I'm writing a plugin for Eclipse that periodically walks the Abstract Syntax Tree provided by Eclipse JDT and places IMarkers on certain nodes - for example, a printStackTrace() is highlighted for removal (Youtube Demo). For each subsequent walk I want to avoid placing a 2nd (or 3rd or 4th or...) marker.
The position of these nodes can change (if the document is edited between walks) but the IMarkers do not (IMarker positions do not update until the document has been saved), so I can't use char_start and char_end comparisons on these objects.
I also can't use the .equals method of ASTNode, as a stored copy of an ASTNode won't update these charstart and charend positions. I've also tried comparing getParent() nodes but this has its own issues (ie two printStackTraces, in separate catch blocks, will have a common TryStatement parent)
Right now I'm looking at extending ASTMatcher and overriding the various matches() methods, but to call each matches() I'll need to cast one of the nodes from ASTNode to the appropriate subclass.
Before trying to write that up with a massive switch statement and a lot of casting, is there a more elegant solution for checking if two ASTNodes are the same without relying on .equals()?
Generally validators and builders will remove all of the markers on a file before going back and adding their own for that particular validation or build. I suspect they did it that way instead of taking your approach because it was easier that way. I'd take that approach unless there is a serious performance reason not to.
If you do need to do a comparison between old and new, you'll need to write a switch statement and do a lot of casting, although you can at least make it look elegant with a factory pattern of some sort.
Related
I have a very CPU intensive F# program that depends on persistent data-structures - about 40% of the total CPU time is spent in the Map module. So I thought I'd try out the PersistentHashMap in FSharpX collections. (BTW, this is already a big improvement over the previous version of F# in VS2013 where the same program spent 70% of its time in Map. I also notice that running programs with the debugger attached doesn't have the huge penalty it did before - good work guys...) There is also a hot-spot where I'm re-sorting all the time, where instead I should be adding to a Heap, so I thought I'd give that a go as well.
Two issue became immediately apparent:
(1) Swapping out one for the other from an interface perspective proved harder than it seems it should - I.e., making a shim that let me switch from a Map to a PersistentMap, preserving both the needed module-based let-bound functions and Types necessary to use the each map. I know that having full HM type-inference (and no type-classes) is orthogonal to LSP-style referential transparency for the most part - but maybe I was missing some way to do this better with a minimal amount of code.
(2) The biggest problem (which I'd like to focus on here) is the reliance of the F# functional data-structs on oo-style dispatched equality and comparison via the IComparison (when 't : comparison), etc., family of interfaces.
Even for OO programs ISTM that the idea of dispatching equality and comparison is a bad idea -- an object "knows" how to perform its own domain-specific tasks, but it doesn't "know" for the most part what notion of equality is going to be necessary at various points in the program for various purposes -- so equality/comparison should not be part of the object's interface, but when these concepts are needed, they should always be mentioned explicitly. For example, there should never be a .Sort(), only a .SortWith(...). One could argue that even something as basic as structural equality in F# could be explicit a.StructEq(b) or a ~= b - otherwise you always get object.Equals -- but even stipulating that doing things this way is the best for a multi-paradigm language that's a first-class .Net citizen, it seems like there should at least be the option of using passed-in comparison and equality functions, but this is not the case.
This means that: (a) type constraints are enforced even if you don't want them, causing ripples of broken inferred typing (and hundreds of wavy red lines with it being unclear where the actual "problem" is) and (b), that by implementing a notion of equality or comparison that makes one container type happy in one part of your program (and in my case I want to use the same container and item type with two different notions of ordering in two different places), it is likely to silently break (or cause inefficiency, if one subsumes the other) in other parts of the code that depended on the default/previous implementation.
The only way around this that I could think of is wrapping each item a adapter object using new...with object expression - but I really don't want to create so much garbage just to get the code to work.
So, ISTM that we could have a "pure" version of each persistent data struct that could be loaded if desired (even basics like List, etc.) that do not depend on dispatched equality/comparison/hashing and do not impose type constraints - all such needs should be via a passed in fn's at the time of the call. (Dispatched eq/cmp would be only for used for interop with BCL collections that don't accept delegates.) Then we could have a [EqCmpHashThrowNotImplemented] attribute, and I could be sure that there were no default operations happening at all, and I would feel better about the efficiency and predictability of my code. (And this also let's one change from a Record to a Class or visa-versa w/o worrying about any changes in behavior due to default implementations.) Again, this would be optional, but done by with a simple import. (Which does mean that each base core collection type would have to be broken out into its own module, which isn't really a bad idea anyway.)
If I've overlooked a better way to do things or there are some patterns people are using here, I'd be interested.
I'll give you an example about path finding. When you wnat to find a path, you can pick a final destination, a initial position and find the fastest way between the two, or you can just define the first position, and let the algorithm show every path you can finish, or you may want to mock this for a test and just say the final destination and assume you "teleport" to there, and so on. It's clear that the function is the same: finding a path. But the arguments may vary between implementations. I've searched a lot and found a lot of solutions: getting rid of the interface, putting all the arguments as fields in the implementation, using the visitor pattern...
But I'd like to know from you guys what is the drawback of putting every possible argument (not state) in one object (let's call it MovePreferences) and letting every implementation take what it needs. Sure, may you need another implementation that takes as argument that you didn't expect, you will need to change the MovePreferences, but it don't sound too bad, since you will only add methods to it, not refactor any existing method. Even though this MovePreferences is not an object of my domain, I'm still tempted to do it. What do you think?
(If you have a better solution to this problem, feel free to add it to your answer.)
The question you are asking is really why have interfaces at all, no, why have any concept of context short of 'whatever I need?' I think the answers to that are pretty straightforward: programming with shared global state is easy for you, the programmer, and quickly turns into a vortex for everyone else once they have to coalesce different features, for different customers, render enhancements, etc.
Now the far other end of the spectrum is the DbC argument: every single interface must be a highly constrained contract that not only keeps the knowledge exchanged to an absolute minimum, but makes the possibility of mayhem minimal.
Frankly, this is one of the reasons why dependency injection can quickly turn into a mess: as soon as design issues like this come up, people just start injecting more 'objects,' often to get access to just one property, whose scope might not be the same as the scope of the present operation. [Different kind of nightmare.]
Unfortunately, there's almost no information in your question. Do I think it would be possible to correctly model the notion of a Route? Sure. That doesn't sound very challenging. Here are a few ideas:
Make a class called Route that has starting and ending points. Then a collection of Traversals. The idea here would be that a Route could completely ignore the notion of how someone got from point a to point b, where traversal could contain information about roads, traffic, closures, whatever. Then your mocked case could just have no Traversals inside.
Another option would be to make Route a Composite so that each trip is then seen as the stringing together of various segments. That's the way routes are usually presented: go 2 miles on 2 South, exit, go 3 miles east on Santa Monica Boulevard, etc. In this scenario, you could just have Routes that have no children.
Finally, you will probably need a creational pattern. Perhaps a Builder. That simplifies mocking things too because you can just make a mock builder and have it construct Routes that consist of whatever you need.
The other advantage of combining the Composite and Builder is that you could make a builder that can build a new Route from an existing one by trying to improve only the troubling subsegments, e.g. it got traffic information that the 2S was slow, it could just replace that one segment and present its new route.
Consider an example,
Say if 5 arguments are encapsulated in an object and passed on to 3 methods.
If the object undergoes change in structure, then we need to run test cases for all the 3 methods. Instead if the method accepts only the arguments they need, they need not be tested.
Only problem I see out of this is Increase in Testing Efforts
Secondly you will naturally violate Single Responsibility Principle(SRP) if you pass more arguments than what the method actually needs.
Let’s say I have a method that populates a list with some kind of objects. What are the advantages and disadvantages of following method designs?
void populate (ArrayList<String> list, other parameters ...)
ArrayList<String> populate(other parameters ...)
Which one I should prefer?
This looks like a general issue about method design but I couldn't find a satisfying answer on google, probably for not using the right keywords.
The second one seems more functional and thread safe to me. I'd prefer it in most cases. (Like every rule, there are exceptions.)
The owner of the populate method could return an immutable List (why ArrayList?).
It's also thread safe if there is no state modified in the populate method. Only passed in parameters are used, and these can also be immutable.
Other than what #duffymo mentioned, the second one is easier to understand, thus use: it is obvious what its input and output is.
Advantages to the in-out parameter:
You don't have to create as many objects. In languages like C or C++, where allocation and deallocation can be expensive, that can be a plus. In Java/C#, not so much -- GC makes allocation cheap and deallocation all but invisible, so creating objects isn't as big a deal. (You still shouldn't create them willy-nilly, but if you need one, the overhead isn't as bad as in some manual-allocation languages.)
You get to specify the type of the list. Potential plus if you need to pass that array to some other code you don't control later.
Disadvantages:
Readability issues.
In almost all languages that support function arguments, the first case is assumed to mean "do something with the entries in this list". Modifying args violates the Priciple of Least Astonishment. The second is assumed to mean "give me a list of stuff", which is what you're after.
Every time you say "ArrayList", or even "List", you take away a bit of flexibility. You add some overhead to your API. What if i don't want to create an ArrayList before calling your method? I shouldn't have to, if the method's whole purpose in life is to return me some entries. That's the API's job.
Encapsulation issues:
The method being passed a list to fill can't assume anything about that list (even that it's a list at all; it could be null).
The method passing the list can't guarantee anything about what the method does with it. If it's working correctly, sure, the API docs can say "this method won't destroy existing entries". But considering the chance of bugs, that may not be worth trusting. At least if the method returns its own list, the caller doesn't have to worry about what was in it before. And it doesn't have to worry about a bug from a thousand miles away corrupting data it should never have affected.
Thread safety issues.
The list could be locked by another thread, meaning if we try and lock on it now it could potentially lock up the app.
Or, if not locked, it could still be modified by another thread, in which case we're no less screwed. Unless you're going to write extra code to handle concurrent-modification exceptions everywhere.
Returning a new list means every call to the method can have its own list. No thread can mess with another thread's return value, unless the class is very badly designed.
Side point: Being able to specify the type of the list often leads to dependencies on the type of the list. Notice how you're passing ArrayLists around everywhere. You're painting yourself into corners by saying "This is an ArrayList" when you don't need to, but when you're passing it to a dozen methods, that's a dozen methods you'll have to change. (Not entirely related, but only slightly tangential. You could change the types to List rather than ArrayList and get rid of this. But the more you're passing that list around, the more places you'll need to change.)
Short version: Unless you have a damn good reason, use the first syntax only if you're using the existing contents of the list in your method. IE: if you're modifying it, or doing something with the existing values. If you intend to return a list of entries, then return a List of entries.
The second method is the preferred way for many reasons.
primarily because the function signature is more clear and shows what its intentions are.
It is actually recommended that you NEVER change the value of a parameter that is passed in to a function unless you explicitly mark it as an "out" parameter.
it will also be easier to use in expressions
and it will be easier to change in the future. including taking it to a more functional approach (for threading, etc.) if you would like to
I often find myself needing reference to an object that is several objects away, or so it seems. The options I see are passing a reference through a middle-man or just making something available statically. I understand the danger of global scope, but passing a reference through an object that does nothing with it feels ridiculous. I'm okay with a little bit passing around, I suppose. I suspect there's a line to be drawn somewhere.
Does anyone have insight on where to draw this line?
Or a good way to deal with the problem of distributing references amongst dependent objects?
Use the Law of Demeter (with moderation and good taste, not dogmatically). If you're coding a.b.c.d.e, something IS wrong -- you've nailed forevermore the implementation of a to have a b which has a c which... EEP!-) One or at the most two dots is the maximum you should be using. But the alternative is NOT to plump things into globals (and ensure thread-unsafe, buggy, hard-to-maintain code!), it is to have each object "surface" those characteristics it is designed to maintain as part of its interface to clients going forward, instead of just letting poor clients go through such undending chains of nested refs!
This smells of an abstraction that may need some improvement. You seem to be violating the Law of Demeter.
In some cases a global isn't too bad.
Consider, you're probably programming against an operating system's API. That's full of globals, you can probably access a file or the registry, write to the console. Look up a window handle. You can do loads of stuff to access state that is global across the whole computer, or even across the internet... and you don't have to pass a single reference to your class to access it. All this stuff is global if you access the OS's API.
So, when you consider the number of global things that often exist, a global in your own program probably isn't as bad as many people try and make out and scream about.
However, if you want to have very nice OO code that is all unit testable, I suppose you should be writing wrapper classes around any access to globals whether they come from the OS, or are declared yourself to encapsulate them. This means you class that uses this global state can get references to the wrappers, and they could be replaced with fakes.
Hmm, anyway. I'm not quite sure what advice I'm trying to give here, other than say, structuring code is all a balance! And, how to do it for your particular problem depends on your preferences, preferences of people who will use the code, how you're feeling on the day on the academic to pragmatic scale, how big the code base is, how safety critical the system is and how far off the deadline for completion is.
I believe your question is revealing something about your classes. Maybe the responsibilities could be improved ? Maybe moving some code would solve problems ?
Tell, don't ask.
That's how it was explained to me. There is a natural tendency to call classes to obtain some data. Taken too far, asking too much, typically leads to heavy "getter sequences". But there is another way. I must admit it is not easy to find, but improves gradually in a specific code and in the coder's habits.
Class A wants to perform a calculation, and asks B's data. Sometimes, it is appropriate that A tells B to do the job, possibly passing some parameters. This could replace B's "getName()", used by A to check the validity of the name, by an "isValid()" method on B.
"Asking" has been replaced by "telling" (calling a method that executes the computation).
For me, this is the question I ask myself when I find too many getter calls. Gradually, the methods encounter their place in the correct object, and everything gets a bit simpler, I have less getters and less call to them. I have less code, and it provides more semantic, a better alignment with the functional requirement.
Move the data around
There are other cases where I move some data. For example, if a field moves two objects up, the length of the "getter chain" is reduced by two.
I believe nobody can find the correct model at first.
I first think about it (using hand-written diagrams is quick and a big help), then code it, then think again facing the real thing... Then I code the rest, and any smells I feel in the code, I think again...
Split and merge objects
If a method on A needs data from C, with B as a middle man, I can try if A and C would have some in common. Possibly, A or a part of A could become C (possible splitting of A, merging of A and C) ...
However, there are cases where I keep the getters of course.
But it's less likely a long chain will be created.
A long chain will probably get broken by one of the techniques above.
I have three patterns for this:
Pass the necessary reference to the object's constructor -- the reference can then be stored as a data member of the object, and doesn't need to be passed again; this implies that the object's factory has the necessary reference. For example, when I'm creating a DOM, I pass the element name to the DOM node when I construct the DOM node.
Let things remember their parent, and get references to properties via their parent; this implies that the parent or ancestor has the necessary property. For example, when I'm creating a DOM, there are various things which are stored as properties of the top-level DomDocument ancestor, and its child nodes can access those properties via the reference which each one has to its parent.
Put all the different things which are passed around as references into a single class, and then pass around just that one class instance as the only thing that's passed around. For example, there are many properties required to render a DOM (e.g. the GDI graphics handle, the viewport coordinates, callback events, etc.) ... I put all of these things into a single 'Context' instance which is passed as the only parameter to the methods of the DOM nodes to be rendered, and each method can get whichever properties it needs out of that context parameter.
I've had this problem many times before, and I've never had a solution I felt good about.
Let's say I have a Transaction base class and two derived classes AdjustmentTransaction and IssueTransaction.
I have a list of transactions in the UI, and each transaction is of the concrete type AdjustmentTransaction or IssueTransaction.
When I select a transaction, and click an "Edit" button, I need to decide whether to show an AdjustmentTransactionEditorForm or an IssueTransactionEditorForm.
The question is how do I go about doing this in an OO fashion without having to use a switch statement on the type of the selected transaction? The switch statement works but feels kludgy. I feel like I should be able to somehow exploit the parallel inheritance hierarchy between Transactions and TransactionEditors.
I could have an EditorForm property on my Transaction, but that is a horrible mixing of my UI peanut butter with my Model chocolate.
Thanks in advance.
You need to map your "EditorForm" to a transaction at some point. You have a couple options:
A switch statement...like you, I think this stinks, and scales poorly.
An abstract "EditorForm" property in base Transaction class, this scales better, but has poor seperation of concerns.
A Type -> Form mapper in your frontend. This scales fairly well, and keeps good seperation.
In C#, I'd implement a Type -> Form mapper like this:
Dictionary <Type,Type> typeMapper = new Dictionary<Type,Type>();
typeMapper.Add(typeof(AdjustTransaction), typeof(AdjustTransactionForm));
// etc, in this example, I'm populating it by hand,
// in real life, I'd use a key/value pair mapping config file,
// and populate it at runtime.
then, when edit is clicked:
Type formToGet;
if (typeMapper.TryGetValue(CurrentTransaction.GetType(), out formToGet))
{
Form newForm = (Form)Activator.CreateInstance(formToGet);
}
You probably don't want to tie it to the inheritance tree--that will bind you up pretty good later when you get a slight requirements change.
The relationship should be specified somewhere in an external file. Something that describes the relationship:
Editing AdujustmentTransaction = AdjustmentTransactionEditorForm
Editing IssueTransaction = IssueTransactionEditorForm
With a little bit of parsing and some better language than I've used here, this file could become very generalized and reusable--you could reuse forms for different objects if required, or change which form is used to edit an object without too much effort.
(You might want users named "Joe" to use "JoeIssueTransactionEditorForm" instead, this could pretty easily be worked into your "language")
This is essentially Dependency Injection--You can probably use Spring to solve the problem in more general terms.
Do I miss something in the question? I just ask because the obvious OO answer would be: Polymorph
Just execute Transaction.editWindow() (or however you want to call it), and
overwrite the method in AdjustmentTransaction and IssueTrasaction with the required functionality. The call to element.editWindow() then opens the right dialog for you.
An alternative to the Dictionary/Config File approach would be
1) to define a interface for each of the transaction editors.
2) In your EXE or UI assembly have each of the forms register itself with the assembly that creates the individual transaction.
3) The class controlling the registration should be a singleton so you don't have multiple form instances floating around.
3) When a individual transaction is created it pulls out the correct form variable from the registration object and assigns it do an internal variable.
4) When the Edit method is called it just uses the Show method of the internal method to start the chain of calls that will result in the display of that transacton editor.
This eliminates the need for config files and dictionaries. It continues to separate the UI from the object. Plus you don't need any switch statement
The downside is having to write the interface for each every form in addition to the form itself.
If you have a great deal of different types of editors (dozens) then in that case I recommend that you use the Command Pattern
You have a master command that contains the dictonary recommend by Jonathan. That commands in turns will use that dictornary to execute one of a number of other command that calls the correct form with the correct object. The forms continue to be separate from the object themselves. The forms reside in the Command assembly. In addition you don't have to update the EXE to add another editor only the Command assembly. Finally by putting things inside of Command you can implement Undo/Redo a lot easier. (Implement a Unexecute as well as a Execute)