Whats is best? Work with low-level methods receiving some arguments and dealing with it.
Or have a high-level interface in the objects that does exactly whats its name says?
eg.:
Low-level:
<?php
class Html {
public function renderSelect($name, $options) {
//
}
}
class Repository {
public function lists($repositoryName, $keyColumn, $valueColumn) {
//
}
}
# usage
$html->renderSelect('campaign_id', $repository->lists('campaigns', 'id', 'name'));
$html->renderSelect('account_id', $repository->lists('accounts', 'id', 'company'));
High-level:
<?php
class Html {
public function renderSelect($name, $options) {
//
}
public function renderCampaignsSelect() {
return $this->renderSelect('campaign_id', $repository->listsCampaigns());
}
public function renderAccountsSelect() {
return $this->renderSelect('account_id', $repository->listsAccounts());
}
}
class Repository {
public function lists($repositoryName, $keyColumn, $valueColumn) {
//
}
public function listsCampaigns() {
return $this->lists('campaigns', 'id', 'name');
}
public function listsAccounts() {
return $this->lists('accounts', 'id', 'company');
}
}
# usage
$html->renderCampaignsSelect();
$html->renderAccountsSelect();
Notably the high-level option will grow as applications scales, if more entities comes up, more methods will be needed, like: added Sponsor will have renderSponsorsSelect and listsSponsors. But its usage makes the code very smooth to read and we can do different implementations for each method.
What do you think?
Thanks.
Low-level (fine-grained) methods are more reusable. High-level(coarser granularity) methods are easier to use. I think the closer to the user interface layer the more higher level methods are preferred, it can hide implementation details and is easier to read as you metioned.
Use what you call "low-level" in generic API, frameworks. A kind of libraries designed to be used in many other projects in different domains.
Examples: Symfony, Zend Framework.
Use what you call "high-level" in domain models. Projects targeted to solve a specific problem. But instead of calling it high-level, say domain-specific or using ubiquitous language.
Examples: phpBB3, Wordpress, your site generaing funny pictures of cats with customised text.
Related
I'm using the Dunglas api-platform bundle (https://github.com/api-platform/api-platform) for a new app.
Setup and installation went fine, GET requests are working.
While trying to create new objects using POST requests, I received errors about having a private constructor. My models are all made using a private constructor, and using named constructors instead.
Ideally i'm either looking for a way to have the bundle call my Named constructors, ... or someone to tell me my approach is completely wrong.
Services.yml
services:
resource.player:
parent: "api.resource"
arguments: [ "Name\\Space\\Player" ]
tags: [ { name: "api.resource" } ]
Player Object
class Player
{
private $name;
private function __construct()
{
}
public static function withName($playerName)
{
$player = new Player();
$player->name = $playerName;
return $player;
}
public function getName()
{
return $this->name;
}
}
Settings are pretty much all out of the box, following the introduction and setup in the documentation. I've skimmed through the Factory thing briefly - hoping that i'd be able to use a factory to create the objects, allowing me to call my own named constructors - but that doesn't seem to do what i think it does.
Any input regarding the use, boundaries or the setup is well appreciated.
API Platform (like most Symfony and Doctrine related libraries) is not designed to work with immutable objects like this one.
I suggest to create a typical mutable Entity as suggested in the doc:
class Player
{
private $name;
public static function setName($playerName)
{
$this->name = $playerName;
}
public function getName()
{
return $this->name;
}
}
If you really want to keep your immutable model, you'll need to implement yourself the Symfony\Component\PropertyAccess\PropertyAccessorInterface and use a CompilerPass to make API Platform using your own implementation. You will probably need to submit a patch to API Platform and to the Symfony Serializer Component to update the reference of the given object too because currently, both serializers actually update the current object and will not use the new instance returned by your with method.
I strongly encourage you to switch to typical mutable entities.
I have an application with several graphs and tables on it.
I worked fast and just made classes like Graph and Table that each contained a request object (pseudo-code):
class Graph {
private request;
public function setDateRange(dateRange) {
request.setDateRange(dateRange);
}
public function refresh() {
request.getData(function() {
//refresh the display
});
}
}
Upon a GUI event (say, someone changes the date range dropdown), I'd just call the setters on the Graph instance and then refresh it. Well, when I added other GUI elements like tables and whatnot, they all basically had similar methods (setDateRange and other things common to the request).
What are some more elegant OOP ways of doing this?
The application is very simple and I don't want to over-architect it, but I also don't want to have a bunch of classes with basically the same methods that are just routing to a request object. I also don't want to set up each GUI class as inheriting from the request class, but I'm open to any ideas really.
As you commented the methods are identical. In that case I would suggest the following approach.
abstract class AbstractGUIElement {
protected request;
public function setDateRange(dateRange) {
request.setDateRange(dateRange);
}
abstract function refresh();
}
Refreshing would probably be element specific so I have added it as an abstract method the inheriting types have to implement.
class Graph extends AbstractGUIElement {
public function refresh() {
// Graph specific refreshing
}
}
OOP interfaces.
In my own experience I find interfaces very useful when it comes to design and implement multiple inter-operating modules with multiple developers. For example, if there are two developers, one working on backend and other on frontend (UI) then they can start working in parallel once they have interfaces finalized. Thus, if everyone follows the defined contract then the integration later becomes painless. And thats what interfaces precisely do - define the contract!
Basically it avoids this situation :
Interfaces are very useful when you need a class to operate on generic methods implemented by subclasses.
public class Person
{
public void Eat(IFruit fruit)
{
Console.WriteLine("The {0} is delicious!",fruit.Name);
}
}
public interface IFruit
{
string Name { get; }
}
public class Apple : IFruit
{
public string Name
{
get { return "Apple"; }
}
}
public class Strawberry : IFruit
{
public string Name
{
get { return "Strawberry"; }
}
}
Interfaces are very useful, in case of multiple inheritance.
An Interface totally abstracts away the implementation knowledge from the client.
It allows us to change their behavior dynamically. This means how it will act depends on dynamic specialization (or substitution).
It prevents the client from being broken if the developer made some changes
to implementation or added new specialization/implementation.
It gives an open way to extend an implementation.
Programming language (C#, java )
These languages do not support multiple inheritance from classes, however, they do support multiple inheritance from interfaces; this is yet another advantage of an interface.
Basically Interfaces allow a Program to change the Implementation without having to tell all clients that they now need a "Bar" Object instead of a "Foo" Object. It tells the users of this class what it does, not what it is.
Example:
A Method you wrote wants to loop through the values given to it. Now there are several things you can iterate over, like Lists, Arrays and Collections.
Without Interfaces you would have to write:
public class Foo<T>
{
public void DoSomething(T items[])
{
}
public void DoSomething(List<T> items)
{
}
public void DoSomething(SomeCollectionType<T> items)
{
}
}
And for every new iteratable type you'd have to add another method or the user of your class would have to cast his data. For example with this solution if he has a Collection of FooCollectionType he has to cast it to an Array, List or SomeOtherCollectionType.
With interfaces you only need:
public class Foo<T>
{
public void DoSomething(IEnumerable<T> items)
{
}
}
This means your class only has to know that, whatever the user passes to it can be iterated over. If the user changes his SomeCollectionType to AnotherCollectionType he neither has to cast nor change your class.
Take note that abstract base classes allow for the same sort of abstraction but have some slight differences in usage.
To show an example what is this question about:
I have currently a dilemma in PHP project I'm working on. I have in mind a method that will be used by multiple classes (UIs in this case - MVC model), but I'm not sure how to represent such methods in OO design. The first thing that came into my mind was to create a class with static functions that I'd call whenever I need them. However I'm not sure if it's the right thing to do.
To be more precise, I want to work, for example, with time. So I'll need several methods that handle time. I was thinking about creating a Time class where I'd be functions that check whether the time is in correct format etc.
Some might say that I shouldn't use class for this at all, since in PHP I can still use procedural code. But I'm more interested in answer that would enlighten me how to approach such situations in OOP / OOD.
So the actual questions are: How to represent such methods? Is static function approach good enough or should I reconsider anything else?
I would recommend creating a normal class the contains this behavior, and then let that class implement an interface extracted from the class' members.
Whenever you need to call those methods, you inject the interface (not the concrete class) into the consumer. This lets you vary the two independently of each other.
This may sound like more work, but is simply the Strategy design pattern applied.
This will also make it much easier to unit test the code, because the code is more loosely coupled.
Here's an example in C#.
Interface:
public interface ITimeMachine
{
IStopwatch CreateStopwatch();
DateTimeOffset GetNow();
}
Production implementation:
public class RealTimeMachine : ITimeMachine
{
#region ITimeMachine Members
public IStopwatch CreateStopwatch()
{
return new StopwatchAdapter();
}
public DateTimeOffset GetNow()
{
return DateTimeOffset.Now;
}
#endregion
}
and here's a consumer of the interface:
public abstract class PerformanceRecordingSession : IDisposable
{
private readonly IStopwatch watch;
protected PerformanceRecordingSession(ITimeMachine timeMachine)
{
if (timeMachine == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException("timeMachine");
}
this.watch = timeMachine.CreateStopwatch();
this.watch.Start();
}
public abstract void Record(long elapsedTicks);
public virtual void StopRecording()
{
this.watch.Stop();
this.Record(this.watch.ElapsedTicks);
}
}
Although you say you want a structure for arbitrary, unrelated functions, you have given an example of a Time class, which has many related functions. So from an OO point of view you would create a Time class and have a static function getCurrentTime(), for example, which returns an instance of this class. Or you could define that the constuctors default behaviour is to return the current time, whichever you like more. Or both.
class DateTime {
public static function getNow() {
return new self();
}
public function __construct() {
$this->setDateTime('now');
}
public function setDateTime($value) {
#...
}
}
But apart from that, there is already a builtin DateTime class in PHP.
Use a class as a namespace. So yes, have a static class.
class Time {
public static function getCurrentTime() {
return time() + 42;
}
}
I don't do PHP, but from an OO point of view, placing these sorts of utility methods as static methods is fine. If they are completely reusable in nature, consider placing them in a utils class.
I am writing a number of small, simple applications which share a common structure and need to do some of the same things in the same ways (e.g. logging, database connection setup, environment setup) and I'm looking for some advice in structuring the reusable components. The code is written in a strongly and statically typed language (e.g. Java or C#, I've had to solve this problem in both). At the moment I've got this:
abstract class EmptyApp //this is the reusable bit
{
//various useful fields: loggers, db connections
abstract function body()
function run()
{
//do setup
this.body()
//do cleanup
}
}
class theApp extends EmptyApp //this is a given app
{
function body()
{
//do stuff using some fields from EmptyApp
}
function main()
{
theApp app = new theApp()
app.run()
}
}
Is there a better way? Perhaps as follows? I'm having trouble weighing the trade-offs...
abstract class EmptyApp
{
//various fields
}
class ReusableBits
{
static function doSetup(EmptyApp theApp)
static function doCleanup(EmptyApp theApp)
}
class theApp extends EmptyApp
{
function main()
{
ReusableBits.doSetup(this);
//do stuff using some fields from EmptyApp
ReusableBits.doCleanup(this);
}
}
One obvious tradeoff is that with option 2, the 'framework' can't wrap the app in a try-catch block...
I've always favored re-use through composition (your second option) rather than inheritance (your first option).
Inheritance should only be used when there is a relationship between the classes rather than for code reuse.
So for your example I would have multiple ReusableBits classes each doing 1 thing that each application a make use of as/when required.
This allows each application to re-use the parts of your framework that are relevant for that specific application without being forced to take everything, Allowing the individual applications more freedom. Re-use through inheritance can sometimes become very restrictive if you have some applications in the future that don't exactly fit into the structure you have in mind today.
You will also find unit testing and test driven development much easier if you break your framework up into separate utilities.
Why not make the framework call onto your customisable code ? So your client creates some object, and injects it into the framework. The framework initialises, calls setup() etc., and then calls your client's code. Upon completion (or even after a thrown exception), the framework then calls cleanup() and exits.
So your client would simply implement an interface such as (in Java)
public interface ClientCode {
void runClientStuff(); // for the sake of argument
}
and the framework code is configured with an implementation of this, and calls runClientStuff() whenever required.
So you don't derive from the application framework, but simply provide a class conforming to a particular contract. You can configure the application setup at runtime (e.g. what class the client will provide to the app) since you're not deriving from the app and so your dependency isn't static.
The above interface can be extended to have multiple methods, and the application can call the required methods at different stages in the lifecycle (e.g. to provide client-specific setup/cleanup) but that's an example of feature creep :-)
Remember, inheritance is only a good choice if all the object that are inheriting reuse the code duo to their similarities. or if you want callers to be able to interact with them in the same fission.
if what i just mentioned applies to you then based on my experience its always better to have the common logic in your base/abstract class.
this is how i would re-write your sample app in C#.
abstract class BaseClass
{
string field1 = "Hello World";
string field2 = "Goodbye World";
public void Start()
{
Console.WriteLine("Starting.");
Setup();
CustomWork();
Cleanup();
}
public virtual void Setup()
{Console.WriteLine("Doing Base Setup.");}
public virtual void Cleanup()
{Console.WriteLine("Doing Base Cleanup.");}
public abstract void CustomWork();
}
class MyClass : BaseClass
{
public override void CustomWork()
{Console.WriteLine("Doing Custome work.");}
public override void Cleanup()
{
Console.WriteLine("Doing Custom Cleanup");
//You can skip the next line if you want to replace the
//cleanup code rather than extending it
base.Cleanup();
}
}
void Main()
{
MyClass worker = new MyClass();
worker.Start();
}