Related
When doing IoC, I (think that I) understand its use for getting the desired application level functionality by composing the right parts, and the benefits for testability. But at the microlevel, I don't quite understand how to make sure that an object gets dependencies injected that it can actually work with. My example for this is a BackupMaker for a database.
To make a backup, the database needs to be exported in a specific format, compressed using a specific compression algorithm, and then packed together with some metadata to form the final binary. Doing all of these tasks seems to be far from a single responsibility, so I ended up with two collaborators: a DatabaseExporter and a Compressor.
The BackupMaker doesn't really care how the database is exported (e.g. using IPC to a utility that comes with the database software, or by doing the right API calls) but it does care a lot about the result, i.e. it needs to be a this-kind-of-database backup in the first place, in the transportable (version agnostic) format, either of which I don't really know how to wrap in a contract. Neither does it care if the compressor does the compression in memory or on disk, but it has to be BZip2.
If I give the BackupMaker the wrong kinds of exporter or compressor, it will still produce a result, but it will be corrupt - it'll look like a backup, but it won't have the format that it should have. It feels like no other part of the system can be trusted to give it those collaborators, because the BackupMaker won't be able to guarantee to do the right thing itself; its job (from my perspective) is to produce a valid backup and it won't if the circumstances ain't right, and worse, it won't know about it. At the same time, even when writing this, it seems to me that I'm saying something stupid now, because the whole point of single responsibilities is that every piece should do its job and not worry about the jobs of others. If it were that simple though, there would be no need for contracts - J.B. Rainsberger just taught me there is. (FYI, I sent him this question directly, but I haven't got a reply yet and more opinions on the matter would be great.)
Intuitively, my favorite option would be to make it impossible to combine classes/objects in an invalid way, but I don't see how to do that. Should I write horrendously specific interface names, like IDatabaseExportInSuchAndSuchFormatProducer and ICompressorUsingAlgorithmXAndParametersY and assume that no classes implement these if they don't behave as such, and then call it a day since nothing can be done about outright lying code? Should I go as far as the mundane task of dissecting the binary format of my database's exports and compression algorithms to have contract tests to verify not only syntax but behavior as well, and then be sure (but how?) to use only tested classes? Or can I somehow redistribute the responsibilities to make this issue go away? Should there be another class whose responsibility it is to compose the right lower level elements? Or am I even decomposing too much?
Rewording
I notice that much attention is given to this very particular example. My question is more general than that, however. Therefore, for the final day of the bounty, I will try to summarize is as follows.
When using dependency injection, by definition, an object depends on other objects for what it needs. In many book examples, the way to indicate compatibility - the capability to provide that need - is by using the type system (e.g. implementing an interface). Beyond that, and especially in dynamic languages, contract tests are used. The compiler (if present) checks the syntax, and the contract tests (that the programmer needs to remember about) verify the semantics. So far, so good. However, sometimes the semantics are still too simple to ensure that some class/object is usable as a dependency to another, or too complicated to be described properly in a contract.
In my example, my class with a dependency on a database exporter considers anything that implements IDatabaseExportInSuchAndSuchFormatProducer and returns bytes as valid (since I don't know how to verify the format). Is very specific naming and such a very rough contract the way to go or can I do better than that? Should I turn the contract test into an integration test? Perhaps (integration) test the composition of all three? I'm not really trying to be generic but am trying to keep responsibilities separate and maintain testability.
What you have discovered in your question is that you have 2 classes that have an implicit dependency on one another. So, the most practical solution is to make the dependency explicit.
There are a number of ways you could do this.
Option 1
The simplest option is to make one service depend on the other, and make the dependent service explicit in its abstraction.
Pros
Few types to implement and maintain.
The compression service could be skipped for a particular implementation just by leaving it out of the constructor.
The DI container is in charge of lifetime management.
Cons
May force an unnatural dependency into a type where it is not really needed.
public class MySqlExporter : IExporter
{
private readonly IBZip2Compressor compressor;
public MySqlExporter(IBZip2Compressor compressor)
{
this.compressor = compressor;
}
public void Export(byte[] data)
{
byte[] compressedData = this.compressor.Compress(data);
// Export implementation
}
}
Option 2
Since you want to make an extensible design that doesn't directly depend on a specific compression algorithm or database, you can use an Aggregate Service (which implements the Facade Pattern) to abstract the more specific configuration away from your BackupMaker.
As pointed out in the article, you have an implicit domain concept (coordination of dependencies) that needs to be realized as an explicit service, IBackupCoordinator.
Pros
The DI container is in charge of lifetime management.
Leaving compression out of a particular implementation is as easy as passing the data through the method.
Explicitly implements a domain concept that you are missing, namely coordination of dependencies.
Cons
Many types to build and maintain.
BackupManager must have 3 dependencies instead of 2 registered with the DI container.
Generic Interfaces
public interface IBackupCoordinator
{
void Export(byte[] data);
byte[] Compress(byte[] data);
}
public interface IBackupMaker
{
void Backup();
}
public interface IDatabaseExporter
{
void Export(byte[] data);
}
public interface ICompressor
{
byte[] Compress(byte[] data);
}
Specialized Interfaces
Now, to make sure the pieces only plug together one way, you need to make interfaces that are specific to the algorithm and database used. You can use interface inheritance to achieve this (as shown) or you can just hide the interface differences behind the facade (IBackupCoordinator).
public interface IBZip2Compressor : ICompressor
{}
public interface IGZipCompressor : ICompressor
{}
public interface IMySqlDatabaseExporter : IDatabaseExporter
{}
public interface ISqlServerDatabaseExporter : IDatabaseExporter
{}
Coordinator Implementation
The coordinators are what do the job for you. The subtle difference between implementations is that the interface dependencies are explicitly called out so you cannot inject the wrong type with your DI configuration.
public class BZip2ToMySqlBackupCoordinator : IBackupCoordinator
{
private readonly IMySqlDatabaseExporter exporter;
private readonly IBZip2Compressor compressor;
public BZip2ToMySqlBackupCoordinator(
IMySqlDatabaseExporter exporter,
IBZip2Compressor compressor)
{
this.exporter = exporter;
this.compressor = compressor;
}
public void Export(byte[] data)
{
this.exporter.Export(byte[] data);
}
public byte[] Compress(byte[] data)
{
return this.compressor.Compress(data);
}
}
public class GZipToSqlServerBackupCoordinator : IBackupCoordinator
{
private readonly ISqlServerDatabaseExporter exporter;
private readonly IGZipCompressor compressor;
public BZip2ToMySqlBackupCoordinator(
ISqlServerDatabaseExporter exporter,
IGZipCompressor compressor)
{
this.exporter = exporter;
this.compressor = compressor;
}
public void Export(byte[] data)
{
this.exporter.Export(byte[] data);
}
public byte[] Compress(byte[] data)
{
return this.compressor.Compress(data);
}
}
BackupMaker Implementation
The BackupMaker can now be generic as it accepts any type of IBackupCoordinator to do the heavy lifting.
public class BackupMaker : IBackupMaker
{
private readonly IBackupCoordinator backupCoordinator;
public BackupMaker(IBackupCoordinator backupCoordinator)
{
this.backupCoordinator = backupCoordinator;
}
public void Backup()
{
// Get the data from somewhere
byte[] data = new byte[0];
// Compress the data
byte[] compressedData = this.backupCoordinator.Compress(data);
// Backup the data
this.backupCoordinator.Export(compressedData);
}
}
Note that even if your services are used in other places than BackupMaker, this neatly wraps them into one package that can be passed to other services. You don't necessarily need to use both operations just because you inject the IBackupCoordinator service. The only place where you might run into trouble is if using named instances in the DI configuration across different services.
Option 3
Much like Option 2, you could use a specialized form of Abstract Factory to coordinate the relationship between concrete IDatabaseExporter and IBackupMaker, which will fill the role of the dependency coordinator.
Pros
Few types to maintain.
Only 1 dependency to register in the DI container, making it simpler to deal with.
Moves lifetime management into the BackupMaker service, which makes it impossible to misconfigure DI in a way that will cause a memory leak.
Explicitly implements a domain concept that you are missing, namely coordination of dependencies.
Cons
Leaving compression out of a particular implementation requires you implement the Null object pattern.
The DI container is not in charge of lifetime management and each dependency instance is per request, which may not be ideal.
If your services have many dependencies, it may become unwieldy to inject them through the constructor of the CoordinationFactory implementations.
Interfaces
I am showing the factory implementation with a Release method for each type. This is to follow the Register, Resolve, and Release pattern which makes it effective for cleaning up dependencies. This becomes especially important if 3rd parties could implement the ICompressor or IDatabaseExporter types because it is unknown what kinds of dependencies they may have to clean up.
Do note however, that the use of the Release methods is totally optional with this pattern and excluding them will simplify the design quite a bit.
public interface IBackupCoordinationFactory
{
ICompressor CreateCompressor();
void ReleaseCompressor(ICompressor compressor);
IDatabaseExporter CreateDatabaseExporter();
void ReleaseDatabaseExporter(IDatabaseExporter databaseExporter);
}
public interface IBackupMaker
{
void Backup();
}
public interface IDatabaseExporter
{
void Export(byte[] data);
}
public interface ICompressor
{
byte[] Compress(byte[] data);
}
BackupCoordinationFactory Implementation
public class BZip2ToMySqlBackupCoordinationFactory : IBackupCoordinationFactory
{
public ICompressor CreateCompressor()
{
return new BZip2Compressor();
}
public void ReleaseCompressor(ICompressor compressor)
{
IDisposable disposable = compressor as IDisposable;
if (disposable != null)
{
disposable.Dispose();
}
}
public IDatabaseExporter CreateDatabaseExporter()
{
return new MySqlDatabseExporter();
}
public void ReleaseDatabaseExporter(IDatabaseExporter databaseExporter)
{
IDisposable disposable = databaseExporter as IDisposable;
if (disposable != null)
{
disposable.Dispose();
}
}
}
public class GZipToSqlServerBackupCoordinationFactory : IBackupCoordinationFactory
{
public ICompressor CreateCompressor()
{
return new GZipCompressor();
}
public void ReleaseCompressor(ICompressor compressor)
{
IDisposable disposable = compressor as IDisposable;
if (disposable != null)
{
disposable.Dispose();
}
}
public IDatabaseExporter CreateDatabaseExporter()
{
return new SqlServerDatabseExporter();
}
public void ReleaseDatabaseExporter(IDatabaseExporter databaseExporter)
{
IDisposable disposable = databaseExporter as IDisposable;
if (disposable != null)
{
disposable.Dispose();
}
}
}
BackupMaker Implementation
public class BackupMaker : IBackupMaker
{
private readonly IBackupCoordinationFactory backupCoordinationFactory;
public BackupMaker(IBackupCoordinationFactory backupCoordinationFactory)
{
this.backupCoordinationFactory = backupCoordinationFactory;
}
public void Backup()
{
// Get the data from somewhere
byte[] data = new byte[0];
// Compress the data
byte[] compressedData;
ICompressor compressor = this.backupCoordinationFactory.CreateCompressor();
try
{
compressedData = compressor.Compress(data);
}
finally
{
this.backupCoordinationFactory.ReleaseCompressor(compressor);
}
// Backup the data
IDatabaseExporter exporter = this.backupCoordinationFactory.CreateDatabaseExporter();
try
{
exporter.Export(compressedData);
}
finally
{
this.backupCoordinationFactory.ReleaseDatabaseExporter(exporter);
}
}
}
Option 4
Create a guard clause in your BackupMaker class to prevent non-matching types from being allowed, and throw an exception in the case they are not matched.
In C#, you can do this with attributes (which apply custom metadata to the class). Support for this option may or may not exist in other platforms.
Pros
Seamless - no extra types to configure in DI.
The logic for comparing whether types match could be expanded to include multiple attributes per type, if needed. So a single compressor could be used for multiple databases, for example.
100% of invalid DI configurations will cause an error (although you may wish to make the exception specify how to make the DI configuration work).
Cons
Leaving compression out of a particular backup configuration requires you implement the Null object pattern.
The business logic for comparing types is implemented in a static extension method, which makes it testable but impossible to swap with another implementation.
If the design is refactored so that ICompressor or IDatabaseExporter are not dependencies of the same service, this will no longer work.
Custom Attribute
In .NET, an attribute can be used to attach metadata to a type. We make a custom DatabaseTypeAttribute that we can compare the database type name with two different types to ensure they are compatible.
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Class, AllowMultiple = false)]
public DatabaseTypeAttribute : Attribute
{
public DatabaseTypeAttribute(string databaseType)
{
this.DatabaseType = databaseType;
}
public string DatabaseType { get; set; }
}
Concrete ICompressor and IDatabaseExporter Implementations
[DatabaseType("MySql")]
public class MySqlDatabaseExporter : IDatabaseExporter
{
public void Export(byte[] data)
{
// implementation
}
}
[DatabaseType("SqlServer")]
public class SqlServerDatabaseExporter : IDatabaseExporter
{
public void Export(byte[] data)
{
// implementation
}
}
[DatabaseType("MySql")]
public class BZip2Compressor : ICompressor
{
public byte[] Compress(byte[] data)
{
// implementation
}
}
[DatabaseType("SqlServer")]
public class GZipCompressor : ICompressor
{
public byte[] Compress(byte[] data)
{
// implementation
}
}
Extension Method
We roll the comparison logic into an extension method so every implementation of IBackupMaker automatically includes it.
public static class BackupMakerExtensions
{
public static bool DatabaseTypeAttributesMatch(
this IBackupMaker backupMaker,
Type compressorType,
Type databaseExporterType)
{
// Use .NET Reflection to get the metadata
DatabaseTypeAttribute compressorAttribute = (DatabaseTypeAttribute)compressorType
.GetCustomAttributes(attributeType: typeof(DatabaseTypeAttribute), inherit: true)
.SingleOrDefault();
DatabaseTypeAttribute databaseExporterAttribute = (DatabaseTypeAttribute)databaseExporterType
.GetCustomAttributes(attributeType: typeof(DatabaseTypeAttribute), inherit: true)
.SingleOrDefault();
// Types with no attribute are considered invalid even if they implement
// the corresponding interface
if (compressorAttribute == null) return false;
if (databaseExporterAttribute == null) return false;
return (compressorAttribute.DatabaseType.Equals(databaseExporterAttribute.DatabaseType);
}
}
BackupMaker Implementation
A guard clause ensures that 2 classes with non-matching metadata are rejected before the type instance is created.
public class BackupMaker : IBackupMaker
{
private readonly ICompressor compressor;
private readonly IDatabaseExporter databaseExporter;
public BackupMaker(ICompressor compressor, IDatabaseExporter databaseExporter)
{
// Guard to prevent against nulls
if (compressor == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("compressor");
if (databaseExporter == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("databaseExporter");
// Guard to prevent against non-matching attributes
if (!DatabaseTypeAttributesMatch(compressor.GetType(), databaseExporter.GetType()))
{
throw new ArgumentException(compressor.GetType().FullName +
" cannot be used in conjunction with " +
databaseExporter.GetType().FullName)
}
this.compressor = compressor;
this.databaseExporter = databaseExporter;
}
public void Backup()
{
// Get the data from somewhere
byte[] data = new byte[0];
// Compress the data
byte[] compressedData = this.compressor.Compress(data);
// Backup the data
this.databaseExporter.Export(compressedData);
}
}
If you decide on one of these options, I would appreciate if you left a comment as to which one you go with. I have a similar situation in one of my projects, and I am leaning toward Option 2.
Response to your Update
Is very specific naming and such a very rough contract the way to go or can I do better than that? Should I turn the contract test into an integration test? Perhaps (integration) test the composition of all three? I'm not really trying to be generic but am trying to keep responsibilities separate and maintain testability.
Creating an integration test is a good idea, but only if you are certain that you are testing the production DI configuration. Although it also makes sense to test it all as a unit to verify it works, it doesn't do you much good for this use case if the code that ships is configured differently than the test.
Should you be specific? I believe I have already given you a choice in that matter. If you go with the guard clause, you don't have to be specific at all. If you go with one of the other options, you have a good compromise between specific and generic.
I know you stated that you are not intentionally trying to be generic, and it is good to draw the line somewhere to ensure a solution is not over-engineered. On the other hand, if the solution has to be redesigned because an interface was not generic enough that is not a good thing either. Extensibility is always a requirement whether it is specified up front or not because you never really know how business requirements will change in the future. So, having a generic BackupMaker is definitely the best way to go. The other classes can be more specific - you just need one seam to swap implementations if future requirements change.
My first suggestion would be to critically think if you need to be that generic: You have a concrete problem to solve, you want to backup a very specific database into a specific format. Is there any benefit you get by solving the problem for arbitary databases and arbitary formats? What you surely get of a generic solution is boilerplate code and increased complexity (people understand concrete problems, not generic ones).
If this applies to you, then my suggestion would be to not let your DatabaseExporter accept interfaces, but instead only concrete implementations. There are enough modern tools out there which will also allow you mocking concrete classes, so testability is not an argument for using interfaces here aswell.
on the other hand, if you do have to backup several databases with different strategies, then I would probably introduce something like a
class BackupPlan {
public DatabaseExporter exporter() {/**...*/}
public Compressor compressor() {/** ... */}
}
then your BackupMaker will get passed one BackupPlan, specifying which database to be compressed with which algorithm.
Your question is emphasizing the fact that object composition is very important and that the entity that is responsible for such composition (wiring) has a big responsibility.
Since you already have a generic BackupMaker, I would suggest that you keep it this way, and push the big responsibility of making sure that the right composition of objects (to solve the specific problem) is done in the composition root.
Readers of your application source code (you and your team members), would have a single place (the composition root) to understand how you compose your objects to solve your specific problem by using the generic classes (e.g. BackupMaker).
Put in other words, the composition root is where you decide on the specifics. Its where you use the generic to create the specific.
To reply on the comment:
which should know what about those dependencies?
The composition root needs to know about everything (all the dependencies) since it is creating all the objects in the application and wiring them together. The composition root knows what each piece of the puzzle does and it connects them together to create a meaningful application.
For the BackupMaker, it should only care about just enough to be able to do its single responsibility. In your example, its single (simple) responsibility (as it seems to me) is to orchestrate the consumption of other objects to create a backup.
As long as you are using DI, a class will never be sure that its collaborator will behave correctly, only the composition root will. Consider this simple and extreme example of an IDatabaseExporter implementation (assume that the developer actually gave this class this name, and that he intentionally implemented it this way):
public class StupidDisastrousDatabaseExporter : IDatabaseExporter
{
public ExportedData Export()
{
DoSomethingStupidThatWillDeleteSystemDataAndMakeTheEnterpriseBroke();
...
}
private void DoSomethingStupidThatWillDeleteSystemDataAndMakeTheEnterpriseBroke()
{
//do it
...
}
}
Now, the BackupMaker will never know that it is consuming a stupid and disastrous database exporter, only the composition root does. We can never blame the programmer that wrote the BackupMaker class for this disastrous mistake (or the programmer who designed the IDatabaseExporter contract). But the programmer(s) that are composing the application in the composition root are blamed if they inject a StupidDisastrousDatabaseExporter instance into the constructor of BackupMaker.
Of course, no one should have written the StupidDisastrousDatabaseExporter class in the first place, but I gave you an extreme example to show you that a contract (interface) can never (and should never) guarantee every aspect about its implementors. It should just say enough.
Is there a way to express IDatabaseExporter in such a way that guarantees that implementors of such interface will not make stupid or disastrous actions? No.
Please note that while the BackupMaker is dealing with contracts (no 100% guarantees), the composition root is actually dealing with concrete implementation classes. This gives it the great power (and thus the great responsibility) to guarantee the composition of the correct object graph.
how do I make sure that I'm composing in a sensible way?
You should create automated end-to-end tests for the object graph created by the composition root. Here you are making sure that the composition root has done its big responsibility of composing the objects in a correct way. Here you can test the exact details that you wanted (like that the backup result was in some exact format/details).
Take a look at this article for an approach to automated testing using the Composition Root.
I believe this may be a problem that occurs when focusing too much on object models, at the exclusion of function compositions. Consider the first step in a naive function decomposition (function as in f : a -> b):
exporter: data -> (format, memory), or exception
compressor: memory -> memory, or exception
writer: memory -> side-effect, or exception
backup-maker: (data, exporter, compressor, writer) -> backup-result
So backup-maker, the last function, can be parametized with those three functions, assuming I've considered your use-case correctly, and if the three parameters have the same input and output types, e.g. format, and memory, despite their implementation.
Now, "the guts", or a possible decomposition (read right to left) of backup-maker, with all functions bound, taking data as the argument, and using the composition operator ".":
backup-maker: intermediate-computation . writer . intermediate-computation . compressor . intermediate-computation . exporter
I especially want to note that this model of architecture can be expressed later as either object interfaces, or as first-class functions, e.g. c++ std::function.
Edit: It can also be refined to terms of generics, where memory is a generic type argument, to provide type safety where wanted. E.g.
backup-maker<type M>: (data, exporter<M>, compressor<M>, writer<M>) -> ..
More information about the technique and benefits of Function Decomposition can be found here:
http://jfeltz.com/posts/2015-08-30-cost-decreasing-software-architecture.html
Your requirements seem contradictory:
You want to be specific (allowing only a subset (or only one ?) of combinations)
But you also want to be generic by using interfaces, DI, etc.
My advice is to keep things simple (in your case it means don't try to be generic) until your code evolve.
Only when your code will evolve, refactor in a more generic way. The code below shows a compromise between generic/specific:
public interface ICompressor {
public byte[] compress(byte[] source); //Note: the return type and type argument may not be revelant, just for demonstration purpose
}
public interface IExporter {
public File export(String connectionString); //Note: the return type and type argument may not be revelant, just for demonstration purpose
}
public final class Bzip2 implements ICompressor {
#Override
public final byte[] compress(byte[] source) {
//TODO
}
}
public final class MySQL implements IExporter {
#Override
public final File export(String connnectionString) {
//TODO
}
}
public abstract class ABackupStrategy {
private final ICompressor compressor;
private final IExporter exporter;
public ABackupStrategy(final ICompressor compressor, final IExporter exporter) {
this.compressor = compressor;
this.exporter = exporter;
}
public final void makeBackup() {
//TODO: compose with exporter and compressor to make your backup
}
}
public final class MyFirstBackupStrategy extends ABackupStrategy {
public MyFirstBackupStrategy(final Bzip2 compressor, final MySQL exporter) {
super(compressor, exporter);
}
}
With ICompressor and IExporter, you can easily add other compression algorithm, other database from which to export.
With ABackupStrategy, you can easily define a new allowed combination of concrete compressor/exporter by inheriting it.
Drawback: I had to make ABackupStrategy abstract without declaring any abstract method, which is in contradiction with the OOP-principles.
I am new to Artemis Entity Systems framework, and I want to know whether there is a way to get all the entities that have a specific component or components in them? (There should be, but I cannot find.)
For example I want to find all entities that have a EnemyComponent and check if they collide with any of the entities that have BulletComponent in them. How can I do this?
What you can do is to create a system which will be called in your collision system to get the list of all entities with chosen components.
For example:
public class FindBulletsSystem extends EntitySystem {
private ImmutableBag<Entity> bullets;
private boolean processingFlag = false;
public FindBulletsSystem () {
super(Aspect.getAspectForAll(BulletComponent.class));
}
#Override
protected boolean checkProcessing() {
if (processingFlag) {
processingFlag = false;
return true;
}
return false;
}
#Override
protected void processEntities(ImmutableBag<Entity> entities) {
bullets = entities;
}
public ImmutableBag<Entity> getAllBullets() {
bullets = null;
processingFlag = true;
this.process();
return bullets;
}
}
In your collision system you can get bullets by calling this system:
world.getSystem(FindBulletsSystem.class).getAllBullets();
Perhaps I was too strict in forbidding you from retrieving components by their type from the component manager, but I'm sure it was for a good reason at the time, enforcing a strict api.
The problem with "BulletComponent" and "EnemyComponent" is that they are flags, to indicate the type of group they belong to. Do they contain any data? What if you had a FlagSystem that processes FlagComponent, which has an array of flags. You could request from this flagSystem entities having certain flags.
But there's no one way to do this. You could create your own Manager class, or you could do this with systems.
On my service layer I have injected an UnitOfWork and 2 repositories in the constructor. The Unit of Work and repository have an instance of a DbContext I want to share between the two of them. How can I do that with Ninject ? Which scope should be considered ?
I am not in a web application so I can't use InRequestScope.
I try to do something similar... and I am using DI however, I need my UoW to be Disposed and created like this.
using (IUnitOfWork uow = new UnitOfWorkFactory.Create())
{
_testARepository.Insert(a);
_testBRepository.Insert(b);
uow.SaveChanges();
}
EDIT: I just want to be sure i understand… after look at https://github.com/ninject/ninject.extensions.namedscope/wiki/InNamedScope i though about my current console application architecture which actually use Ninject.
Lets say :
Class A is a Service layer class
Class B is an unit of work which take into parameter an interface (IContextFactory)
Class C is a repository which take into parameter an interface (IContextFactory)
The idea here is to be able to do context operations on 2 or more repository and using the unit of work to apply the changes.
Class D is a context factory (Entity Framework) which provide an instance (keep in a container) of the context which is shared between Class B et C (.. and would be for other repositories aswell).
The context factory keep the instance in his container so i don’t want to reuse this instance all the name since the context need to be disposed at the end of the service operaiton.. it is the main purpose of the InNamedScope actually ?
The solution would be but i am not sure at all i am doing it right, the services instance gonna be transcient which mean they actually never disposed ? :
Bind<IScsContextFactory>()
.To<ScsContextFactory>()
.InNamedScope("ServiceScope")
.WithConstructorArgument(
"connectionString",
ConfigurationUtility.GetConnectionString());
Bind<IUnitOfWork>().To<ScsUnitOfWork>();
Bind<IAccountRepository>().To<AccountRepository>();
Bind<IBlockedIpRepository>().To<BlockedIpRepository>();
Bind<IAccountService>().To<AccountService>().DefinesNamedScope("ServiceScope");
Bind<IBlockedIpService>().To<BlockedIpService>().DefinesNamedScope("ServiceScope");
UPDATE: This approach works against NuGet current, but relies in an anomaly in the InCallscope implementation which has been fixed in the current Unstable NuGet packages. I'll be tweaking this answer in a few days to reflect the best approach after some mulling over. NB the high level way of structuring stuff will stay pretty much identical, just the exact details of the Bind<DbContext>() scoping will work. (Hint: CreateNamedScope in unstable would work or one could set up the Command Handler as DefinesNamedScope. Reason I dont just do that is that I want to have something that composes/plays well with InRequestScope)
I highly recommend reading the Ninject.Extensions.NamedScope integration tests (seriously, find them and read and re-read them)
The DbContext is a Unit Of Work so no further wrapping is necessary.
As you want to be able to have multiple 'requests' in flight and want to have a single Unit of Work shared between them, you need to:
Bind<DbContext>()
.ToMethod( ctx =>
new DbContext(
connectionStringName: ConfigurationUtility.GetConnectionString() ))
.InCallScope();
The InCallScope() means that:
for a given object graph composed for a single kernel.Get() Call (hence In Call Scope), everyone that requires an DbContext will get the same instance.
the IDisposable.Dispose() will be called when a Kernel.Release() happens for the root object (or a Kernel.Components.Get<ICache>().Clear() happens for the root if it is not .InCallScope())
There should be no reason to use InNamedScope() and DefinesNamedScope(); You don't have long-lived objects you're trying to exclude from the default pooling / parenting / grouping.
If you do the above, you should be able to:
var command = kernel.Get<ICommand>();
try {
command.Execute();
} finally {
kernel.Components.Get<ICache>().Clear( command ); // Dispose of DbContext happens here
}
The Command implementation looks like:
class Command : ICommand {
readonly IAccountRepository _ar;
readonly IBlockedIpRepository _br;
readonly DbContext _ctx;
public Command(IAccountRepository ar, IBlockedIpRepository br, DbContext ctx){
_ar = ar;
_br = br;
_ctx = ctx;
}
void ICommand.Execute(){
_ar.Insert(a);
_br.Insert(b);
_ctx.saveChanges();
}
}
Note that in general, I avoid having an implicit Unit of Work in this way, and instead surface it's creation and Disposal. This makes a Command look like this:
class Command : ICommand {
readonly IAccountService _as;
readonly IBlockedIpService _bs;
readonly Func<DbContext> _createContext;
public Command(IAccountService #as, IBlockedIpServices bs, Func<DbContext> createContext){
_as = #as;
_bs = bs;
_createContext = createContext;
}
void ICommand.Execute(){
using(var ctx = _createContext()) {
_ar.InsertA(ctx);
_br.InsertB(ctx);
ctx.saveChanges();
}
}
This involves no usage of .InCallScope() on the Bind<DbContext>() (but does require the presence of Ninject.Extensions.Factory's FactoryModule to synthesize the Func<DbContext> from a straightforward Bind<DbContext>().
As discussed in the other answer, InCallScope is not a good approach to solving this problem.
For now I'm dumping some code that works against the latest NuGet Unstable / Include PreRelease / Instal-Package -Pre editions of Ninject.Web.Common without a clear explanation. I will translate this to an article in the Ninject.Extensions.NamedScope wiki at some stagehave started to write a walkthrough of this technique in the Ninject.Extensions.NamedScope wiki's CreateNamedScope/GetScope article.
Possibly some bits will become Pull Request(s) at some stage too (Hat tip to #Remo Gloor who supplied me the outline code). The associated tests and learning tests are in this gist for now), pending packaging in a proper released format TBD.
The exec summary is you Load the Module below into your Kernel and use .InRequestScope() on everything you want created / Disposed per handler invocation and then feed requests through via IHandlerComposer.ComposeCallDispose.
If you use the following Module:
public class Module : NinjectModule
{
public override void Load()
{
Bind<IHandlerComposer>().To<NinjectRequestScopedHandlerComposer>();
// Wire it up so InRequestScope will work for Handler scopes
Bind<INinjectRequestHandlerScopeFactory>().To<NinjectRequestHandlerScopeFactory>();
NinjectRequestHandlerScopeFactory.NinjectHttpApplicationPlugin.RegisterIn( Kernel );
}
}
Which wires in a Factory[1] and NinjectHttpApplicationPlugin that exposes:
public interface INinjectRequestHandlerScopeFactory
{
NamedScope CreateRequestHandlerScope();
}
Then you can use this Composer to Run a Request InRequestScope():
public interface IHandlerComposer
{
void ComposeCallDispose( Type type, Action<object> callback );
}
Implemented as:
class NinjectRequestScopedHandlerComposer : IHandlerComposer
{
readonly INinjectRequestHandlerScopeFactory _requestHandlerScopeFactory;
public NinjectRequestScopedHandlerComposer( INinjectRequestHandlerScopeFactory requestHandlerScopeFactory )
{
_requestHandlerScopeFactory = requestHandlerScopeFactory;
}
void IHandlerComposer.ComposeCallDispose( Type handlerType, Action<object> callback )
{
using ( var resolutionRoot = _requestHandlerScopeFactory.CreateRequestHandlerScope() )
foreach ( object handler in resolutionRoot.GetAll( handlerType ) )
callback( handler );
}
}
The Ninject Infrastructure stuff:
class NinjectRequestHandlerScopeFactory : INinjectRequestHandlerScopeFactory
{
internal const string ScopeName = "Handler";
readonly IKernel _kernel;
public NinjectRequestHandlerScopeFactory( IKernel kernel )
{
_kernel = kernel;
}
NamedScope INinjectRequestHandlerScopeFactory.CreateRequestHandlerScope()
{
return _kernel.CreateNamedScope( ScopeName );
}
/// <summary>
/// When plugged in as a Ninject Kernel Component via <c>RegisterIn(IKernel)</c>, makes the Named Scope generated during IHandlerFactory.RunAndDispose available for use via the Ninject.Web.Common's <c>.InRequestScope()</c> Binding extension.
/// </summary>
public class NinjectHttpApplicationPlugin : NinjectComponent, INinjectHttpApplicationPlugin
{
readonly IKernel kernel;
public static void RegisterIn( IKernel kernel )
{
kernel.Components.Add<INinjectHttpApplicationPlugin, NinjectHttpApplicationPlugin>();
}
public NinjectHttpApplicationPlugin( IKernel kernel )
{
this.kernel = kernel;
}
object INinjectHttpApplicationPlugin.GetRequestScope( IContext context )
{
// TODO PR for TrgGetScope
try
{
return NamedScopeExtensionMethods.GetScope( context, ScopeName );
}
catch ( UnknownScopeException )
{
return null;
}
}
void INinjectHttpApplicationPlugin.Start()
{
}
void INinjectHttpApplicationPlugin.Stop()
{
}
}
}
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I want to demonstrate use of Adapter Pattern to my team. I've read many books and articles online. Everyone is citing an example which are useful to understand the concept (Shape, Memory Card, Electronic Adapter etc.), but there is no real case study.
Can you please share any case study of Adapter Pattern?
p.s. I tried searching existing questions on stackoverflow, but did not find the answer so posting it as a new question. If you know there's already an answer for this, then please redirect.
Many examples of Adapter are trivial or unrealistic (Rectangle vs. LegacyRectangle, Ratchet vs. Socket, SquarePeg vs RoundPeg, Duck vs. Turkey). Worse, many don't show multiple Adapters for different Adaptees (someone cited Java's Arrays.asList as an example of the adapter pattern). Adapting an interface of only one class to work with another seems a weak example of the GoF Adapter pattern. This pattern uses inheritance and polymorphism, so one would expect a good example to show multiple implementations of adapters for different adaptees.
The best example I found is in Chapter 26 of Applying UML and Patterns: An Introduction to Object-Oriented Analysis and Design and Iterative Development (3rd Edition). The following images are from the instructor material provided on an FTP site for the book.
The first one shows how an application can use multiple implementations (adaptees) that are functionally similar (e.g., tax calculators, accounting modules, credit authorization services, etc.) but have different APIs. We want to avoid hard-coding our domain-layer code to handle the different possible ways to calculate tax, post sales, authorize credit card requests, etc. Those are all external modules that might vary, and for which we can't modify the code. The adapter allows us to do the hard-coding in the adapter, whereas our domain-layer code always uses the same interface (the IWhateverAdapter interface).
We don't see in the above figure the actual adaptees. However, the following figure shows how a polymorphic call to postSale(...) in the IAccountingAdapter interface is made, which results in a posting of the sale via SOAP to an SAP system.
How to turn a french person into a normal person...
public interface IPerson
{
string Name { get; set; }
}
public interface IFrenchPerson
{
string Nom { get; set; }
}
public class Person : IPerson
{
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public class FrenchPerson : IFrenchPerson
{
public string Nom { get; set; }
}
// that is a service that we want to use with our French person
// we cannot or don't want to change the service contract
// therefore we need 'l'Adaptateur'
public class PersonService
{
public void PrintName(IPerson person)
{
Debug.Write(person.Name);
}
}
public class FrenchPersonAdapter : IPerson
{
private readonly IFrenchPerson frenchPerson;
public FrenchPersonAdapter(IFrenchPerson frenchPerson)
{
this.frenchPerson = frenchPerson;
}
public string Name
{
get { return frenchPerson.Nom; }
set { frenchPerson.Nom = value; }
}
}
Example
var service = new PersonService();
var person = new Person();
var frenchPerson = new FrenchPerson();
service.PrintName(person);
service.PrintName(new FrenchPersonAdapter(frenchPerson));
Convert an Interface into another Interface.
Any real example of Adapter Pattern
In order to connect power, we have different interfaces all over the world.
Using Adapter we can connect easily like wise.
Here is an example that simulates converting analog data to digit data.
It provides an adapter that converts float digit data to binary data, it's probably not useful in real world, it just helps to explain the concept of adapter pattern.
Code
AnalogSignal.java
package eric.designpattern.adapter;
public interface AnalogSignal {
float[] getAnalog();
void setAnalog(float[] analogData);
void printAnalog();
}
DigitSignal.java
package eric.designpattern.adapter;
public interface DigitSignal {
byte[] getDigit();
void setDigit(byte[] digitData);
void printDigit();
}
FloatAnalogSignal.java
package eric.designpattern.adapter;
import java.util.Arrays;
import org.slf4j.Logger;
import org.slf4j.LoggerFactory;
public class FloatAnalogSignal implements AnalogSignal {
private Logger logger = LoggerFactory.getLogger(this.getClass());
private float[] data;
public FloatAnalogSignal(float[] data) {
this.data = data;
}
#Override
public float[] getAnalog() {
return data;
}
#Override
public void setAnalog(float[] analogData) {
this.data = analogData;
}
#Override
public void printAnalog() {
logger.info("{}", Arrays.toString(getAnalog()));
}
}
BinDigitSignal.java
package eric.designpattern.adapter;
import java.util.Arrays;
import org.slf4j.Logger;
import org.slf4j.LoggerFactory;
public class BinDigitSignal implements DigitSignal {
private Logger logger = LoggerFactory.getLogger(this.getClass());
private byte[] data;
public BinDigitSignal(byte[] data) {
this.data = data;
}
#Override
public byte[] getDigit() {
return data;
}
#Override
public void setDigit(byte[] digitData) {
this.data = digitData;
}
#Override
public void printDigit() {
logger.info("{}", Arrays.toString(getDigit()));
}
}
AnalogToDigitAdapter.java
package eric.designpattern.adapter;
import java.util.Arrays;
import org.slf4j.Logger;
import org.slf4j.LoggerFactory;
/**
* <p>
* Adapter - convert analog data to digit data.
* </p>
*
* #author eric
* #date Mar 8, 2016 1:07:00 PM
*/
public class AnalogToDigitAdapter implements DigitSignal {
public static final float DEFAULT_THRESHOLD_FLOAT_TO_BIN = 1.0f; // default threshold,
private Logger logger = LoggerFactory.getLogger(this.getClass());
private AnalogSignal analogSignal;
private byte[] digitData;
private float threshold;
private boolean cached;
public AnalogToDigitAdapter(AnalogSignal analogSignal) {
this(analogSignal, DEFAULT_THRESHOLD_FLOAT_TO_BIN);
}
public AnalogToDigitAdapter(AnalogSignal analogSignal, float threshold) {
this.analogSignal = analogSignal;
this.threshold = threshold;
this.cached = false;
}
#Override
public synchronized byte[] getDigit() {
if (!cached) {
float[] analogData = analogSignal.getAnalog();
int len = analogData.length;
digitData = new byte[len];
for (int i = 0; i < len; i++) {
digitData[i] = floatToByte(analogData[i]);
}
}
return digitData;
}
// not supported, should set the inner analog data instead,
#Override
public void setDigit(byte[] digitData) {
throw new UnsupportedOperationException();
}
public synchronized void setAnalogData(float[] analogData) {
invalidCache();
this.analogSignal.setAnalog(analogData);
}
public synchronized void invalidCache() {
cached = false;
digitData = null;
}
#Override
public void printDigit() {
logger.info("{}", Arrays.toString(getDigit()));
}
// float -> byte convert,
private byte floatToByte(float f) {
return (byte) (f >= threshold ? 1 : 0);
}
}
Code - Test case
AdapterTest.java
package eric.designpattern.adapter.test;
import java.util.Arrays;
import junit.framework.TestCase;
import org.junit.Test;
import eric.designpattern.adapter.AnalogSignal;
import eric.designpattern.adapter.AnalogToDigitAdapter;
import eric.designpattern.adapter.BinDigitSignal;
import eric.designpattern.adapter.DigitSignal;
import eric.designpattern.adapter.FloatAnalogSignal;
public class AdapterTest extends TestCase {
private float[] analogData = { 0.2f, 1.4f, 3.12f, 0.9f };
private byte[] binData = { 0, 1, 1, 0 };
private float[] analogData2 = { 1.2f, 1.4f, 0.12f, 0.9f };
#Test
public void testAdapter() {
AnalogSignal analogSignal = new FloatAnalogSignal(analogData);
analogSignal.printAnalog();
DigitSignal digitSignal = new BinDigitSignal(binData);
digitSignal.printDigit();
// adapter
AnalogToDigitAdapter adAdapter = new AnalogToDigitAdapter(analogSignal);
adAdapter.printDigit();
assertTrue(Arrays.equals(digitSignal.getDigit(), adAdapter.getDigit()));
adAdapter.setAnalogData(analogData2);
adAdapter.printDigit();
assertFalse(Arrays.equals(digitSignal.getDigit(), adAdapter.getDigit()));
}
}
Dependence - via maven
<dependency>
<groupId>junit</groupId>
<artifactId>junit</artifactId>
<version>4.8.2</version>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>org.slf4j</groupId>
<artifactId>slf4j-api</artifactId>
<version>1.7.13</version>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>org.slf4j</groupId>
<artifactId>slf4j-log4j12</artifactId>
<version>1.7.13</version>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>log4j</groupId>
<artifactId>log4j</artifactId>
<version>1.2.16</version>
</dependency>
How to test
Just run the unit test.
Adapter pattern works as a bridge between two incompatible interfaces.
This pattern involves a single class called adapter which is
responsible for communication between two independent or incompatible
interfaces.
Real-world examples might be a language translator or a mobile charger. More here in this youtube video:
Youtube - Adapter Design pattern: Introduction
You can use the Adapter design pattern when you have to deal with different interfaces with similar behavior (which usually means classes with similar behavior but with different methods). An example of it would be a class to connect to a Samsung TV and another one to connect to a Sony TV. They will share common behavior like open menu, start playback, connect to a network and etc but each library will have a different implementation of it (with different method names and signatures). These different vendor specific implementations are called Adaptee in the UML diagrams.
So, in your code (called Client in the UML diagrams), instead of hard code the method calls of each vendor (or Adaptee), you could then create a generic interface (called Target in UML diagrams) to wrap these similar behaviors and work with only one type of object.
The Adapters will then implement the Target interface delegating its method calls to the Adaptees that are passed to the Adapters via constructor.
For you to realize this in Java code, I wrote a very simple project using exactly the same example mentioned above using adapters to deal with multiple smart TV interfaces. The code is small, well documented and self explanatory so dig on it to see how a real world implementation would look like.
Just download the code and import it to Eclipse (or your favorite IDE) as a Maven project. You can execute the code by running org.example.Main.java. Remember that the important thing here is to understand how classes and interfaces are assembled together to design the pattern. I also created some fake Adaptees in the package com.thirdparty.libs. Hope it helps!
https://github.com/Dannemann/java-design-patterns
Adapter design patterns helps in converting interface of one class into interface of client expects.
Example:
You have a service which returns weather (in celsius) by passing city name as a input value. Now, assume that your client wants to pass zipcode as input and expecting the temperature of the city in return. Here you need an adaptor to achieve this.
public interface IWetherFinder {
public double getTemperature(String cityName);
}
class WeatherFinder implements IWetherFinder{
#Override
public double getTemperature(String cityName){
return 40;
}
}
interface IWeatherFinderClient
{
public double getTemperature(String zipcode);
}
public class WeatherAdapter implements IWeatherFinderClient {
#Override
public double getTemperature(String zipcode) {
//method to get cityname by zipcode
String cityName = getCityName(zipcode);
//invoke actual service
IWetherFinder wetherFinder = new WeatherFinder();
return wetherFinder.getTemperature(cityName);
}
private String getCityName(String zipCode) {
return "Banaglore";
}
}
One Real example is Qt-Dbus.
The qt-dbus has a utility to generate the adaptor and interface code from the xml file provided. Here are the steps to do so.
1. Create the xml file - this xml file should have the interfaces
that can be viewed by the qdbus-view in the system either on
the system or session bus.
2.With the utility - qdbusxml2cpp , you generate the interface adaptor code.
This interface adaptor does the demarshalling of the data that is
received from the client. After demarshalling, it invokes the
user defined - custom methods ( we can say as adaptee).
3. At the client side, we generate the interface from the xml file.
This interface is invoked by the client. The interface does the
marshalling of the data and invokes the adaptor interface. As told
in the point number 2, the adaptor interface does the demarshalling
and calls the adaptee - user defined methods.
You can see the complete example of Qt-Dbus over here -
http://www.tune2wizard.com/linux-qt-signals-and-slots-qt-d-bus/
Use Adapter when you have an interface you cannot change, but which you need to use. See it as you're the new guy in an office and you can't make the gray-hairs follow your rules - you must adapt to theirs. Here is a real example from a real project I worked on sometime where the user interface is a given.
You have an application that read all the lines in a file into a List data structure and displayed them in a grid (let's call the underlying data store interface IDataStore). The user can navigate through these data by clicking the buttons "First page", "Previous page", "Next page", "Last Page". Everything works fine.
Now the application needs to be used with production logs which are too big to read into memory but the user still needs to navigate through it! One solution would be to implement a Cache that stores the first page, next, previous and last pages. What we want is when the user clicks "Next page", we return the page from the cache and update the cache; when they click last page, we return last page from cache. In the background we have a filestream doing all the magic. By so doing we only have four pages in memory as opposed to the entire file.
You can use an adapter to add this new cache feature to your application without the user noticing it. We extend the current IDataStore and call it CacheDataStore. If the file to load is big, we use CacheDataStore. When we make a request for First, Next, Previous and Last pages, the information is routed to our Cache.
And who knows, tomorrow the boss wants to start reading the files from a database table. All you do is still extend IDataStore to SQLDataStore as you did for Cache, setup the connection in the background. When they click Next page, you generate the necessary sql query to fetch the next couple hundred rows from the database.
Essentially, the original interface of the application did not change. We simply adapted modern and cool features to work it while preserving the legacy interface.
You can find a PHP implementation of the Adapter pattern used as a defense against injection attacks here:
http://www.php5dp.com/category/design-patterns/adapter-composition/
One of the interesting aspects of the Adapter pattern is that it comes in two flavors: A class adapter relying on multiple inheritance and an object adapter relying on composition. The above example relies on composition.
#Justice o's example does not talk about adapter pattern clearly. Extending his answer -
We have existing interface IDataStore that our consumer code uses and we cannot change it. Now we are asked to use a cool new class from XYZ library that does what we want to implement, but but but, we cannot change that class to extend our IDataStore, seen the problem already ?
Creating a new class - ADAPTER, that implements interface our consumer code expects, i.e. IDataStore and by using class from the library whose features we need to have - ADAPTEE, as a member in our ADAPTER, we can achieve what we wanted to.
As per “C# 3.0 Design Patterns” book by Judith Bishop, Apple used Adapter pattern to adapt Mac OS to work with Intel products (explained in Chapter # 4, excerpt here2)
C# 3.0 Design Patterns
Structural Patterns: Adapter and Façade
An example from Yii framework would be: Yii uses internally cache utilizing an interface
ICache.
https://www.yiiframework.com/doc/api/1.1/ICache
whose signature is like : -
abstract public boolean set(string $id, mixed $value, integer $expire=0, ICacheDependency $dependency=NULL)
abstract public mixed get(string $id)
Let's say, you would like to use inside a Yii project the symfony cache library
https://packagist.org/packages/symfony/cache with it's cache interface, by defining this service in Yii services components (service locator) configuration
https://github.com/symfony/cache-contracts/blob/master/CacheInterface.php
public function get(string $key, callable $callback, float $beta = null, array &$metadata = null);
We see, symfony cache has an interface with only a get method, missing a set method and a different signature for a get method, as Symfony uses the get method also as a setter when supplying the second callable parameter.
As Yii core internally uses this Yii cache/interface, it's difficult (extending Yii/YiiBase) if not impossible at places , to rewrite the calls to that interface.
Plus Symfony cache is nor our class, so we can't rewrite it's interface to fit with the Yii cache interface.
So here comes the adapter pattern to rescue. We will write a mapping = an intermediate adapter which will map the Yii cache interface calls to Symfony cache interface
Would look like this
class YiiToSymfonyCacheAdapter implements \Yii\system\caching\ICache
{
private \Symfony\Contracts\Cache\CacheInterface $symfonyCache;
public function __construct(\Symfony\Contracts\Cache\CacheInterface $symfonyCache)
{
$this->symfonyCache = $symfonyCache;
}
public boolean set(string $id, mixed $value, integer $expire=0, ICacheDependency
$dependency=NULL)
{
// https://symfony.com/doc/current/cache.html
return $this->symfonyCache->get(
$id,
function($item) {
// some logic ..
return $value;
}
);
// https://github.com/symfony/cache/blob/master/Adapter/MemcachedAdapter.php
// if a class could be called statically, the adapter could call statically also eg. like this
// return \Symfony\Component\Cache\Adapter\MemcacheAdapter::get(
// $id,
// function($item) {
// // some logic ..
// return $value;
// }
);
}
public mixed get(string $id)
{
// https://github.com/symfony/cache/blob/master/Adapter/FilesystemAdapter.php
// if a class could be called statically, the adapter could call statically also eg. like this
// \Symfony\Component\Cache\Adapter\FileSystemAdapter::get($id)
return $this->symfonyCache->get($id)
}
}
A real example can be reporting documents in an application. Simple code as here.
Adapters i think are very useful for programming structure.
class WordAdaptee implements IReport{
public void report(String s) {
System.out.println(s +" Word");
}
}
class ExcellAdaptee implements IReport{
public void report(String s) {
System.out.println(s +" Excel");
}
}
class ReportAdapter implements IReport{
WordAdaptee wordAdaptee=new WordAdaptee();
#Override
public void report(String s) {
wordAdaptee.report(s);
}
}
interface IReport {
public void report(String s);
}
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
//create the interface that client wants
IReport iReport=new ReportAdapter();
//we want to write a report both from excel and world
iReport.report("Trial report1 with one adaptee"); //we can directly write the report if one adaptee is avaliable
//assume there are N adaptees so it is like in our example
IReport[] iReport2={new ExcellAdaptee(),new WordAdaptee()};
//here we can use Polymorphism here
for (int i = 0; i < iReport2.length; i++) {
iReport2[i].report("Trial report 2");
}
}
}
Results will be:
Trial report1 with one adaptee Word
Trial report 2 Excel
Trial report 2 Word
This is an example of adapter implementation:
interface NokiaInterface {
chargementNokia(x:boolean):void
}
class SamsungAdapter implements NokiaInterface {
//nokia chargement adapted to samsung
chargementNokia(x:boolean){
const old= new SamsungCharger();
let y:number = x ? 20 : 1;
old.charge(y);
}
}
class SamsungCharger {
charge(x:number){
console.log("chrgement x ==>", x);
}
}
function main() {
//charge samsung with nokia charger
const adapter = new SamsungAdapter();
adapter.chargementNokia(true);
}
Referring to the below link:
http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-11-1998/jw-11-techniques.html?page=2
The composition approach to code reuse provides stronger encapsulation
than inheritance, because a change to a back-end class needn't break
any code that relies only on the front-end class. For example,
changing the return type of Fruit's peel() method from the previous
example doesn't force a change in Apple's interface and therefore
needn't break Example2's code.
Surely if you change the return type of peel() (see code below) this means getPeelCount() wouldn't be able to return an int any more? Wouldn't you have to change the interface, or get a compiler error otherwise?
class Fruit {
// Return int number of pieces of peel that
// resulted from the peeling activity.
public int peel() {
System.out.println("Peeling is appealing.");
return 1;
}
}
class Apple {
private Fruit fruit = new Fruit();
public int peel() {
return fruit.peel();
}
}
class Example2 {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Apple apple = new Apple();
int pieces = apple.peel();
}
}
With a composition, changing the class Fruit doesn't necessary require you to change Apple, for example, let's change peel to return a double instead :
class Fruit {
// Return String number of pieces of peel that
// resulted from the peeling activity.
public double peel() {
System.out.println("Peeling is appealing.");
return 1.0;
}
}
Now, the class Apple will warn about a lost of precision, but your Example2 class will be just fine, because a composition is more "loose" and a change in a composed element does not break the composing class API. In our case example, just change Apple like so :
class Apple {
private Fruit fruit = new Fruit();
public int peel() {
return (int) fruit.peel();
}
}
Whereas if Apple inherited from Fruit (class Apple extends Fruit), you would not only get an error about an incompatible return type method, but you'd also get a compilation error in Example2.
** Edit **
Lets start this over and give a "real world" example of composition vs inheritance. Note that a composition is not limited to this example and there are more use case where you can use the pattern.
Example 1 : inheritance
An application draw shapes into a canvas. The application does not need to know which shapes it has to draw and the implementation lies in the concrete class inheriting the abstract class or interface. However, the application knows what and how many different concrete shapes it can create, thus adding or removing concrete shapes requires some refactoring in the application.
interface Shape {
public void draw(Graphics g);
}
class Box implement Shape {
...
public void draw(Graphics g) { ... }
}
class Ellipse implements Shape {
...
public void draw(Graphics g) { ... }
}
class ShapeCanvas extends JPanel {
private List<Shape> shapes;
...
protected void paintComponent(Graphics g) {
for (Shape s : shapes) { s.draw(g); }
}
}
Example 2 : Composition
An application is using a native library to process some data. The actual library implementation may or may not be known, and may or may not change in the future. A public interface is thus created and the actual implementation is determined at run-time. For example :
interface DataProcessorAdapter {
...
public Result process(Data data);
}
class DataProcessor {
private DataProcessorAdapter adapter;
public DataProcessor() {
try {
adapter = DataProcessorManager.createAdapter();
} catch (Exception e) {
throw new RuntimeException("Could not load processor adapter");
}
}
public Object process(Object data) {
return adapter.process(data);
}
}
static class DataProcessorManager {
static public DataProcessorAdapter createAdapter() throws ClassNotFoundException, InstantiationException, IllegalAccessException {
String adapterClassName = /* load class name from resource bundle */;
Class<?> adapterClass = Class.forName(adapterClassName);
DataProcessorAdapter adapter = (DataProcessorAdapter) adapterClass.newInstance();
//...
return adapter;
}
}
So, as you can see, the composition may offer some advantage over inheritance in the sense that it allows more flexibility in the code. It allows the application to have a solid API while the underlaying implementation may still change during it's life cycle. Composition can significantly reduce the cost of maintenance if properly used.
For example, when implementing test cases with JUnit for Exemple 2, you may want to use a dummy processor and would setup the DataProcessorManager to return such adapter, while using a "real" adapter (perhaps OS dependent) in production without changing the application source code. Using inheritance, you would most likely hack something up, or perhaps write a lot more initialization test code.
As you can see, compisition and inheritance differ in many aspects and are not preferred over another; each depend on the problem at hand. You could even mix inheritance and composition, for example :
static interface IShape {
public void draw(Graphics g);
}
static class Shape implements IShape {
private IShape shape;
public Shape(Class<? extends IShape> shape) throws InstantiationException, IllegalAccessException {
this.shape = (IShape) shape.newInstance();
}
public void draw(Graphics g) {
System.out.print("Drawing shape : ");
shape.draw(g);
}
}
static class Box implements IShape {
#Override
public void draw(Graphics g) {
System.out.println("Box");
}
}
static class Ellipse implements IShape {
#Override
public void draw(Graphics g) {
System.out.println("Ellipse");
}
}
static public void main(String...args) throws InstantiationException, IllegalAccessException {
IShape box = new Shape(Box.class);
IShape ellipse = new Shape(Ellipse.class);
box.draw(null);
ellipse.draw(null);
}
Granted, this last example is not clean (meaning, avoid it), but it shows how composition can be used.
Bottom line is that both examples, DataProcessor and Shape are "solid" classes, and their API should not change. However, the adapter classes may change and if they do, these changes should only affect their composing container, thus limit the maintenance to only these classes and not the entire application, as opposed to Example 1 where any change require more changes throughout the application. It all depends how flexible your application needs to be.
If you would change Fruit.peel()'s return type, you would have to modify Apple.peel() as well. But you don't have to change Apple's interface.
Remember: The interface are only the method names and their signatures, NOT the implementation.
Say you'd change Fruit.peel() to return a boolean instead of a int. Then, you could still let Apple.peel() return an int. So: The interface of Apple stays the same but Fruit's changed.
If you would have use inheritance, that would not be possible: Since Fruit.peel() now returns a boolean, Apple.peel() has to return an boolean, too. So: All code that uses Apple.peel() has to be changed, too. In the composition example, ONLY Apple.peel()'s code has to be changed.
The key word in the sentence is "interface".
You'll almost always need to change the Apple class in some way to accomodate the new return type of Fruit.peel, but you don't need to change its public interface if you use composition rather than inheritance.
If Apple is a Fruit (ie, inheritance) then any change to the public interface of Fruit necessitates a change to the public interface of Apple too. If Apple has a Fruit (ie, composition) then you get to decide how to accomodate any changes to the Fruit class; you're not forced to change your public interface if you don't want to.
Return type of Fruit.peel() is being changed from int to Peel. This doesn't meant that the return type of Apple.peel() is being forced to change to Peel as well. In case of inheritance, it is forced and any client using Apple has to be changed. In case of composition, Apple.peel() still returns an integer, by calling the Peel.getPeelCount() getter and hence the client need not be changed and hence Apple's interface is not changed ( or being forced to be changed)
Well, in the composition case, Apple.peel()'s implementation needs to be updated, but its method signature can stay the same. And that means the client code (which uses Apple) does not have to be modified, retested, and redeployed.
This is in contrast to inheritance, where a change in Fruit.peel()'s method signature would require changes all way into the client code.