Static methods in OOP - oop

I've always known what static methods are by definition, but I've always avoided using them at school because I was afraid of what I didn't know.
I already understand that you can use it as a counter throughout your entire project.
Now that I am interning I want to know when exactly static methods are used. From my observation so far, static classes/methods are used when it contains a lot of functions that will be used in many different classes and itself doesn't contain too many critical local variables within the class where it is not necessary to create an instant of it.
So as an example, you can have a static class called Zip that zips and unzips files and provide it to many different classes for them to do whatever with it.
Am I right? Do I have the right idea? I'm pretty sure there are many ways to use it.

Static functions are helpful as they do not rely on an instantiated member of whatever class they are attached to.
Static functions can provide functionality related to an a particular class without requiring the programmer to first create an instance of that class.
See this comparison:
class Numbers
{
public int Add(int x, int y)
{
return x + y;
}
public static int AddNumbers(int x, int y)
{
return x + y;
}
}
class Main
{
//in this first case, we use the non-static version of the Add function
int z1 = (new Numbers()).Add(2, 4);
//in the second case, we use the static one
int z2 = Numbers.AddNumbers(3, 5);
}

Technically, answers above are correct.
But the examples are not correct from the OOP point of view.
For example you have a class like this:
class Zip
{
public static function zipFile($fileName)
{
//
}
public static function unzipFile($fileName)
{
//
}
}
The truth is that there is nothing object-oriented here. You just defined two functions which you need to call using the fancy syntax like Zip::zipFile($myFile) instead of just zipFile($myFile).
You don't create any objects here and the Zip class is only used as a namespace.
So in this case it is better to just define these functions outside of class, as regular functions. There are namespaces in php since version 5.3, you can use them if you want to group your functions.
With the OOP approach, your class would look like this:
class ZipArchive
{
private $_archiveFileName;
private $_files;
public function __construct($archiveFileName) {
$this->_archiveFileName = $archiveFileName;
$this->_files = [];
}
public function add($fileName)
{
$this->_files[] = $fileName;
return $this; // allows to chain calls
}
public function zip()
{
// zip the files into archive specified
// by $_archiveFileName
}
}
And then you can use it like this:
$archive = new ZipArchive('path/to/archive.zip');
$archive->add('file1')->add('file2')->zip();
What is more important, you can now use the zip functionality in an OOP way.
For example, you can have a base class Archive and sub-classes like ZipArchive, TarGzArchive, etc.
Now, you can create an instance of the specific sub-class and pass it to other code which will not even know if files are going to be zip-ped or tag.gz-ipped. For example:
if ($config['archive_type'] === 'targz') {
// use tar.gz if specified
$archive = new TarGzArchive($path);
} else {
// use zip by default
$archive = new ZipArchive($path);
}
$backup = new Backup($archive /*, other params*/);
$backup->run();
Now the $backup object will use the specified archive type. Internally it doesn't know and doesn't care how exactly files will be archived.
You can even have a CopyArchive class which will simply copy files to another location.
It is easy to do it this way because your archive support is written in OOP way. You have small object responsible for specific things, you create and combine them and get the result you want.
And if you just have a bunch of static methods instead of real class, you will be forced to write the procedural-style code.
So I would not recommend to use static methods to implement actual features of your application.
Static methods may be helpful to support logging, debugging, testing and similar things. Like if you want to count number of objects created, you can use class-level static counter, increment it in the constructor and you can have a static method which reads the counter and prints it or writes to the log file.

Yes, static classes are used for problems that require stateless computation. Such as adding two numbers. Zipping a file. Etc.
If your class requires state, where you need to store connections or other longer living entities, then you wouldn't use static.

AFAIK. Static methods does not depends on a class instance. Just that.
As an example:
If you have an single thread program that will have only ONE database connection and will do several queries against the database it will be better to implement it as a static class (note that I specified that you will not connect, ever to several databases or have several threads).
So you will not need to create several connection objects, because you already know that you will only use one. And you will not need to create several objects. Singletons in this scenario are, also, an option.
There are other examples.
If you create an class to convert values.
class Convert{
static std::string fromIntToString(int value);
}
This way you will not need to create the class convert every time you need to convert from integer to an string.
std::string value = Convert::fromIntToString(10).
If you haven't done that you would need to instantiate this class several times through your program.
I know that you can find several other examples. It is up to you and your scenario to decide when you are going to do that.

Related

Possibility of having "dynamically-binded" and "implicit" interface?

Is there any construct that allows all classes which implemented a set of functions to be considered as a certain interface, even when the classes themselves do not explicitly implement the interface?
To make the question clearer, I'll make an example. Suppose we want to implement LinearSearch, which look through the whole array and search for certain key, and return the index of the key upon discovery. Essentially, the psudeocode might look something like this:
LinearSearch(A, key)
for (k = 0; k < A.length(); k++)
if (A.get(k) == key)
return k
return NULL
In that case, any classes which implemented length and get will be able to search through the structure. We could implement this on DynamicArray, which acts the same as ArrayList in Java. We could implement this on a LinkedList, ignoring the fact the get takes linear time per query. Similarly for other structures that implement these 2 functions. However, such classes might not have explicitly implemented a common interface, even though it is favorable to have them being in one.
While writing this question, I feel a sense of insecurity tinkering within me about such a construct, but I cannot put it into words. So, is there any reason you think that this might not be a good construct in actual languages?
It's called "duck typing". Message-based object models like Smalltalk allow sending any message to an object as long as its name and parameters match.
In languages like C++, you can emulate this using "signals" and "slots", which, at their most primitive, can be implemented by writing a little template adapter class like
class CallGetLengthAdapterBase
{
public:
int length() = 0;
key_type key() = 0;
};
template<class N>
class CallGetLengthAdapter : public CallGetLengthAdapterBase
{
public:
CallGetLengthAdapter( N* obj ) { mObject = obj; };
int length() { return mObject->length(); };
key_type key() { return mObject->key(); };
protected:
N* mObject;
};
So the LinearSearch would just know about CallGetLengthAdapterBase, and would take a pointer to an object of this type. Whoever owns and connects both of these objects would call them like:
LinearSearch( CallGetLengthAdapter<A_type>(&A), key );
That's all.
From Wikipedia:
Go has "interface" types that are compatible with any type that supports a given set of methods (the type does not need to explicitly implement the interface). The empty interface, interface{}, is compatible with all types.
It sounds like this is what you mean, so it is another sense of interface than we might be used to from Java or such. This is a structural typing kind of interface, where the structure of methods involved are the important part, not a name given to the interface.
More formally, it seems that this is called a type class.

How to define a set of input parameters in Pex?

Say I have MyClass with 100s of fields.
If I use an object of MyClass as an input param, Pex would simply choke trying to generate all possible combinations (mine runs into 1000s of paths even on a simple test)
[PexMethod]
void MytestMethod(MyClass param){...}
How can I tell Pex to use only a set of predefined objects of MyClass rather than having it trying to be smart and generate all possible combinations to test?
In other words I want to manually specify a list of possible states for param in the code above and tell Pex to use it
Cheers
If you find that Pex is generating large amounts of irrelevant, redundant, or otherwise unhelpful inputs, you can shape the values that it generates for your parametrized unit tests' input using PexAssume, which will ensure that all generated inputs meet a set of criteria that you provide.
If you were wanting to ensure that arguments came from a predefined collection of values, for instance, you could do something like this:
public void TestSomething(Object a) {
PexAssume.IsTrue(someCollection.Contains(a));
}
PexAssume has other helper methods as well for more general input pruning, such as IsNotNull, AreNotEqual, etc. What little documentation is out there suggests that there is some collection-specific functionality as well, though if those methods exist, I'm not familiar with them.
Check out the Pex manual for a bit more information.
Pex will not try to generate every possible combination of values. Instead, it analyses your code and tries to cover every branch. So if you have
if (MyObject.Property1 == "something")
{
...
}
then it will try to create an object that has Property1 == "something". So limiting the tests to some predefined objects is rather against the 'Pex philosophy'. That said, you may find the following information interesting.
You can provide a Pex factory class. See, for instance, this blog post or this one.
[PexFactoryClass]
public partial class EmployeeFactory
{
[PexFactoryMethod(typeof(Employee))]
public static Employee Create(
int i0,
string s0,
string s1,
DateTime dt0,
DateTime dt1,
uint ui0,
Contract c0
)
{
Employee e0 = new Employee();
e0.EmployeeID = i0;
e0.FirstName = s0;
e0.LastName = s1;
e0.BirthDate = dt0;
e0.StartDateContract = dt1;
e0.Salary = ui0;
e0.TypeContract = c0;
return e0;
}
}
Pex will then call this factory class (instead of a default factory) using appropriate values it discovers from exploring your code. The factory method allows you to limit the possible parameters and values.
You can also use PexArguments attribute to suggest values, but this will not prevent Pex from trying to generate other values to cover any branches in your code. It just tries the ones you provide first.
[PexArguments(1, "foo")] // try this first
void MyTest(int i, string s)
{
...
}
See here for more information on PexArguments and also search for 'seed values' in the PDF documentation on Parameterized Test Patterns.

help with interfaces and abstract classes

I'm recently getting a bit confused with interfaces and abstract classes and I feel I dont fully grasp it like I thought I did. I think I'm using them incorrectly. I'll describe what I'm doing at the moment, the problem I have faced, and then hopefully it be clear what I'm doing wrong if anything.
I wanted to write some classes that do some parsing of xml. I have different user types that have different parsing requirements.
My logic went as follows.
All parsers share a "parse" function in common and must have at least this function so I made an Interface with this function defined named IParse;
I start out with 2 user types, user type A and user type B. User type A & B share some basic functions but user type B has slightly more functions than A so I put the functions to parse what they share in an abstract class that both will extend called "ParseBase".
So now I have
// Interface
public interface IParser
{
function parse(xml:XML):void;
}
// Base Class
public class ParseBase()
{
public function getbasicdata():void{}
public function getmorebasicdata():void{}
}
//User type A
public class userTypeA extends ParseBase implement IParse
{
public function parse(xml:XML):void
{
getbasicdata()
getmorebasicdata()
}
}
//user type B
public class userTypeB extends ParseBase implement IParse
{
public function parse(xml:XML):void
{
getbasicdata()
getmorebasicdata()
}
public function extraFunctionForB():void
{
}
public function anotherExtraFunctionForB():void
{
}
}
The problem I have come up against now which leads me believe that I'm doing something wrong is as follows.
Lets say I want to add another function UserTypeB. I go and write a new public function in that class. Then In my implementation I use a switch to check what Usertype to create.
Var userParser:IParser
if(a)
{
userParser= new userTypeA();
}else if(b)
{
userParser= new userTypeB();
}
If i then try to access that new function I can't see it in my code hinting. The only function names I see are the functions defined in the interface.
What am I doing wrong?
You declare the new function only in userTypeB, not in IParser. Thus it is not visible via IParser's interface. Since userParser is declared as an IParser, you can't directly access userTypeB's functions via it - you need to either downcast it to userTypeB, or add the new function to IParser to achieve that.
Of course, adding a function to IParser only makes sense if that function is meaningful for all parsers, not only for userTypeB. This is a design question, which IMO can't be reasonably answered without knowing a lot more about your app. One thing you can do though, is to unite IParser and BaseParser - IMO you don't need both. You can simply define the public interface and some default implementation in a single abstract class.
Oher than that, this has nothing to do with abstract classes - consider rephrasing the title. Btw in the code you show, ParseBase does not seem to be abstract.
In order to access functions for a specific sub-type (UserTypeB, for example) you need the variable to be of that type (requires explicit casting).
The use of interfaces and abstract classes is useful when you only require the methods defined in the interface. If you build the interface correctly, this should be most of the time.
As Peter Torok says (+1), the IParser declares just one function parse(xml). When you create a variable userParser of type IParser, you will be allowed to call ony the parse() method. In order to call a function defined in the subtype, you will have to explicitly cast it into that subtype.
In that case IMO your should rethink the way you have designed your parsers, an example would be to put a declaration in your IParser (Good if you make this abstract and have common base functionality in here) that allow subtypes (parsers) to do some customization before and after parsing.
You can also have a separate BaseParser abstract type that implemnts the IParser interface.

Best practice: ordering of public/protected/private within the class definition?

I am starting a new project from the ground up and want it to be clean / have good coding standards. In what order do the seasoned developers on here like to lay things out within a class?
A : 1) public methods 2) private methods 3) public vars 4) private vars
B : 1) public vars 2) private vars 3) public methods 4) private methods
C : 1) public vars 2) public methods 3) private methods 4)private vars
I generally like to put public static vars at the top, but then would a public static method be listed ahead of your constructor, or should the constructor always be listed first? That sort of thing...
I know it's finnicky but I just wondered: what are best practices for this?
PS: no I don't use Cc#. I know. I'm a luddite.
In Clean Code, Robert C. Martin advises coders to always put member variables at the top of the class (constants first, then private members) and methods should be ordered in such a way so that they read like a story that doesn't cause the reader to need to jump around the code too much. This is a more sensible way to organize code rather than by access modifier.
The best practice is to be consistent.
Personally, I prefer putting public methods first, followed by protected methods, following by private methods. Member data should in general always be private or protected, unless you have a good reason for it not to be so.
My rationale for putting public methods at the top is that it defines the interface for your class, so anyone perusing your header file should be able to see this information immediately.
In general, private and protected members are less important to most people looking at the header file, unless they are considering modifying the internals of the class. Keeping them "out of the way" ensures this information is maintained only on a need to know basis, one of the more important aspects of encapsulation.
Personally I like to have public at top, protected and then private. The reason for this is that when somebody cracks open the header he/she sees what he/she can access first, then more details as he/she scrolls down.
One should not have to look at the implementation details of a class in order to use it, then the class design is not done well.
I think I have a different philosophy on this than most. I prefer to group related items together. I can't stand having to jump around to work with a class. The code should flow and using a rather artificial ordering based on accessibility (public, private, protected etc. ) or instance versus static or member versus property versus function doesn't help keep a nice flow. So if I nave a public method Method that is implemented by private helper methods HelperMethodA, HelperMethodB etc. then rather than have these method far apart from each other in the file, I will keep them close to each other. Similarly, if i have an instance method that is implemented by a static method, I will group these together too.
So my classes often look like this:
class MyClass {
public string Method(int a) {
return HelperMethodA(a) + HelperMethodB(this.SomeStringMember);
}
string HelperMethodA(int a) { // returns some string }
string HelperMethodB(string s) { // returns some string }
public bool Equals(MyClass other) { return MyClass.Equals(this, other); }
public static bool Equals(MyClass left, MyClass right) { // return some bool }
public double SomeCalculation(double x, double y) {
if(x < 0) throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("x");
return DoSomeCalculation(x, y);
}
const double aConstant;
const double anotherConstant;
double DoSomeCalculation(double x, double y) {
return Math.Pow(aConstant, x) * Math.Sin(y)
+ this.SomeDoubleMember * anotherConstant;
}
}
This would be my ordering
Static Variables
Static Methods
Public Variables
Protected Variables
Private Variables
Constructors
Public Methods
Protected Methods
Private Methods
I use the following rules:
static before anything
variables before constructors before methods (i consider
constructors to be in the category of
methods)
public before protected before private
The idea is that you define the object (the data), before the behaviours (methods). Statics need to be separated because they aren't really part of the object, nor it's behaviour.
I used to care a lot. Over the last several years using modern IDEs pretty much everything is only 1 or 2 keystrokes away, I've let my standards relax substantially. Now, I start with statics, member variables, then constructors after that I don't worry about it much.
In C# I do let Resharper organize things automatically.
I generally agree with the public, protected, private order as well as the static data, member data, member functions order.
Though I sometimes group like members (getters & setters) I generally prefer listing members within a group ALPHABETICALLY so that they can be located more easily.
I also like lining up the data/functions vertically. I tab/space over to the right enough so that all names are aligned in the same column.
To each his own, and as Elzo says, modern IDEs have made it easier to find members and their modifiers in an easy way with colored icons in drop-down menus and such.
My take is that it is more important for the programmer to know what the class was designed for, and how it can be expected to behave.
So, if it is a Singleton, I put the semantics (static getInstance() class) first.
If it is a concrete factory, I put the getNew() function and the register / initialize functions first.
... and so on. When I say first, I mean soon after the c'tors and d'tor - since they are the default way of instantiating any class.
The functions that follow are then in:
logical call-order (e.g. initialize(), preProcess(), process(), postProcess() ), or
related functions together (like accessors, utilities, manipulators etc),
depending on if the class was meant primarily to be a data-store with some functions, or function provider with a few data members.
Some editors, like Eclipse and its offspring, allow you to reorder in the outline view the the vars and the methods, alphabetically or as in page.
The sequence of public followed by protected and private is more readable to me, It's better to describe the class logic in comments at top of the header file simply and function call orders to understand what a class dose and algorithms used inside.
I am using Qt c++ for a while and see some new sort of keywords like signal and slot I prefer to keep ordering like above and share my idea with you here.
#ifndef TEMPLATE_H
#define TEMPLATE_H
class ClassName
{
Q_OBJECT
Q_PROPERTY(qreal startValue READ startValue WRITE setStartValue)
Q_ENUMS(MyEnum)
public:
enum MyEnum {
Hello = 0x0,
World = 0x1
};
// constructors
explicit ClassName(QObject *parent = Q_NULLPTR);
~ClassName();
// getter and setters of member variables
// public functions (normal & virtual) -> orderby logic
public slots:
signals:
protected:
// protected functions it's rule followed like public functions
private slots:
private:
// methods
// members
};
#endif // TEMPLATE_H

Is there a commonly used OO Pattern for holding "constant variables"?

I am working on a little pinball-game project for a hobby and am looking for a pattern to encapsulate constant variables.
I have a model, within which there are values which will be constant over the life of that model e.g. maximum speed/maximum gravity etc. Throughout the GUI and other areas these values are required in order to correctly validate input. Currently they are included either as references to a public static final, or just plain hard-coded. I'd like to encapsulate these "constant variables" in an object which can be injected into the model, and retrieved by the view/controller.
To clarify, the value of the "constant variables" may not necessarily be defined at compile-time, they could come from reading in a file; user input etc. What is known at compile time is which ones are needed. A way which may be easier to explain it is that whatever this encapsulation is, the values it provides are immutable.
I'm looking for a way to achieve this which:
has compile time type-safety (i.e. not mapping a string to variable at runtime)
avoids anything static (including enums, which can't be extended)
I know I could define an interface which has the methods such as:
public int getMaximumSpeed();
public int getMaximumGravity();
... and inject an instance of that into the model, and make it accessible in some way. However, this results in a lot of boilerplate code, which is pretty tedious to write/test etc (I am doing this for funsies :-)).
I am looking for a better way to do this, preferably something which has the benefits of being part of a shared vocabulary, as with design patterns.
Is there a better way to do this?
P.S. I've thought some more about this, and the best trade-off I could find would be to have something like:
public class Variables {
enum Variable {
MaxSpeed(100),
MaxGravity(10)
Variable(Object variableValue) {
// assign value to field, provide getter etc.
}
}
public Object getVariable(Variable v) { // look up enum and get member }
} // end of MyVariables
I could then do something like:
Model m = new Model(new Variables());
Advantages: the lookup of a variable is protected by having to be a member of the enum in order to compile, variables can be added with little extra code
Disadvantages: enums cannot be extended, brittleness (a recompile is needed to add a variable), variable values would have to be cast from Object (to Integer in this example), which again isn't type safe, though generics may be an option for that... somehow
Are you looking for the Singleton or, a variant, the Monostate? If not, how does that pattern fail your needs?
Of course, here's the mandatory disclaimer that Anything Global Is Evil.
UPDATE: I did some looking, because I've been having similar debates/issues. I stumbled across a list of "alternatives" to classic global/scope solutions. Thought I'd share.
Thanks for all the time spent by you guys trying to decipher what is a pretty weird question.
I think, in terms of design patterns, the closest that comes to what I'm describing is the factory pattern, where I have a factory of pseudo-constants. Technically it's not creating an instance each call, but rather always providing the same instance (in the sense of a Guice provider). But I can create several factories, which each can provide different psuedo-constants, and inject each into a different model, so the model's UI can validate input a lot more flexibly.
If anyone's interested I've came to the conclusion that an interface providing a method for each psuedo-constant is the way to go:
public interface IVariableProvider {
public int maxGravity();
public int maxSpeed();
// and everything else...
}
public class VariableProvider {
private final int maxGravity, maxSpeed...;
public VariableProvider(int maxGravity, int maxSpeed) {
// assign final fields
}
}
Then I can do:
Model firstModel = new Model(new VariableProvider(2, 10));
Model secondModel = new Model(new VariableProvider(10, 100));
I think as long as the interface doesn't provide a prohibitively large number of variable getters, it wins over some parameterised lookup (which will either be vulnerable at run-time, or will prohibit extension/polymorphism).
P.S. I realise some have been questioning what my problem is with static final values. I made the statement (with tongue in cheek) to a colleague that anything static is an inherently not object-oriented. So in my hobby I used that as the basis for a thought exercise where I try to remove anything static from the project (next I'll be trying to remove all 'if' statements ;-D). If I was on a deadline and I was satisfied public static final values wouldn't hamstring testing, I would have used them pretty quickly.
If you're just using java/IOC, why not just dependency-inject the values?
e.g. Spring inject the values via a map, specify the object as a singleton -
<property name="values">
<map>
<entry> <key><value>a1</value></key><value>b1</value></entry>
<entry> <key><value>a2</value></key><value>b3</value></entry>
</map>
</property>
your class is a singleton that holds an immutable copy of the map set in spring -
private Map<String, String> m;
public String getValue(String s)
{
return m.containsKey(s)?m.get(s):null;
}
public void setValues(Map m)
{
this.m=Collections.unmodifiableMap(m):
}
From what I can tell, you probably don't need to implement a pattern here -- you just need access to a set of constants, and it seems to me that's handled pretty well through the use of a publicly accessible static interface to them. Unless I'm missing something. :)
If you simply want to "objectify" the constants though, for some reason, than the Singleton pattern would probably be called for, if any; I know you mentioned in a comment that you don't mind creating multiple instances of this wrapper object, but in response I'd ask, then why even introduce the sort of confusion that could arise from having multiple instances at all? What practical benefit are you looking for that'd be satisfied with having the data in object form?
Now, if the values aren't constants, then that's different -- in that case, you probably do want a Singleton or Monostate. But if they really are constants, just wrap a set of enums or static constants in a class and be done! Keep-it-simple is as good a "pattern" as any.