Related
I know what classes are about, but for better understanding I need a use case. Recently I discovered the construct of data classes. I get the idea behind normal classes, but I cannot imagine a real use case for data classes.
When should I use a data class and when I use a "normal" class? For all I know, all classes keep data.
Can you provide a good example that distinguishes data classes from non-data classes?
A data class is used to store data. It's lighter than a normal class, and can be compared to an array with key/value (dictionary, hash, etc.), but represented as an object with fixed attributes. In kotlin, according to the documentation, that adds those attributes to the class:
equals()/hashCode() pair
toString() of the form "User(name=John, age=42)"
componentN() functions corresponding to the properties in their order of declaration.
copy() function
Also it has a different behavior during class inheritence :
If there are explicit implementations of equals(), hashCode(), or toString() in the data class body or final implementations in a
superclass, then these functions are not generated, and the existing
implementations are used.
If a supertype has componentN() functions that are open and return compatible types, the corresponding functions are generated for the
data class and override those of the supertype. If the functions of
the supertype cannot be overridden due to incompatible signatures or
due to their being final, an error is reported.
Providing explicit implementations for the componentN() and copy() functions is not allowed.
So in kotlin, if you want to describe an object (a data) then you may use a dataclass, but if you're creating a complex application and your class needs to have special behavior in the constructor, with inheritence or abstraction, then you should use a normal class.
I do not know Kotlin, but in Python, a dataclass can be seen as a structured dict. When you want to use a dict to store an object which has always the same attributes, then you should not put it in a dict but use a Dataclass.
The advantage with a normal class is that you don't need to declare the __init__ method, as it is "automatic" (inherited).
Example :
This is a normal class
class Apple:
def __init__(size:int, color:str, sweet:bool=True):
self.size = size
self.color = color
self.sweet = sweet
Same class as a dataclass
from dataclasses import dataclass
#dataclass
class Apple:
size: int
color: str
sweet: bool = True
Then the advantage compared to a dict is that you are sure of what attribute it has. Also it can contains methods.
The advantage over to a normal class is that it is simpler to declare and make the code lighter. We can see that the attributes keywords (e.g size) are repeated 3 times in a normal class, but appear only once in a dataclass.
The advantage of normal class also is that you can personalize the __init__ method, (in a dataclass also, but then you lose it's main advantage I think) example:
# You need only 2 variable to initialize your class
class Apple:
def __init__(size:int, color:str):
self.size = size
self.color = color
# But you get much more info from those two.
self.sweet = True if color == 'red' else False
self.weight = self.__compute_weight()
self.price = self.weight * PRICE_PER_GRAM
def __compute_weight(self):
# ...
return (self.size**2)*10 # That's a random example
Abstractly, a data class is a pure, inert information record that doesn’t require any special handling when copied or passed around, and it represents nothing more than what is contained in its fields; it has no identity of its own. A typical example is a point in 3D space:
data class Point3D(
val x: Double,
val y: Double,
val z: Double
)
As long as the values are valid, an instance of a data class is entirely interchangeable with its fields, and it can be put apart or rematerialized at will. Often there is even little use for encapsulation: users of the data class can just access the instance’s fields directly. The Kotlin language provides a number of convenience features when data classes are declared as such in your code, which are described in the documentation. Those are useful when for example building more complex data structures employing data classes: you can for example have a hashmap assign values to particular points in space, and then be able to look up the value using a newly-constructed Point3D.
val map = HashMap<Point3D, String>()
map.set(Point3D(3, 4, 5), "point of interest")
println(map.get(Point3D(3, 4, 5))) // prints "point of interest"
For an example of a class that is not a data class, take FileReader. Underneath, this class probably keeps some kind of file handle in a private field, which you can assume to be an integer (as it actually is on at least some platforms). But you cannot expect to store this integer in a database, have another process read that same integer from the database, reconstruct a FileReader from it and expect it to work. Passing file handles between processes requires more ceremony than that, if it is even possible on a given platform. That property makes FileReader not a data class. Many examples of non-data classes will be of this kind: any class whose instances represent transient, local resources like a network connection, a position within a file or a running process, cannot be a data class. Likewise, any class where different instances should not be considered equal even if they contain the same information is not a data class either.
From the comments, it sounds like your question is really about why non-data classes exist in Kotlin and why you would ever choose not to make a data class. Here are some reasons.
Data classes are a lot more restrictive than a regular class:
They have to have a primary constructor, and every parameter of the primary constructor has to be a property.
They cannot have an empty primary constructor.
They cannot be open so they cannot be subclassed.
Here are other reasons:
Sometimes you don't want a class to have a copy function. If a class holds onto some heavy state that is expensive to copy, maybe it shouldn't advertise that it should be copied by presenting a copy function.
Sometimes you want to use an instance of a class in a Set or as Map keys without two different instances being considered as equivalent just because their properties have the same values.
The features of data classes are useful specifically for simple data holders, so the drawbacks are often something you want to avoid.
Let's consider, as an example, the domain of GPS and Geographical (GIS) entities.
We would model the meaningful geographic entities (points, paths, regions) as classes in any desired programming language, and these classes would be a conceptual, "implementation-free" representation of these entities.
On the other hand, there are a lot of file formats that save these features with more or less the same meaning. In the GPS domain the most common file formats are GPX, KML, ShapeFile, WellKnownText, etc.
Supposing, then, I want to create a GpsFeatureCollection class which would contain a Points property, a Paths property, and so on. Also, I would implement classes like GpsReader, KmlReader, ShapeFileReader (and their respective Writers) and so on.
THE QUESTION IS:
Which is the best practice in OOAD:
Have a GpsFeatureCollection to instantiate a FileFormat(Reader/Writer) class?
Have a GpsFeatureCollection to implement Read/WriteFromFormat methods instead of classes?
Have each file format reader to instantiate an empty GpsFeatureCollection, populate it with data read from file, then pass the populated object as a return value?
Have a mediator class to avoid any dependency between FileFormatClass and ObjectModelClass?
None of the above?
"Well, it depends..."
I am really interested in doing "the right thing". My immediate plans are to use Python, but most probably this would matter for other languages too. This is causing some "analysis paralysis" in my pet project currently...
Here is my take wherein I pass reader and writer instances to read() and write() methods, this seems to achieve good level of decoupling and yet provides flexibility to pick various readers and writers.
Code uses Java-like syntax
Declare a Reader interface, we will assuming multiple implementation such KMLReader,
ShapeFileReader, etc
interface Reader {
GpsFeatureCollection read();
}
Declare a Writer interface, we will assuming multiple implementation such KMLWriter, ShapeFileWriter, etc
interface Writer {
void write(GpsFeatureCollection c);
}
Let's declare GpsFeatureCollection class to have read and write methods which accept respective interfaces as parameter to perform the job.
class GpsFeatureCollection {
...
public static GpsFeatureCollection read(Reader r) {
return r.read();
}
public static void write(Writer w) {
w.write(this);
}
}
Some example of usage using different readers and writers.
// Reading data
GpsFeaureCollection data = GpsFeatureCollection.read(new ShapeFileReader("/tmp/shapefile"));
// Writing data
data.write(new KMLWriter("/tmp/kmlfile"));
I'd like to use for table storage an entity like this:
public class MyEntity
{
public String Text { get; private set; }
public Int32 SomeValue { get; private set; }
public MyEntity(String text, Int32 someValue)
{
Text = text;
SomeValue = someValue;
}
}
But it's not possible, because the ATS needs
Parameterless constructor
All properties public and
read/write.
Inherit from TableServiceEntity;
The first two, are two things I don't want to do. Why should I want that anybody could change some data that should be readonly? or create objects of this kind in a inconsistent way (what are .ctor's for then?), or even worst, alter the PartitionKey or the RowKey. Why are we still constrained by these deserialization requirements?
I don't like develop software in that way, how can I use table storage library in a way that I can serialize and deserialize myself the objects? I think that as long the objects inherits from TableServiceEntity it shouldn't be a problem.
So far I got to save an object, but I don't know how retrieve it:
Message m = new Message("message XXXXXXXXXXXXX");
CloudTableClient tableClient = account.CreateCloudTableClient();
tableClient.CreateTableIfNotExist("Messages");
TableServiceContext tcontext = new TableServiceContext(account.TableEndpoint.AbsoluteUri, account.Credentials);
var list = tableClient.ListTables().ToArray();
tcontext.AddObject("Messages", m);
tcontext.SaveChanges();
Is there any way to avoid those deserialization requirements or get the raw object?
Cheers.
If you want to use the Storage Client Library, then yes, there are restrictions on what you can and can't do with your objects that you want to store. Point 1 is correct. I'd expand point 2 to say "All properties that you want to store must be public and read/write" (for integer properties you can get away with having read only properties and it won't try to save them) but you don't actually have to inherit from TableServiceEntity.
TableServiceEntity is just a very light class that has the properties PartitionKey, RowKey, Timestamp and is decorated with the DataServiceKey attribute (take a look with Reflector). All of these things you can do to a class that you create yourself and doesn't inherit from TableServiceEntity (note that the casing of these properties is important).
If this still doesn't give you enough control over how you build your classes, you can always ignore the Storage Client Library and just use the REST API directly. This will give you the ability to searialize and deserialize the XML any which way you like. You will lose the all of the nice things that come with using the library, like ability to create queries in LINQ.
The constraints around that ADO.NET wrapper for the Table Storage are indeed somewhat painful. You can also adopt a Fat Entity approach as implemented in Lokad.Cloud. This will give you much more flexibility concerning the serialization of your entities.
Just don't use inheritance.
If you want to use your own POCO's, create your class as you want it and create a separate tableEntity wrapper/container class that holds the pK and rK and carries your class as a serialized byte array.
You can use composition to achieve what you want.
Create your Table Entities as you need to for storage and create your POCOs as wrappers on those providing the API you want the rest of your application code to see.
You can even mix in some interfaces for better code.
How about generating the POCO wrappers at runtime using System.Reflection.Emit http://blog.kloud.com.au/2012/09/30/a-better-dynamic-tableserviceentity/
I had a discussion at work regarding "Inheritance in domain model is complicating developers life". I'm an OO programmer so I started to look for arguments that having inheritance in domain model will ease the developer life actually instead of having switches all over the place.
What I would like to see is this :
class Animal {
}
class Cat : Animal {
}
class Dog : Animal {
}
What the other colleague is saying is :
public enum AnimalType {
Unknown,
Cat,
Dog
}
public class Animal {
public AnimalType Type { get; set; }
}
How do I convince him (links are WELCOME ) that a class hierarchy would be better than having a enum property for this kind of situations?
Thanks!
Here is how I reason about it:
Only use inheritance if the role/type will never change.
e.g.
using inheritance for things like:
Fireman <- Employee <- Person is wrong.
as soon as Freddy the fireman changes job or becomes unemployed, you have to kill him and recreate a new object of the new type with all of the old relations attached to it.
So the naive solution to the above problem would be to give a JobTitle enum property to the person class.
This can be enough in some scenarios, e.g. if you don't need very complex behaviors associated with the role/type.
The more correct way would be to give the person class a list of roles.
Each role represents e.g an employment with a time span.
e.g.
freddy.Roles.Add(new Employement( employmentDate, jobTitle ));
or if that is overkill:
freddy.CurrentEmployment = new Employement( employmentDate, jobTitle );
This way , Freddy can become a developer w/o we having to kill him first.
However, all my ramblings still haven't answered if you should use an enum or type hierarchy for the jobtitle.
In pure in mem OO I'd say that it's more correct to use inheritance for the jobtitles here.
But if you are doing O/R mapping you might end up with a bit overcomplex data model behind the scenes if the mapper tries to map each sub type to a new table.
So in such cases, I often go for the enum approach if there is no real/complex behavior associated with the types.
I can live with a "if type == JobTitles.Fireman ..." if the usage is limited and it makes things easer or less complex.
e.g. the Entity Framework 4 designer for .NET can only map each sub type to a new table. and you might get an ugly model or alot of joins when you query your database w/o any real benefit.
However I do use inheritance if the type/role is static.
e.g. for Products.
you might have CD <- Product and Book <- Product.
Inheritance wins here because in this case you most likely have different state associated with the types.
CD might have a number of tracks property while a book might have number of pages property.
So in short, it depends ;-)
Also, at the end of the day you will most likely end up with a lot of switch statements either way.
Let's say you want to edit a "Product" , even if you use inheritance, you will probably have code like this:
if (product is Book)
Response.Redicted("~/EditBook.aspx?id" + product.id);
Because encoding the edit book url in the entity class would be plain ugly since it would force your business entites to know about your site structure etc.
Having an enum is like throwing a party for all those Open/Closed Principle is for suckers people.
It invites you to check if an animal is of a certain type and then apply custom logic for each type. And that can render horrible code, which makes it hard to continue building on your system.
Why?
Doing "if this type, do this, else do that" prevents good code.
Any time you introduce a new type, all those ifs get invalid if the new type is not handled. In larger systems, it's hard to find all those ifs, which will lead to bugs eventually.
A much better approach is to use small, well-defined feature interfaces (Interface segregation principle).
Then you will only have an if but no 'else' since all concretes can implement a specific feature.
Compare
if (animal is ICanFly flyer)
flyer.Sail();
to
// A bird and a fly are fundamentally different implementations
// but both can fly.
if (animal is Bird b)
b.Sail();
else if (animal is Fly f)
b.Sail();
See? the former one needs to be checked once while the latter has to be checked for every animal that can fly.
Enums are good when:
The set of values is fixed and never or very rarely changes.
You want to be able to represent a union of values (i.e. combining flags).
You don't need to attach other state to each value. (Java doesn't have this limitation.)
If you could solve your problem with a number, an enum is likely a good fit and more type safe. If you need any more flexibility than the above, then enums are likely not the right answer. Using polymorphic classes, you can:
Statically ensure that all type-specific behavior is handled. For example, if you need all animals to be able to Bark(), making Animal classes with an abstract Bark() method will let the compiler check for you that each subclass implements it. If you use an enum and a big switch, it won't ensure that you've handled every case.
You can add new cases (types of animals in your example). This can be done across source files, and even across package boundaries. With an enum, once you've declared it, it's frozen. Open-ended extension is one of the primary strengths of OOP.
It's important to note that your colleague's example is not in direct opposition to yours. If he wants an animal's type to be an exposed property (which is useful for some things), you can still do that without using an enum, using the type object pattern:
public abstract class AnimalType {
public static AnimalType Unknown { get; private set; }
public static AnimalType Cat { get; private set; }
public static AnimalType Dog { get; private set; }
static AnimalType() {
Unknown = new AnimalType("Unknown");
Cat = new AnimalType("Cat");
Dog = new AnimalType("Dog");
}
}
public class Animal {
public AnimalType Type { get; set; }
}
This gives you the convenience of an enum: you can do AnimalType.Cat and you can get the type of an animal. But it also gives you the flexibility of classes: you can add fields to AnimalType to store additional data with each type, add virtual methods, etc. More importantly, you can define new animal types by just creating new instances of AnimalType.
I'd urge you to reconsider: in an anemic domain model (per the comments above), cats don't behave differently than dogs, so there's no polymorphism. An animal's type really is just an attribute. It's hard to see what inheritance buys you there.
Most importantly OOPS means modeling reality. Inheritance gives you the opportunity to say Cat is an animal. Animal should not know if its a cat now shout it and then decide that it is suppose to Meow and not Bark, Encapsulation gets defeated there. Less code as now you do not have to do If else as you said.
Both solutions are right.
You should look which techniques applies better to you problem.
If your program uses few different objects, and doesn't add new classes, its better to stay with enumerations.
But if you program uses a lot of different objects (different classes), and may add new classes, in the future, better try the inheritance way.
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.