This question already has answers here:
Java Interfaces Methodology: Should every class implement an interface?
(13 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
I have been doing OOP for a quite while and I got confused with usages of interfaces after an argument with a colleague few days before.
Basically, I have been using interfaces when I apply design patterns, especially when there are multiple classes implementing common features.
In my application, there is Hibernate layer and few Sevices classes as example UserService, CompanyService, etc.
The question was whether we keep, separate interfaces also for each Service classes. Such as UserServiceContract, CompanyContract and etc.
My colleague argument was, there is no need to have interfaces.
I came across that in this tutorial also, the author has used interfaces. But there is no common interface that implements several classes only once.
example interface implentation
The benefit of using the interfaces was in this situation, it improves the code structure. Yes, there is IDE features that show what methods available for a class. But, I still want to get your guys idea too about this.
When you are talking design patterns and best coding practices, needing is not what you should be asking yourself. You do not need most of what you do, at least not immediately. Of course you do not know whether you will need different implementations of that contract until you actually do. So this is not a question of what you need right now. This is a question of what you will wish you had later.
What you have seen in the link you posted is the D in SOLID: the Dependency Inversion Principle:
Depend on abstractions, not on implementations.
You are better safe than sorry, you know.
EDIT: Also, I would advise against sufixes for interfaces (or prefixes). If you will be using the interface instead of the implementation, make the interface's name clean. A common choice would be, in your case, UserService for the interface and UserServiceImpl for the implementation.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Understanding #Protocols in Objective-C
Objective C protocols usage
I just started learning objective C and I do not seem to get my head around protocols very well. My understanding of Protocols in objective-C is that, you specify some method definition without actually writing the code for it. What that means is that, whoever decides to inherit my class must implement all my required methods.
My question here is that, Isn't protocols creating an extra over-head which is not really needed. If I need a method in my new class I can just implement it. Why do I need to inherit from a protocol?
Why cant I just ignore using protocols and just create methods as I need them.
Among other things, protocols are a way of letting the compiler help you avoid common errors. In this case, you can specify that one class will be calling specific methods on another class (often a delegate). The compiler will then check to make sure the other class (delegate) actually implements those methods and, if not, give you a warning message. Getting a message at compile time is preferable to crashing at runtime due to an undefined selector (method).
My question here is that, Isn't protocols creating an extra over-head which is not really needed.
there is no added overhead.
If I need a method in my new class I can just implement it. Why do I need to inherit from a protocol?
well, you can certainly declare a subclass for your common implementation, if that is an ideal path for your needs. if you try this, you will likely run into the issues i outline below.
protocols are often used because they are not actual physical types. it is an interface of methods and/or other protocols. usually, they are small and specialized. since objc does not offer multiple inheritance, protocols come in really handy for short extensions.
look at types which are complex subclasses and inherit one or more protocols; take NSString <NSCoding, NSCopying, NSMutableCopying, NSObject> as an example. knowing that objc uses single inheritance, consider how you would implement this class and 'inherit' from all those protocols - then consider the effect it would have on clients when passing those types after you have implemented this for all Foundation types. the class hierarchy and interfaces get very messy. the number of variations in many classes would explode to accommodate all those types as parameters. most people would stop before that point, and just drop type safety -- also a very bad idea. with a protocol, you can have "implements this interface" and type safety all in a simple language feature (multiple inheritance gets quite ugly quite quickly).
This question already has answers here:
Closed 12 years ago.
Possible Duplicates:
Using “Base” in a Class Name
C# Class naming convention: Is it BaseClass or ClassBase or AbstractClass
Naming Conventions for Abstract Classes
What is the better way to name base abstract classes? I still can't decide where to put 'Base' word. Should it be 'BaseMyClass' or 'MyClassBase'?
How do you name those and why?
Imagine if you have a chain of abstract classes, would you call it MyClassBaseBaseBase then?
Avoid the use of "Base" in your name if you can. You have an abstract base class because it's somehow more generic than your concrete implementation. Name it in a more generic way then, describing what common ground it supplies for deriving classes.
If the above cant be done for some reason, I agree with the previous poster; use MyClassBase.
Subjective... But ok. This is my perception of things: BaseMyClass sounds like an imperative: "Base my class! Now!" :)
Whereas MyClassBase is clearer... a class that is a Base
MyClassBase is the way to go.
This is subjective but calling it MyClassBase brings readabilty and symmetry in design.
I wouldn't use the words "Base", "My" or "Class" at all but chose a name for the interface that actually describes what it is.
Not sure if this is correct but when I name my base class I want that just by looking at the class name one should understand that this is meant to be inherited. like I have two versions of webpart(GoogleSearch) one for mobile and other for normal brower then I would create an abstract base named GoogleSearchWebpartBase and name the webparts as MobileGoogleSearch and GoogleSearch.
A choice between between MyClassBase and BaseMyClass is like asking whether I'd prefer a kick in the nuts or a punch in the face.
I don't wish to offend, but both those names are awful. Specifically, there is no reason to include Class in the class name (unless you're modelling an eduction system). If you really need to use the class name to indicate it can't be instantiated, I would prefer to use the term Abstract, rather than Base.
As a general rule, look at how the standard libraries are named and follow that convention. If your standard libraries have names like MyClassBase and BaseMyClass, then naming is the least of your problems.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
What is the exact problem with multiple inheritance?
Why is multiple inheritance considered to be evil while implementing multiple interfaces is not? Especially when once considers that interfaces are simply pure abstract classes?
(More or less) duplicate of What is the exact problem with multiple inheritance?, Multiple Inheritance in C#, and some others...
The common problem with multiple inheritance is the "diamond problem".
A
/ \
B c
\ /
D
If a virtual method in A is implemented by both B and C, which one do you get when you create D?
The reason this isn't a problem with interfaces is because interfaces don't have implementations, so if A/B/C are all interfaces, then D chooses how to implement the A methods in whatever manner is appropriate.
It's perceived to be evil because it's just more complex and raises more issues than people typically expect, especially where base classes are not purely abstract (no data members). Diamond inheritance can be solved using virtual inheritance, where a common base is shared. And compilers can catch method signature collisions. Used well, it can produce elegant and DRY solutions that are otherwise more verbose to implement via interface and compositions/delegations.
One common MI idiom in C++ is for complex wrapper constructors where base contructor needs to be constructed with non-trivial member objects, and since base objects need to be constructed before member objects, the trick is to use MI (the "base from member" idiom.), otherwise you have to use a factory and more steps to do the construction like Java does (Java doesn't have MI for non-interface classes).
Don't be afraid of it and use it when appropriate (though it might take some practice to spot a good fit).
MI is not so much evil as a highly complex solution to a rare problem. In most cases there is a better way to get the same thing done.
How do you reconcile if A implements a method called z and b implements a method called z and you have:
child : a, b
now if my client code calls new child().z(). Which implementation is being called? I don't think its so much as that its evil it just raises a whole lot of sticky points and provides little value
Objective-C has no namespaces; it's much like C, everything is within one global namespace. Common practice is to prefix classes with initials, e.g. if you are working at IBM, you could prefix them with "IBM"; if you work for Microsoft, you could use "MS"; and so on. Sometimes the initials refer to the project, e.g. Adium prefixes classes with "AI" (as there is no company behind it of that you could take the initials). Apple prefixes classes with NS and says this prefix is reserved for Apple only.
So far so well. But appending 2 to 4 letters to a class name in front is a very, very limited namespace. E.g. MS or AI could have an entirely different meanings (AI could be Artificial Intelligence for example) and some other developer might decide to use them and create an equally named class. Bang, namespace collision.
Okay, if this is a collision between one of your own classes and one of an external framework you are using, you can easily change the naming of your class, no big deal. But what if you use two external frameworks, both frameworks that you don't have the source to and that you can't change? Your application links with both of them and you get name conflicts. How would you go about solving these? What is the best way to work around them in such a way that you can still use both classes?
In C you can work around these by not linking directly to the library, instead you load the library at runtime, using dlopen(), then find the symbol you are looking for using dlsym() and assign it to a global symbol (that you can name any way you like) and then access it through this global symbol. E.g. if you have a conflict because some C library has a function named open(), you could define a variable named myOpen and have it point to the open() function of the library, thus when you want to use the system open(), you just use open() and when you want to use the other one, you access it via the myOpen identifier.
Is something similar possible in Objective-C and if not, is there any other clever, tricky solution you can use resolve namespace conflicts? Any ideas?
Update:
Just to clarify this: answers that suggest how to avoid namespace collisions in advance or how to create a better namespace are certainly welcome; however, I will not accept them as the answer since they don't solve my problem. I have two libraries and their class names collide. I can't change them; I don't have the source of either one. The collision is already there and tips on how it could have been avoided in advance won't help anymore. I can forward them to the developers of these frameworks and hope they choose a better namespace in the future, but for the time being I'm searching a solution to work with the frameworks right now within a single application. Any solutions to make this possible?
Prefixing your classes with a unique prefix is fundamentally the only option but there are several ways to make this less onerous and ugly. There is a long discussion of options here. My favorite is the #compatibility_alias Objective-C compiler directive (described here). You can use #compatibility_alias to "rename" a class, allowing you to name your class using FQDN or some such prefix:
#interface COM_WHATEVER_ClassName : NSObject
#end
#compatibility_alias ClassName COM_WHATEVER_ClassName
// now ClassName is an alias for COM_WHATEVER_ClassName
#implementation ClassName //OK
//blah
#end
ClassName *myClass; //OK
As part of a complete strategy, you could prefix all your classes with a unique prefix such as the FQDN and then create a header with all the #compatibility_alias (I would imagine you could auto-generate said header).
The downside of prefixing like this is that you have to enter the true class name (e.g. COM_WHATEVER_ClassName above) in anything that needs the class name from a string besides the compiler. Notably, #compatibility_alias is a compiler directive, not a runtime function so NSClassFromString(ClassName) will fail (return nil)--you'll have to use NSClassFromString(COM_WHATERVER_ClassName). You can use ibtool via build phase to modify class names in an Interface Builder nib/xib so that you don't have to write the full COM_WHATEVER_... in Interface Builder.
Final caveat: because this is a compiler directive (and an obscure one at that), it may not be portable across compilers. In particular, I don't know if it works with the Clang frontend from the LLVM project, though it should work with LLVM-GCC (LLVM using the GCC frontend).
If you do not need to use classes from both frameworks at the same time, and you are targeting platforms which support NSBundle unloading (OS X 10.4 or later, no GNUStep support), and performance really isn't an issue for you, I believe that you could load one framework every time you need to use a class from it, and then unload it and load the other one when you need to use the other framework.
My initial idea was to use NSBundle to load one of the frameworks, then copy or rename the classes inside that framework, and then load the other framework. There are two problems with this. First, I couldn't find a function to copy the data pointed to rename or copy a class, and any other classes in that first framework which reference the renamed class would now reference the class from the other framework.
You wouldn't need to copy or rename a class if there were a way to copy the data pointed to by an IMP. You could create a new class and then copy over ivars, methods, properties and categories. Much more work, but it is possible. However, you would still have a problem with the other classes in the framework referencing the wrong class.
EDIT: The fundamental difference between the C and Objective-C runtimes is, as I understand it, when libraries are loaded, the functions in those libraries contain pointers to any symbols they reference, whereas in Objective-C, they contain string representations of the names of thsoe symbols. Thus, in your example, you can use dlsym to get the symbol's address in memory and attach it to another symbol. The other code in the library still works because you're not changing the address of the original symbol. Objective-C uses a lookup table to map class names to addresses, and it's a 1-1 mapping, so you can't have two classes with the same name. Thus, to load both classes, one of them must have their name changed. However, when other classes need to access one of the classes with that name, they will ask the lookup table for its address, and the lookup table will never return the address of the renamed class given the original class's name.
Several people have already shared some tricky and clever code that might help solve the problem. Some of the suggestions may work, but all of them are less than ideal, and some of them are downright nasty to implement. (Sometimes ugly hacks are unavoidable, but I try to avoid them whenever I can.) From a practical standpoint, here are my suggestions.
In any case, inform the developers of both frameworks of the conflict, and make it clear that their failure to avoid and/or deal with it is causing you real business problems, which could translate into lost business revenue if unresolved. Emphasize that while resolving existing conflicts on a per-class basis is a less intrusive fix, changing their prefix entirely (or using one if they're not currently, and shame on them!) is the best way to ensure that they won't see the same problem again.
If the naming conflicts are limited to a reasonably small set of classes, see if you can work around just those classes, especially if one of the conflicting classes isn't being used by your code, directly or indirectly. If so, see whether the vendor will provide a custom version of the framework that doesn't include the conflicting classes. If not, be frank about the fact that their inflexibility is reducing your ROI from using their framework. Don't feel bad about being pushy within reason — the customer is always right. ;-)
If one framework is more "dispensable", you might consider replacing it with another framework (or combination of code), either third-party or homebrew. (The latter is the undesirable worst-case, since it will certainly incur additional business costs, both for development and maintenance.) If you do, inform the vendor of that framework exactly why you decided to not use their framework.
If both frameworks are deemed equally indispensable to your application, explore ways to factor out usage of one of them to one or more separate processes, perhaps communicating via DO as Louis Gerbarg suggested. Depending on the degree of communication, this may not be as bad as you might expect. Several programs (including QuickTime, I believe) use this approach to provide more granular security provided by using Seatbelt sandbox profiles in Leopard, such that only a specific subset of your code is permitted to perform critical or sensitive operations. Performance will be a tradeoff, but may be your only option
I'm guessing that licensing fees, terms, and durations may prevent instant action on any of these points. Hopefully you'll be able to resolve the conflict as soon as possible. Good luck!
This is gross, but you could use distributed objects in order to keep one of the classes only in a subordinate programs address and RPC to it. That will get messy if you are passing a ton of stuff back and forth (and may not be possible if both class are directly manipulating views, etc).
There are other potential solutions, but a lot of them depend on the exact situation. In particular, are you using the modern or legacy runtimes, are you fat or single architecture, 32 or 64 bit, what OS releases are you targeting, are you dynamically linking, statically linking, or do you have a choice, and is it potentially okay to do something that might require maintenance for new software updates.
If you are really desperate, what you could do is:
Not link against one of the libraries directly
Implement an alternate version of the objc runtime routines that changes the name at load time (checkout the objc4 project, what exactly you need to do depends on a number of the questions I asked above, but it should be possible no matter what the answers are).
Use something like mach_override to inject your new implementation
Load the new library using normal methods, it will go through the patched linker routine and get its className changed
The above is going to be pretty labor intensive, and if you need to implement it against multiple archs and different runtime versions it will be very unpleasant, but it can definitely be made to work.
Have you considered using the runtime functions (/usr/include/objc/runtime.h) to clone one of the conflicting classes to a non-colliding class, and then loading the colliding class framework? (this would require the colliding frameworks to be loaded at different times to work.)
You can inspect the classes ivars, methods (with names and implementation addresses) and names with the runtime, and create your own as well dynamically to have the same ivar layout, methods names/implementation addresses, and only differ by name (to avoid the collision)
Desperate situations call for desperate measures. Have you considered hacking the object code (or library file) of one of the libraries, changing the colliding symbol to an alternative name - of the same length but a different spelling (but, recommendation, the same length of name)? Inherently nasty.
It isn't clear if your code is directly calling the two functions with the same name but different implementations or whether the conflict is indirect (nor is it clear whether it makes any difference). However, there's at least an outside chance that renaming would work. It might be an idea, too, to minimize the difference in the spellings, so that if the symbols are in a sorted order in a table, the renaming doesn't move things out of order. Things like binary search get upset if the array they're searching isn't in sorted order as expected.
#compatibility_alias will be able to solve class namespace conflicts, e.g.
#compatibility_alias NewAliasClass OriginalClass;
However, this will not resolve any of the enums, typedefs, or protocol namespace collisions. Furthermore, it does not play well with #class forward decls of the original class. Since most frameworks will come with these non-class things like typedefs, you would likely not be able to fix the namespacing problem with just compatibility_alias.
I looked at a similar problem to yours, but I had access to source and was building the frameworks.
The best solution I found for this was using #compatibility_alias conditionally with #defines to support the enums/typedefs/protocols/etc. You can do this conditionally on the compile unit for the header in question to minimize risk of expanding stuff in the other colliding framework.
It seems that the issue is that you can't reference headers files from both systems in the same translation unit (source file). If you create objective-c wrappers around the libraries (making them more usable in the process), and only #include the headers for each library in the implementation of the wrapper classes, that would effectively separate name collisions.
I don't have enough experience with this in objective-c (just getting started), but I believe that is what I would do in C.
Prefixing the files is the simplest solution I am aware of.
Cocoadev has a namespace page which is a community effort to avoid namespace collisions.
Feel free to add your own to this list, I believe that is what it is for.
http://www.cocoadev.com/index.pl?ChooseYourOwnPrefix
If you have a collision, I would suggest you think hard about how you might refactor one of the frameworks out of your application. Having a collision suggests that the two are doing similar things as it is, and you likely could get around using an extra framework simply by refactoring your application. Not only would this solve your namespace problem, but it would make your code more robust, easier to maintain, and more efficient.
Over a more technical solution, if I were in your position this would be my choice.
If the collision is only at the static link level then you can choose which library is used to resolve symbols:
cc foo.o -ldog bar.o -lcat
If foo.o and bar.o both reference the symbol rat then libdog will resolve foo.o's rat and libcat will resolve bar.o's rat.
Just a thought.. not tested or proven and could be way of the mark but in have you considered writing an adapter for the class's you use from the simpler of the frameworks.. or at least their interfaces?
If you were to write a wrapper around the simpler of the frameworks (or the one who's interfaces you access the least) would it not be possible to compile that wrapper into a library. Given the library is precompiled and only its headers need be distributed, You'd be effectively hiding the underlying framework and would be free to combine it with the second framework with clashing.
I appreciate of course that there are likely to be times when you need to use class's from both frameworks at the same time however, you could provide factories for further class adapters of that framework. On the back of that point I guess you'd need a bit of refactoring to extract out the interfaces you are using from both frameworks which should provide a nice starting point for you to build your wrapper.
You could build upon the library as you and when you need further functionality from the wrapped library, and simply recompile when you it changes.
Again, in no way proven but felt like adding a perspective. hope it helps :)
If you have two frameworks that have the same function name, you could try dynamically loading the frameworks. It'll be inelegant, but possible. How to do it with Objective-C classes, I don't know. I'm guessing the NSBundle class will have methods that'll load a specific class.