I need an example to understand more clearly, How can I create a class with out getter and setter. So to implement a better design and adapt below mentioned principle:
Keeping code more object oriented and avoid procedural style coding
Reduce Law Of Demeter
Do not violate DRY principle
How to keep details of a class hidden from other classes
So that the calling class (client class) will not be created containing procedural methods which will make decision based on the state of my class.
I think Knowledge of access modifiers will help you to answer own questions. Please check.
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/25078/C-Access-Modifiers-Quick-Reference
Related
The open/closed principle states that a class should be open for extension but closed for modification.
I thought that the modification part referred strictly to altering the source code of the base class. But I had an argument with someone saying that this also involves overriding methods from the base class.
It this interpretation correct?
Virtual methods allow replacing behavior of a base class in a derived class, without having to alter the base class and this means you adhere to the Open/Closed principle since you can extend the system without having to modify existing code.
Base classes (that are not purely abstract) however, tend to violate the Dependency Inversion Principle, since the derived class takes a dependency on the base class, which is a concrete component instead of being an abstraction. Remember, the DIP states that:
High-level modules should [...] depend on abstractions.
Besides this, base classes tend to violate the Interface Segregation Principle as well in case they define multiple public (or protected) methods that are not all used by the derived type. This is a violation of the ISP because:
no client should be forced to depend on methods it does not use
"I thought that the modification part referred strictly to altering the source code of the base class."
You thought right.
There is a plethora of ways to make a class extensible and allowing one to inherit from it is one of them. The keyword extend is even used in a few languages to enable inheritance which makes it quite obvious that we aren't modifying, we are extending...
Whether inheritance is the right solution to extensibility or not is another concern, but usually it is not though. Composition should be the preferred way to make classes extensible (e.g. Strategy, Observer, Decorator, Pipes and Filters, etc...)
An override is a lot like a callback that anyone can register. It's like:
if (IsOverridden) CallCallback();
else DefaultImplementation(); //possibly empty
In that sense there is no modification. You are just reconfiguring the object to call the callback instead of doing the default behavior.
It's just like the click event of a button. You wouldn't consider subscribing to an event a modification. It's extension.
Form "Adaptive Code via C#" book, virtual methods is a instrument to achieve OCP.
In an interview I have been asked this. Is this is an example of Encapsulation?
class abc
{
}
I tried seeking for the answer from multiple books but couldn't find it.
We would start talking about encapsulation when the following would happen:
The class will have members and methods and therefore becomes a collection of data and methods.
In this class we start hiding the data within, and make it available only through public methods
This technique is known as encapsulation because it seals the data (and internal methods) safely inside the "capsule" of the class, where it can be accessed only by trusted users (i.e., by the methods of the class).
Until no methods and members, I don't think we are talking about encapsulation.
If the class is empty, there is no information to be encapsulated, so no encapsulation here.
No its not,
Encapsulation refers to the act of binding together data members and functions which manipulate them into a single entity.
Mostly they are bound into a class.
But the example here has to data members and functions to encapsulate, so it's not an Encapsulation
The benefits of using composition over inheritance are quite well known;
What are the cases in which the opposite is preferable?
Practically, I can see the advantage of forcing a base constructor, but I would like to know other people's opinion about other cases/domains.
I believe the famous recommendation of "favor composition over inheritance" was coined in the GoF Design Patterns book.
It says (p.20):
Favor object composition over class inheritance.
Ideally, you shouldn't have to create new components to achieve reuse.
You should be able to get all the functionality you need just by
assembling existing components through object composition. But this is
rarely the case, because the set of available components is never
quite rich enough in practice. Reuse by inheritance makes it easier to
make new components that can be composed with old ones. Inheritance
and object composition thus work together.
Nevertheless, our experience is that designers overuse inheritance as
a reuse technique, and designs are often made more reusable (and
simpler) by depending more on object composition. You'll see object
composition applied again and again in the design patterns.
Notice that this statement refers to class inheritance, and must be distinguished from interface inheritance which is fine.
Dynamism
Both are ways to achieve reusability, but the advantage of composition over inheritance is dynamism. Since the composition can be changed dynamically at runtime this represents a great advantage, whereas inheritance is statically defined at compile time.
Encapsulation
Also, composition is based on using the public interfaces of the composed objects, therefore objects respect each other's public interfaces and therefore this fosters encapsulation. On the other hand, inheritance breaks encapsulation since child components typically consume a protected interface from the parent. It is a well known problem that changes in the parent class can break the child classes, the famous base class problem. Also in inheritance parent classes define the physical representation of subclasses, therefore child clases depend on parent classes to evolve.
Cohesion
Another advantage of composition is that it keeps classes focused on one task and this foster cohesion as well.
Liabilities
Evidently a problem with composition is that you will have more objects and fewer classes. That makes a little more difficult to visualize your design and how it achieves its goals. When debugging code it is harder to know what is going on unless you know what exact instance of a given composite is currently being used by an object. So composition makes designs a bit harder to understand in my opinion.
Since the advantages of composition are multiple that's why it is suggested to favor it over inheritance, but that does not mean inheritance is always bad. You can achieve a great deal when inheritance is properly used.
Interesting References
I would suggest a study of GoF Design Patterns to see good examples of both types of reusability, for instance a Strategy Pattern that uses composition vs a Template Method that uses inheritance.
Most of the patterns make a great use of interface inheritance and then object composition to achieve their goals and only a few use class inheritance as a reusability mechanism.
If you want to delve more the book Holub on Patterns, on chapter 2 has a section called Why extends is Evil that delve much more on the liabilities of class inheritance.
The book mentions three specific aspects
Losing Flexibility: The first problem is that explicit use of a concrete-class name locks you into a specific implementation, making
down-the-line changes unnecessarily difficult.
Coupling: A more important problem with implementation inheritance is coupling, the undesirable reliance of one part of a
program on another part. Global variables are the classic example of
why strong coupling is bad. If you change the type of a global
variable, for example, all the code that uses that variable—that is
coupled to the variable—can be affected, so all this code must be
examined, modified, and retested. Moreover, all the methods that use
the variable are coupled to each other through the variable. That is,
one method may incorrectly affect the behavior of another method
simply by changing the variable’s value at an awkward time. This
problem is particularly hideous in multithreaded programs.
Fragile-Base-Class Problem: In an implementation-inheritance system (one that uses extends), the derived classes are tightly
coupled to the base classes, and this close connection is undesirable.
Designers have applied the moniker “the fragile-base-class problem” to
describe this behavior. Base classes are considered “fragile” because
you can modify a base class in a seemingly safe way, but this new
behavior, when inherited by the derived classes, may cause the derived
classes to malfunction.
The only advantage of inheritance over composition that I can think of is that it can potentially save you from a lot of boiler plate method delegation.
If you truly have an is-a relationship and you simply want all the methods from a base class in your subclass, then inheritance gives you all those methods for free.
It's a complete debatable or argumentation question and broad as well.
AFAIK, when we talk about containership (or) something containing another thing we go for Composition; i.e, An entity contains another entity; which also gives a HAS A relationship. Example: EntityA has a EntityB.
See Decorator design pattern, which is based on the concept of Composition.
But when we talk about Inheritance we talk about IS A relationship. i.e, EntityA Is A EntityB (or) EntityA Is type of a EntityB
One special case when I find inheritance the best solution is when I use a runtime-generated class that need additional methods. For example (in C#):
public abstract class Rule{
/* properties here */
public Authorization Authorization { get; set; }
public abstract bool IsValid(dynamic request, User currentUser);
}
The generated template:
public class Generated_1Rule : Rule{
public override bool IsValid(dynamic request, User currentUser){
// the user script is here
}
}
Example of user script:
return Authorization.IsAuthorized("Module_ID_001", currentUser);
The benefit is that you can add functionality to the generated script “compiled-ly”, and it’s less breaking than inheriting from interface / composition since it is compiled.
Procedural code gets information then makes decisions. Object-oriented code tells objects to do things.
Alec Sharp
When we are using the Factory pattern, we make decision, based on a property of a class except than the factory class, so this, doesn't violate Tell, Don't Ask principle?
No, we don't violate.
When we tell the Factory class to create an object instance, all the responsibility is within the Factory class. The caller has no influence what the concrete class will be.
The Factory class itself also doesn't break that rule. It is doing what it has to do: based on the given rules (let it be hard-coded or externally set, or maybe something more complex) decides what kind of object to generate. But every bit of the logic is inside the factory method.
I recently read that getters/setters are evil and I have to say it makes sense, yet when I started learning OOP one of the first things I learned was "Encapsulate your fields" so I learned to create class give it some fields, create getters, setters for them and create constructor where I initialize these fields. And every time some other class needs to manipulate this object (or for instance display it) I pass it the object and it manipulate it using getters/setters. I can see problems with this approach.
But how to do it right? For instance displaying/rendering object that is "data" class - let's say Person, that has name and date of birth. Should the class have method for displaying the object where some Renderer would be passed as an argument? Wouldn't that violate principle that class should have only one purpose (in this case store state) so it should not care about presentation of this object.
Can you suggest some good resources where best practices in OOP design are presented? I'm planning to start a project in my spare time and I want it to be my learning project in correct OOP design..
Allen Holub made a big splash with "Why getter and setter methods are evil" back in 2003.
It's great that you've found and read the article. I admire anybody who's learning and thinking critically about what they're doing.
But take Mr. Holub with a grain of salt.
This is one view that got a lot of attention for its extreme position and the use of the word "evil", but it hasn't set the world on fire or been generally accepted as dogma.
Look at C#: they actually added syntactic sugar to the language to make get/set operations easier to write. Either this confirms someone's view of Microsoft as an evil empire or contradicts Mr. Holub's statement.
The fact is that people write objects so that clients can manipulate state. It doesn't mean that every object written that way is wrong, evil, or unworkable.
The extreme view is not practical.
"Encapsulate your fields" so I learned to create class give it some fields, create getters, setters
Python folks do not do this. Yet, they are still doing OO programming. Clearly, fussy getters and setters aren't essential.
They're common, because of limitations in C++ and Java. But they don't seem to be essential.
Python folks use properties sometimes to create a getter and setter functions that look like a simple attribute.
The point is that "Encapsulation" is a Design strategy. It has little or nothing to do with the implementation. You can have all public attributes, and still a nicely encapsulated design.
Also note that many people worry about "someone else" who "violates" the design by directly accessing attributes. I suppose this could happen, but then the class would stop working correctly.
In C++ (and Java) where you cannot see the source, it can be hard to understand the interface, so you need lots of hints. private methods, explicit getters and setters, etc.
In Python, where you can see all the source, it's trivial to understand the interface. We don't need to provide so many hints. As we say "Use the source, Luke" and "We're all adults here." We're all able to see the source, we don't need to be fussy about piling on getters and setters to provide yet more hints as to how the API works.
For instance displaying/rendering object that is "data" class - let's say Person, that has name and date of birth. Should the class have method for displaying the object where some Renderer would be passed as an argument?
Good idea.
Wouldn't that violate principle that class should have only one purpose (in this case store state) so it should not care about presentation of this object.
That's why the Render object is separate. Your design is quite nice.
No reason why a Person object can't call a general-purpose renderer and still have a narrow set of responsibilities. After all the Person object is responsible for the attributes, and passing those attributes to a Renderer is well within it's responsibilities.
If it's truly a problem (and it can be in some applications), you can introduce Helper classes. So the PersonRenderer class does Rendering of Person data. That way a change to Person also requires changes to PersonRenderer -- and nothing else. This is the Data Access Object design pattern.
Some folks will make the Render an internal class, contained within Person, so it's Person.PersonRenderer to enforce some more serious containment.
If you have getters and setters, you don't have encapsulation. And they are not necessary. Consider the std::string class. This has quite a complicated internal representation, yet has no getters or setters, and only one element of the representation is (probably) exposed simply by returning its value (i.e. size()). That's the kind of thing you should be aiming for.
The basic concept of why they are considered to be evil is, that a class/object should export function and not state. The state of an object is made of its members. Getters and Setters let external users read/modify the state of an object without using any function.
Hence the idea, that except for DataTransferObjects for which you might have Getters and a constructor for setting the state, the members of an objects should only be modified by calling a functionality of an object.
Why do you think getters are evil? See a post with answers proving the opposite:
Purpose of private members in a class
IMHO it contains a lot of what can rightfully be called "OOP best practices".
Update: OK, reading the article you are referring to, I understand more clearly what the issue is. And it's a whole different story from what the provocative title of the article suggests. I haven't yet read the full article, but AFAIU the basic point is that one should not unnecessarily publish class fields via mindlessly added (or generated) getters and setters. And with this point I fully agree.
By designing carefully and focusing on what you must do rather than how
you'll do it, you eliminate the vast majority of getter/setter methods in
your program. Don't ask for the information you need to do the work;
ask the object that has the information to do the work for you.
So far so good. However, I don't agree that providing a getter like this
int getSomeField();
inherently compromises your class design. Well it does, if you haven't designed your class interface well. Then, of course, it might happen that you realize too late that the field should be a long rather than an int, and changing it would break 1000 places in client code. IMHO in such case the designer is to blame, not the poor getter.
In some languages, like C++, there's the concept of friend. Using this concept you can make implementation details of a class visible to only a subset of other classes (or even functions). When you use Get/Set indiscriminately you give everyone access to everything.
When used sparingly friend is an excellent way of increasing encapsulation.
Assume you have many entity classes in your designs, and suppose they have a base class like Data. Adding different getter and setter methods for concrete implementations will pollute the client code that uses these entities like lots of dynamic_casts, to call required getter and setter methods.
Therefore, getter and setter methods may remain where they are, but you should protected client code. My recommendation would be to apply Visitor pattern or data collector for these cases.
In other words, ask yourself why do I need these accessor methods, how do I manipulate these entities? And then apply these manipulations in Visitor classes to keep client code clean, also extend the functionality of entity classes without polluting their code.
In the following paper concerning endotesting you'll find a pattern to avoid getters (in some circumstances) using what the author calls 'smart handlers'. It has a lot in common with how Holub approaches avoiding some getters.
http://www.mockobjects.com/files/endotesting.pdf
Anything that is public is part of the API of the class. Changing these parts may break other stuff, relying on that. A public field, that is not only connected with an API, but with internal representation, can be risky. Example: You save data in a field as an array. This array is public, so the data can be changed from other classes. Later you decide to switch to a generic List. Code that use this field as an array is broken.