each interface should partition the implemented API into coherent non-overlapping aspects, e.g. List, RandomAccess, Cloneable, Serializable
Tend to start with larger scoped interfaces and break them up as the design develops (before coding ala Waterfall, or as code evolves ala Agile); interfaces are one of the easier design artefacts to refactor.
If a given interface you are implementing is "insufficient":
Extend the base interface and add the methods you need, then implement that one, OR
Create an augmenting interface (like the ManagedSize idea, above) with just the additional methods and then implement them both
Only when you find you can't do that, then relax only as much of the rule as you need to make things work (often, this will be an experimental trial-error "does it work, yet?" cycle).
Reasons for #3's "can't" will vary, but I expect them to be external to the application design, e.g. the ORM I'm using becomes confused, the IDE plug-in doesn't refactor it correctly, the DSL translator I'm forced to use fails when a class implements more than three interfaces...
It's good practice for a class' implementation to be defined by interfaces. If a class has any public methods that aren't covered by any interfaces then they have the potential to leak their implementation.
E.g. if class Foo has methods bar() and baz() but only bar() is covered by an interface then any use of baz() doesn't use an interface.
It feels like to get cleaner code it would make sense to either:
create extra interfaces if the class has to have those methods (eg a separate interface to cover the behavior of baz() above)
or ideally refactor (eg using more composition) so the class doesn't need to have so many methods (put baz() in another class)
Having methods not covered by an interface feels like a code smell. Or am I being unrealistic?
I consider it as "overusing" the interface.
Interface can give you access only to limited functionality, therefore it is good for gathering more classes with similar functionality into one List<Interface> and using them, for example.
Or if you want to keep loose coupling principle, you rather give another component some interface than the whole class(es).
Also some classes should have restricted access to another classes, which can be done with interfaces too.
However high cohesion principle (which is usually connected to loose coupling) does not prevent you from using class itself, if two classes are and should be "strong" connected to each other.
I don't think that's the purpose of interfaces. If you actually talk about the 'is-a' and 'has-a' relationship between classes, not necessarily a class needs to cover all public methods in interfaces. That's like taking the concept too far.
A class can have methods which describe it's behavior but then, there are some methods that do not exactly describe the classes' behavior but rather describe what else the class can do.
In case if a question arises about SRP regarding the 'can-do' behaviors, it is possible that the class can use a component to execute those behaviors rather than implementing within itself.
For e.g., I have a class DataGrid, why would I need to have an interface called IDataGrid which exposes all the public methods. But may be there is an additional functionality that the DataGrid can do, which is export the data. In that case I can have it implement IExportData, and implement the ExportData method, which in turn does not export the data but uses a component, say DataExportHelper, that actually does the job.
The DataGrid only passes the data to the component.
I don't think SRP will be violated in the above example.
EDIT:
I am a .Net developer, so would like to give you and example from MS library classes. For e.g., the class System.Windows.Window does not implemnt any interface that has Close() method. And I don't see why it should be a part of any presenter.
Also, it is possible that something might look seem like a code smell but not necessarily it might be wrong. Code smell itself does not mean there is a problem but that there is a possibility of problem.
I have never come across any principle or guideline in software design which mentions that all the public members of a class need to be exposed in some or the other interface. May be doing that just for the sake of it might be a bad design.
No, I would definitely not consider methods not covered by an interface a code smell.
It seems like this might be dependent on the object infrastructure you are building in, but in the infrastructures I'm familiar with, the real point of interfaces is to provide a manageable form of multiple inheritance. I consider the overuse of multiple inheritance a notable smell.
In .NET at least, abstract classes are explicitly the preferred construct for exposing abstraction (not interfaces). The .NET design guidelines say: Do favor defining classes over interfaces., with rationale described here http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/vstudio/ms229013(v=vs.100).aspx.
Even in COM (where any externally visible functionality had to be defined in an interface) there are perfectly good reasons to have non-exposed functions: limiting the visibility of implementation details. COM was originally defined in C (not C++) which lacked the richer set of access modifiers that newer languages have, but the concepts were there: published interface members were public, everything else was internal.
I was wondering, I recently read an article that spoke of the ills of using the singleton pattern siting the disadvantage of global variable occurrence and rightly that the singleton violates alot of the rules we learn from OOP school, single responsibility principle, programming to interfaces and abstract classes and not to concrete classes... all that good stuff. I was wondering how then do you work with like database connection class where you want just one connection to your DB and one object of your DB floating around. The author spoke of Dependency Injection principle which to my mind stands well with the Dependency Inversion rule. How do I know and control what object gets passed around as a dependency other than the fact that I created the class and expect everyone using it play nice and make sure they are using the right resource?!
Edit: This answer assumes you are using a dependency injection container, either one you wrote yourself, or one you got from a library. If not, then use a DI container :)
How do I know and control what object gets passed around as a dependency other than the fact that I created the class and expect everyone using it play nice and make sure they are using the right resource?!
By contract
The oral contract - You write a design spec that says "thou shalt not instantiate this class directly" and "thou shalt not pass around any object you got from the dependency injection container. Pass the container if you have to".
The compiler contract - You give them a dependency injection container, and they grab the instance out of it, by abstract interface. If you want only a single instance to be used, you can supply them a named instance, which they extract with both the name, and the interface.
ISomething instance = serviceLocator.ResolveInstance<ISomething>(
"TheInstanceImSupposedToUse");
You can also make all your concrete classes private/internal/what-have-you, and only provide them an abstract interface to operate against. This will prevent them from instantiating the classes themselves.
// This can only be instantiated by you, but can be used by them via ISomething
private class ConcreteSomething : ISomething
{
// ...
}
By code review
You make group-wide coding and design standards that are fair, and make sure they are understood by everyone within the group.
You use a source control mechanism, and require code reviews before they check in. You read over their code for what they link to, what headers they include, what objects they instantiate, and what instances they are passing around.
If they violate your rules during code reviews, you don't let them check in until they fix their code. Optionally, for repeat offenders, you make them pay you a dollar, you make them buy you lunch, or you hire a different contractor to replace them. Whatever works well within your group :)
For those who criticize the singleton pattern, based on SRP, here is an opposing view. Also, I've found that dependency injection containers can create as many problems as they solve. That said, I'm using a promising compromise, as covered in another post.
Dependency injection containers (even one you develop yourself, which isn't an entirely uncommon practice) are generally very configurable. What you'd do in that scenario is configure it such that any request for the interface that implementation, well, implements would be satisfied with that implementation. Even if it's a singleton.
For example, take a look at the Logger singleton being used here: http://www.pnpguidance.net/News/StructureMapTutorialDependencyInjectionIoCNET.aspx
Don't take what you read anywhere as absolute truth. Read it, understand it and then you can see when it's best to apply certain things. In your case, why wouldn't you want to create a static singleton?
What can be reasons to prevent a class from being inherited? (e.g. using sealed on a c# class)
Right now I can't think of any.
Because writing classes to be substitutably extended is damn hard and requires you to make accurate predictions of how future users will want to extend what you've written.
Sealing your class forces them to use composition, which is much more robust.
How about if you are not sure about the interface yet and don't want any other code depending on the present interface? [That's off the top of my head, but I'd be interested in other reasons as well!]
Edit:
A bit of googling gave the following:
http://codebetter.com/blogs/patricksmacchia/archive/2008/01/05/rambling-on-the-sealed-keyword.aspx
Quoting:
There are three reasons why a sealed class is better than an unsealed class:
Versioning: When a class is originally sealed, it can change to unsealed in the future without breaking compatibility. (…)
Performance: (…) if the JIT compiler sees a call to a virtual method using a sealed types, the JIT compiler can produce more efficient code by calling the method non-virtually.(…)
Security and Predictability: A class must protect its own state and not allow itself to ever become corrupted. When a class is unsealed, a derived class can access and manipulate the base class’s state if any data fields or methods that internally manipulate fields are accessible and not private.(…)
I want to give you this message from "Code Complete":
Inheritance - subclasses - tends to
work against the primary technical
imperative you have as a programmer,
which is to manage complexity.For the sake of controlling complexity, you should maintain a heavy bias against inheritance.
The only legitimate use of inheritance is to define a particular case of a base class like, for example, when inherit from Shape to derive Circle. To check this look at the relation in opposite direction: is a Shape a generalization of Circle? If the answer is yes then it is ok to use inheritance.
So if you have a class for which there can not be any particular cases that specialize its behavior it should be sealed.
Also due to LSP (Liskov Substitution Principle) one can use derived class where base class is expected and this is actually imposes the greatest impact from use of inheritance: code using base class may be given an inherited class and it still has to work as expected. In order to protect external code when there is no obvious need for subclasses you seal the class and its clients can rely that its behavior will not be changed. Otherwise external code needs to be explicitly designed to expect possible changes in behavior in subclasses.
A more concrete example would be Singleton pattern. You need to seal singleton to ensure one can not break the "singletonness".
This may not apply to your code, but a lot of classes within the .NET framework are sealed purposely so that no one tries to create a sub-class.
There are certain situations where the internals are complex and require certain things to be controlled very specifically so the designer decided no one should inherit the class so that no one accidentally breaks functionality by using something in the wrong way.
#jjnguy
Another user may want to re-use your code by sub-classing your class. I don't see a reason to stop this.
If they want to use the functionality of my class they can achieve that with containment, and they will have much less brittle code as a result.
Composition seems to be often overlooked; all too often people want to jump on the inheritance bandwagon. They should not! Substitutability is difficult. Default to composition; you'll thank me in the long run.
I am in agreement with jjnguy... I think the reasons to seal a class are few and far between. Quite the contrary, I have been in the situation more than once where I want to extend a class, but couldn't because it was sealed.
As a perfect example, I was recently creating a small package (Java, not C#, but same principles) to wrap functionality around the memcached tool. I wanted an interface so in tests I could mock away the memcached client API I was using, and also so we could switch clients if the need arose (there are 2 clients listed on the memcached homepage). Additionally, I wanted to have the opportunity to replace the functionality altogether if the need or desire arose (such as if the memcached servers are down for some reason, we could potentially hot swap with a local cache implementation instead).
I exposed a minimal interface to interact with the client API, and it would have been awesome to extend the client API class and then just add an implements clause with my new interface. The methods that I had in the interface that matched the actual interface would then need no further details and so I wouldn't have to explicitly implement them. However, the class was sealed, so I had to instead proxy calls to an internal reference to this class. The result: more work and a lot more code for no real good reason.
That said, I think there are potential times when you might want to make a class sealed... and the best thing I can think of is an API that you will invoke directly, but allow clients to implement. For example, a game where you can program against the game... if your classes were not sealed, then the players who are adding features could potentially exploit the API to their advantage. This is a very narrow case though, and I think any time you have full control over the codebase, there really is little if any reason to make a class sealed.
This is one reason I really like the Ruby programming language... even the core classes are open, not just to extend but to ADD AND CHANGE functionality dynamically, TO THE CLASS ITSELF! It's called monkeypatching and can be a nightmare if abused, but it's damn fun to play with!
From an object-oriented perspective, sealing a class clearly documents the author's intent without the need for comments. When I seal a class I am trying to say that this class was designed to encapsulate some specific piece of knowledge or some specific service. It was not meant to be enhanced or subclassed further.
This goes well with the Template Method design pattern. I have an interface that says "I perform this service." I then have a class that implements that interface. But, what if performing that service relies on context that the base class doesn't know about (and shouldn't know about)? What happens is that the base class provides virtual methods, which are either protected or private, and these virtual methods are the hooks for subclasses to provide the piece of information or action that the base class does not know and cannot know. Meanwhile, the base class can contain code that is common for all the child classes. These subclasses would be sealed because they are meant to accomplish that one and only one concrete implementation of the service.
Can you make the argument that these subclasses should be further subclassed to enhance them? I would say no because if that subclass couldn't get the job done in the first place then it should never have derived from the base class. If you don't like it then you have the original interface, go write your own implementation class.
Sealing these subclasses also discourages deep levels of inheritence, which works well for GUI frameworks but works poorly for business logic layers.
Because you always want to be handed a reference to the class and not to a derived one for various reasons:
i. invariants that you have in some other part of your code
ii. security
etc
Also, because it's a safe bet with regards to backward compatibility - you'll never be able to close that class for inheritance if it's release unsealed.
Or maybe you didn't have enough time to test the interface that the class exposes to be sure that you can allow others to inherit from it.
Or maybe there's no point (that you see now) in having a subclass.
Or you don't want bug reports when people try to subclass and don't manage to get all the nitty-gritty details - cut support costs.
Sometimes your class interface just isn't meant to be inheirited. The public interface just isn't virtual and while someone could override the functionality that's in place it would just be wrong. Yes in general they shouldn't override the public interface, but you can insure that they don't by making the class non-inheritable.
The example I can think of right now are customized contained classes with deep clones in .Net. If you inherit from them you lose the deep clone ability.[I'm kind of fuzzy on this example, it's been a while since I worked with IClonable] If you have a true singelton class, you probably don't want inherited forms of it around, and a data persistence layer is not normally place you want a lot of inheritance.
Not everything that's important in a class is asserted easily in code. There can be semantics and relationships present that are easily broken by inheriting and overriding methods. Overriding one method at a time is an easy way to do this. You design a class/object as a single meaningful entity and then someone comes along and thinks if a method or two were 'better' it would do no harm. That may or may not be true. Maybe you can correctly separate all methods between private and not private or virtual and not virtual but that still may not be enough. Demanding inheritance of all classes also puts a huge additional burden on the original developer to foresee all the ways an inheriting class could screw things up.
I don't know of a perfect solution. I'm sympathetic to preventing inheritance but that's also a problem because it hinders unit testing.
I exposed a minimal interface to interact with the client API, and it would have been awesome to extend the client API class and then just add an implements clause with my new interface. The methods that I had in the interface that matched the actual interface would then need no further details and so I wouldn't have to explicitly implement them. However, the class was sealed, so I had to instead proxy calls to an internal reference to this class. The result: more work and a lot more code for no real good reason.
Well, there is a reason: your code is now somewhat insulated from changes to the memcached interface.
Performance: (…) if the JIT compiler sees a call to a virtual method using a sealed types, the JIT compiler can produce more efficient code by calling the method non-virtually.(…)
That's a great reason indeed. Thus, for performance-critical classes, sealed and friends make sense.
All the other reasons I've seen mentioned so far boil down to "nobody touches my class!". If you're worried someone might misunderstand its internals, you did a poor job documenting it. You can't possibly know that there's nothing useful to add to your class, or that you already know every imaginable use case for it. Even if you're right and the other developer shouldn't have used your class to solve their problem, using a keyword isn't a great way of preventing such a mistake. Documentation is. If they ignore the documentation, their loss.
Most of answers (when abstracted) state that sealed/finalized classes are tool to protect other programmers against potential mistakes. There is a blurry line between meaningful protection and pointless restriction. But as long as programmer is the one who is expected to understand the program, I see no hardly any reasons to restrict him from reusing parts of a class. Most of you talk about classes. But it's all about objects!
In his first post, DrPizza claims that designing inheritable class means anticipating possible extensions. Do I get it right that you think that class should be inheritable only if it's likely to be extended well? Looks as if you were used to design software from the most abstract classes. Allow me a brief explanation of how do I think when designing:
Starting from the very concrete objects, I find characteristics and [thus] functionality that they have in common and I abstract it to superclass of those particular objects. This is a way to reduce code duplicity.
Unless developing some specific product such as a framework, I should care about my code, not others (virtual) code. The fact that others might find it useful to reuse my code is a nice bonus, not my primary goal. If they decide to do so, it's their responsibility to ensure validity of extensions. This applies team-wide. Up-front design is crucial to productivity.
Getting back to my idea: Your objects should primarily serve your purposes, not some possible shoulda/woulda/coulda functionality of their subtypes. Your goal is to solve given problem. Object oriented languages uses fact that many problems (or more likely their subproblems) are similar and therefore existing code can be used to accelerate further development.
Sealing a class forces people who could possibly take advantage of existing code WITHOUT ACTUALLY MODIFYING YOUR PRODUCT to reinvent the wheel. (This is a crucial idea of my thesis: Inheriting a class doesn't modify it! Which seems quite pedestrian and obvious, but it's being commonly ignored).
People are often scared that their "open" classes will be twisted to something that can not substitute its ascendants. So what? Why should you care? No tool can prevent bad programmer from creating bad software!
I'm not trying to denote inheritable classes as the ultimately correct way of designing, consider this more like an explanation of my inclination to inheritable classes. That's the beauty of programming - virtually infinite set of correct solutions, each with its own cons and pros. Your comments and arguments are welcome.
And finally, my answer to the original question: I'd finalize a class to let others know that I consider the class a leaf of the hierarchical class tree and I see absolutely no possibility that it could become a parent node. (And if anyone thinks that it actually could, then either I was wrong or they don't get me).
I am designing a new System and I have a lot of Interfaces that will grow over time with the system. What is the best practice to name this interfaces
ISomethingV01
ISomethingV02
etc
and I do this
public interface ISomething{
void method();
}
then I have to add method 2 so now what I do?
public interface ISomethingV2:ISomething{
void method2();
}
or same other way?
I think you're overrusing interfaces.
Meyer and Martin told us: "Open for extension but closed for modification!"
and then Cwalina (et al) reiterated:
From Framework Design Guidelines...
In general, classes are the preferred
construct for exposing abstractions.
The main drawback of interfaces is
that they are much less flexible than
classes when it comes to allowing for
evolution of APIs. Once you ship an
interface, the set of its members is
fixed forever. Any additions to the
interface would break existing types
implementing the interface.
A class offers much more flexibility.
You can add members to classes that
have already shipped. As long as the
method is not abstract (i.e., as long
as you provide a default
implementation of the method), any
existing derived classes continue to
function unchanged.
Ideally, you shouldn't be changing your interfaces very often (if at all). If you do need to change an interface, you should reconsider its purpose and see if the original name still applies to it.
If you still feel that the interfaces will change, and the interfaces changes are small (adding items) and you have control of the whole code base, then you should just modify the interface and fix all the compilation errors.
If your change is a change in how the interface is to be used, then you need to create a separate interface (most likely with a different name) to support that alternative usage pattern.
Even if you end up creating ISomething, ISomething2 and ISomething3, the consumers of your interfaces will have a hard time figuring out what the differences are between the interfaces. When should they use ISomething2 and when should they use ISomething3? Then you have to go about the process of obsoleting ISomething and ISomething2.
I agree with Garo Yeriazarian, changing interface is a serious decision. Also, if you want to promote usage of new version of interface you should mark old version as obsolete. In .NET you can add ObsoleteAttribute.
The purpose of an interface is to define an abstract pattern that at type must implement.
It would be better implement as:
public interface ISomething
public class Something1 : ISomething
public class Something2 : ISomething
You do not gain anything in the form of code reusability or scalable design by creating multiple versions of the same interface.
I don't know why people downvote your post. I think that good naming guidelines are very important.
If you need to maintain compatibility with prev. version of the same interface consider using inheritance.
If you need to introduce new version of interface consider following rule:
Try to add meaningful suffix to you
interface. If it's not possible to
create concise name, consider adding
version number.