I have an application with several graphs and tables on it.
I worked fast and just made classes like Graph and Table that each contained a request object (pseudo-code):
class Graph {
private request;
public function setDateRange(dateRange) {
request.setDateRange(dateRange);
}
public function refresh() {
request.getData(function() {
//refresh the display
});
}
}
Upon a GUI event (say, someone changes the date range dropdown), I'd just call the setters on the Graph instance and then refresh it. Well, when I added other GUI elements like tables and whatnot, they all basically had similar methods (setDateRange and other things common to the request).
What are some more elegant OOP ways of doing this?
The application is very simple and I don't want to over-architect it, but I also don't want to have a bunch of classes with basically the same methods that are just routing to a request object. I also don't want to set up each GUI class as inheriting from the request class, but I'm open to any ideas really.
As you commented the methods are identical. In that case I would suggest the following approach.
abstract class AbstractGUIElement {
protected request;
public function setDateRange(dateRange) {
request.setDateRange(dateRange);
}
abstract function refresh();
}
Refreshing would probably be element specific so I have added it as an abstract method the inheriting types have to implement.
class Graph extends AbstractGUIElement {
public function refresh() {
// Graph specific refreshing
}
}
Related
I want to explain my question with an example. Lets say that i have an interface:
interface IActionPerformer
{
bool IsReadyToExecuteAction();
void Action();
IActionImplementor GetImplementor();
}
And an implementor for Action() method. I don't know if it is the right or wrong way to do so, but anyways, keep reading i will explain my purpose. Implementor:
interface IActionImplementor
{
void Action();
}
And an abstract class that implements IActionPerformer:
abstract class ActionPerformerBase: IActionPerformer
{
private IActionImplementor _implementor;
public abstract bool IsReadyToExecuteAction();
public IActionImplementor GetImplementor()
{
return _implementor;
}
public void Action()
{
if (IsReadyToExecuteAction())
{
GetImplementor().Action();
}
}
protected ActionPerformerBase(IActionImplementor implementor)
{
this._implementor = implementor;
}
}
Now sub classes which inherit from this abstract class, execute the actual action only if it is ready to execute.
But let's say that i have an object in my software, that inherits from a different super class. But at the same time, this object must behave like an IActionPerformer. I mean this object must implement IActionPerformer interface, like:
class SomeOtherSubClass : SomeOtherSuperClass, IActionPerformer
At this point, i want to execute Action() method with controlling if it is ready to execute.
I thought invoking method with another object might be a solution. I mean, a controller or handler object gets interface as a parameter and invokes method the way i want. Like:
IActionInvoker.Invoke(IActionPerformer performer)
{
if (performer.IsReadyToExecuteAction())
{
performer.Action();
}
}
Or every IActionPerformer implementor has a IActionPerformer or ActionPerformerBase(it feels better) object which handles the real control like:
class SomeOtherSubClass : SomeOtherSuperClass, IActionPerformer
{
ActionPerformerBase _realHandler;
public bool IsReadyToExecuteAction()
{
return _realHandler.IsReadyToExecuteAction();
}
public void Action()
{
_realHandler.Action();
}
.
.
.
}
//This is the one get the job done actually.
class RealHandlerOfSomething : ActionPerformerBase
I might not be that clear trying to explain my question. I'm new to concepts like abstraction, design patterns and sort of stuff like that. And trying to figure out them. This one looks like a decorator, it is a IActionPerformerand it has a IActionPerformer. But when i study decorator pattern, i saw it is like going from shell to the core, i mean every object executes its method and the wrapped objects method. It is a bit different in my example, i mean question. Is this what we call as "encapsulation"? Or do i have big issues understanding the concepts?
I hope i explained myself clearly. Thanks for everyone reading, trying to help.
Have a nice day/night.
As Design Patterns states in chapter one:
Favor object composition over class inheritance
This was in 1994. Inheritance makes things complicated. The OP is another example.
In the following, I'll keep IActionPerformer and ActionPerformerBase as is. Since inheritance is isomorphic to composition, everything you can do with inheritance, you can also do with composition - and more, such as emulating multiple inheritance.
Here's how you can implement the IActionPerformer interface from another subclass, and still reuse ActionPerformerBase:
public class SomeOtherSubClass : SomeOtherSuperClass, IActionPerformer
{
private readonly ActionPerformerBase #base;
public SomeOtherSubClass(ActionPerformerBase #base)
{
this.#base = #base;
}
public void Action()
{
// Perhaps do something before calling #base...
#base.Action();
// Perhaps do something else after calling #base...
}
// Other methods of IActionPerformer go here, possibly following the same pattern...
}
SomeOtherSubClass composes with any ActionPerformerBase, and since ActionPerformerBase has the desired functionality, that functionality is effectively reused.
Once you've figured out how to use composition for reuse instead of inheritance, do yourself a favour and eliminate inheritance from your code base. Trust me, you don't need it. I've been designing and writing production code for more than a decade without inheritance.
I am looking for a way to dynamically select the correct dependency during runtime using google guice.
My usecase is a kotlin application which can work with either sqlite or h2 databases depending on the configuration file provided.
The file is read when the application is executed and if the database is not found, the correct one is created and migrated into.
My database structure contains the Database (Interface), H2Database: Database, SQLiteDatabase: Database and the module binding class which looks like this:
class DatabaseModule: KotlinModule() {
override fun configure() {
bind<Database>().annotatedWith<configuration.H2>().to<H2Database>()
bind<Database>().annotatedWith<configuration.SQLite>().to<SQLiteDatabase>()
}
}
So far, with SQlite alone, I would simply request the dependency using:
#Inject
#SQLite
private lateinit var database: Database
How would I make this selection during runtime?
Without knowing too much about the specific of your code, I'll offer three general approaches.
(Also, I have never used Kotlin. I hope Java samples are enough for you to figure things out.)
First Approach
It sounds like you need some non-trivial logic to determine which Database implementation is the right one to use. This is a classic case for a ProviderBinding. Instead binding Database to a specific implementation, you bind Database to a class that is responsible providing instances (a Provider). For example, you might have this class:
public class MyDatabaseProvider.class implements Provider<Database> {
#Inject
public MyDatabaseProvider.class(Provider<SQLiteDatabase> sqliteProvider, Provider<H2Database> h2Provider) {
this.sqliteProvider = sqliteProvider;
this.h2Provider = h2Provider;
}
public Database get() {
// Logic to determine database type goes here
if (isUsingSqlite) {
return sqliteProvider.get();
} else if (isUsingH2) {
return h2Provider.get();
} else {
throw new ProvisionException("Could not determine correct database implementation.");
}
}
}
(Side note: This sample code gets you a new instance every time. It is fairly straightforward to make this also return a singleton instance.)
Then, to use it, you have two options. In your module, you would bind Database not to a specific implementation, but to your DatabaseProvider. Like this:
protected void configure() {
bind(Database.class).toProvider(MyDatabaseProvider.class);
}
The advantage of this approach is that you don't need to know the correct database implementation until Guice tries to construct an object that requires Database as one of its constructor args.
Second Approach
You could create a DatabaseRoutingProxy class which implements Database and then delegates to the correct database implementation. (I've used this pattern professionally. I don't think there's an "official" name for this design pattern, but you can find a discussion here.) This approach is based on lazy loading with Provider using the Providers that Guice automatically creates(1) for every bound type.
public class DatabaseRoutingProxy implements Database {
private Provider<SqliteDatabse> sqliteDatabaseProvider;
private Provider<H2Database> h2DatabaseProvider;
#Inject
public DatabaseRoutingProxy(Provider<SqliteDatabse> sqliteDatabaseProvider, Provider<H2Database> h2DatabaseProvider) {
this.sqliteDatabaseProvider = sqliteDatabaseProvider;
this.h2DatabaseProvider = h2DatabaseProvider;
}
// Not an overriden method
private Database getDatabase() {
boolean isSqlite = // ... decision logic, or maintain a decision state somewhere
// If these providers don't return singletons, then you should probably write some code
// to call the provider once and save the result for future use.
if (isSqlite) {
return sqliteDatabaseProvider.get();
} else {
return h2DatabaseProvider.get();
}
}
#Override
public QueryResult queryDatabase(QueryInput queryInput) {
return getDatabase().queryDatabase(queryInput);
}
// Implement rest of methods here, delegating as above
}
And in your Guice module:
protected void configure() {
bind(Database.class).to(DatabaseRoutingProxy.class);
// Bind these just so that Guice knows about them. (This might not actually be necessary.)
bind(SqliteDatabase.class);
bind(H2Database.class);
}
The advantage of this approach is that you don't need to be able to know which database implementation to use until you actually make a database call.
Both of these approaches have been assuming that you cannot instantiate an instance of H2Database or SqliteDatabase unless the backing database file actually exists. If it's possible to instantiate the object without the backing database file, then your code becomes much simpler. (Just have a router/proxy/delegator/whatever that takes the actual Database instances as the constructor args.)
Third Approach
This approach is completely different then the last two. It seems to me like your code is actually dealing with two questions:
Does a database actually exist? (If not, then make one.)
Which database exists? (And get the correct class to interact with it.)
If you can solve question 1 before even creating the guice injector that needs to know the answer to question 2, then you don't need to do anything complicated. You can just have a database module like this:
public class MyDatabaseModule extends AbstractModule {
public enum DatabaseType {
SQLITE,
H2
}
private DatabaseType databaseType;
public MyDatabaseModule(DatabaseType databaseType) {
this.databaseType = databaseType;
}
protected void configure() {
if (SQLITE.equals(databaseType)) {
bind(Database.class).to(SqliteDatabase.class);
} else if (H2.equals(databaseType)) {
bind(Database.class).to(H2Database.class);
}
}
}
Since you've separated out questions 1 & 2, when you create the injector that will use the MyDatabaseModule, you can pass in the appropriate value for the constructor argument.
Notes
The Injector documentation states that there will exist a Provider<T> for every binding T. I have successfully created bindings without creating the corresponding provider, therefore Guice must be automatically creating a Provider for configured bindings. (Edit: I found more documentation that states this more clearly.)
OOP interfaces.
In my own experience I find interfaces very useful when it comes to design and implement multiple inter-operating modules with multiple developers. For example, if there are two developers, one working on backend and other on frontend (UI) then they can start working in parallel once they have interfaces finalized. Thus, if everyone follows the defined contract then the integration later becomes painless. And thats what interfaces precisely do - define the contract!
Basically it avoids this situation :
Interfaces are very useful when you need a class to operate on generic methods implemented by subclasses.
public class Person
{
public void Eat(IFruit fruit)
{
Console.WriteLine("The {0} is delicious!",fruit.Name);
}
}
public interface IFruit
{
string Name { get; }
}
public class Apple : IFruit
{
public string Name
{
get { return "Apple"; }
}
}
public class Strawberry : IFruit
{
public string Name
{
get { return "Strawberry"; }
}
}
Interfaces are very useful, in case of multiple inheritance.
An Interface totally abstracts away the implementation knowledge from the client.
It allows us to change their behavior dynamically. This means how it will act depends on dynamic specialization (or substitution).
It prevents the client from being broken if the developer made some changes
to implementation or added new specialization/implementation.
It gives an open way to extend an implementation.
Programming language (C#, java )
These languages do not support multiple inheritance from classes, however, they do support multiple inheritance from interfaces; this is yet another advantage of an interface.
Basically Interfaces allow a Program to change the Implementation without having to tell all clients that they now need a "Bar" Object instead of a "Foo" Object. It tells the users of this class what it does, not what it is.
Example:
A Method you wrote wants to loop through the values given to it. Now there are several things you can iterate over, like Lists, Arrays and Collections.
Without Interfaces you would have to write:
public class Foo<T>
{
public void DoSomething(T items[])
{
}
public void DoSomething(List<T> items)
{
}
public void DoSomething(SomeCollectionType<T> items)
{
}
}
And for every new iteratable type you'd have to add another method or the user of your class would have to cast his data. For example with this solution if he has a Collection of FooCollectionType he has to cast it to an Array, List or SomeOtherCollectionType.
With interfaces you only need:
public class Foo<T>
{
public void DoSomething(IEnumerable<T> items)
{
}
}
This means your class only has to know that, whatever the user passes to it can be iterated over. If the user changes his SomeCollectionType to AnotherCollectionType he neither has to cast nor change your class.
Take note that abstract base classes allow for the same sort of abstraction but have some slight differences in usage.
To show an example what is this question about:
I have currently a dilemma in PHP project I'm working on. I have in mind a method that will be used by multiple classes (UIs in this case - MVC model), but I'm not sure how to represent such methods in OO design. The first thing that came into my mind was to create a class with static functions that I'd call whenever I need them. However I'm not sure if it's the right thing to do.
To be more precise, I want to work, for example, with time. So I'll need several methods that handle time. I was thinking about creating a Time class where I'd be functions that check whether the time is in correct format etc.
Some might say that I shouldn't use class for this at all, since in PHP I can still use procedural code. But I'm more interested in answer that would enlighten me how to approach such situations in OOP / OOD.
So the actual questions are: How to represent such methods? Is static function approach good enough or should I reconsider anything else?
I would recommend creating a normal class the contains this behavior, and then let that class implement an interface extracted from the class' members.
Whenever you need to call those methods, you inject the interface (not the concrete class) into the consumer. This lets you vary the two independently of each other.
This may sound like more work, but is simply the Strategy design pattern applied.
This will also make it much easier to unit test the code, because the code is more loosely coupled.
Here's an example in C#.
Interface:
public interface ITimeMachine
{
IStopwatch CreateStopwatch();
DateTimeOffset GetNow();
}
Production implementation:
public class RealTimeMachine : ITimeMachine
{
#region ITimeMachine Members
public IStopwatch CreateStopwatch()
{
return new StopwatchAdapter();
}
public DateTimeOffset GetNow()
{
return DateTimeOffset.Now;
}
#endregion
}
and here's a consumer of the interface:
public abstract class PerformanceRecordingSession : IDisposable
{
private readonly IStopwatch watch;
protected PerformanceRecordingSession(ITimeMachine timeMachine)
{
if (timeMachine == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException("timeMachine");
}
this.watch = timeMachine.CreateStopwatch();
this.watch.Start();
}
public abstract void Record(long elapsedTicks);
public virtual void StopRecording()
{
this.watch.Stop();
this.Record(this.watch.ElapsedTicks);
}
}
Although you say you want a structure for arbitrary, unrelated functions, you have given an example of a Time class, which has many related functions. So from an OO point of view you would create a Time class and have a static function getCurrentTime(), for example, which returns an instance of this class. Or you could define that the constuctors default behaviour is to return the current time, whichever you like more. Or both.
class DateTime {
public static function getNow() {
return new self();
}
public function __construct() {
$this->setDateTime('now');
}
public function setDateTime($value) {
#...
}
}
But apart from that, there is already a builtin DateTime class in PHP.
Use a class as a namespace. So yes, have a static class.
class Time {
public static function getCurrentTime() {
return time() + 42;
}
}
I don't do PHP, but from an OO point of view, placing these sorts of utility methods as static methods is fine. If they are completely reusable in nature, consider placing them in a utils class.
I am writing a number of small, simple applications which share a common structure and need to do some of the same things in the same ways (e.g. logging, database connection setup, environment setup) and I'm looking for some advice in structuring the reusable components. The code is written in a strongly and statically typed language (e.g. Java or C#, I've had to solve this problem in both). At the moment I've got this:
abstract class EmptyApp //this is the reusable bit
{
//various useful fields: loggers, db connections
abstract function body()
function run()
{
//do setup
this.body()
//do cleanup
}
}
class theApp extends EmptyApp //this is a given app
{
function body()
{
//do stuff using some fields from EmptyApp
}
function main()
{
theApp app = new theApp()
app.run()
}
}
Is there a better way? Perhaps as follows? I'm having trouble weighing the trade-offs...
abstract class EmptyApp
{
//various fields
}
class ReusableBits
{
static function doSetup(EmptyApp theApp)
static function doCleanup(EmptyApp theApp)
}
class theApp extends EmptyApp
{
function main()
{
ReusableBits.doSetup(this);
//do stuff using some fields from EmptyApp
ReusableBits.doCleanup(this);
}
}
One obvious tradeoff is that with option 2, the 'framework' can't wrap the app in a try-catch block...
I've always favored re-use through composition (your second option) rather than inheritance (your first option).
Inheritance should only be used when there is a relationship between the classes rather than for code reuse.
So for your example I would have multiple ReusableBits classes each doing 1 thing that each application a make use of as/when required.
This allows each application to re-use the parts of your framework that are relevant for that specific application without being forced to take everything, Allowing the individual applications more freedom. Re-use through inheritance can sometimes become very restrictive if you have some applications in the future that don't exactly fit into the structure you have in mind today.
You will also find unit testing and test driven development much easier if you break your framework up into separate utilities.
Why not make the framework call onto your customisable code ? So your client creates some object, and injects it into the framework. The framework initialises, calls setup() etc., and then calls your client's code. Upon completion (or even after a thrown exception), the framework then calls cleanup() and exits.
So your client would simply implement an interface such as (in Java)
public interface ClientCode {
void runClientStuff(); // for the sake of argument
}
and the framework code is configured with an implementation of this, and calls runClientStuff() whenever required.
So you don't derive from the application framework, but simply provide a class conforming to a particular contract. You can configure the application setup at runtime (e.g. what class the client will provide to the app) since you're not deriving from the app and so your dependency isn't static.
The above interface can be extended to have multiple methods, and the application can call the required methods at different stages in the lifecycle (e.g. to provide client-specific setup/cleanup) but that's an example of feature creep :-)
Remember, inheritance is only a good choice if all the object that are inheriting reuse the code duo to their similarities. or if you want callers to be able to interact with them in the same fission.
if what i just mentioned applies to you then based on my experience its always better to have the common logic in your base/abstract class.
this is how i would re-write your sample app in C#.
abstract class BaseClass
{
string field1 = "Hello World";
string field2 = "Goodbye World";
public void Start()
{
Console.WriteLine("Starting.");
Setup();
CustomWork();
Cleanup();
}
public virtual void Setup()
{Console.WriteLine("Doing Base Setup.");}
public virtual void Cleanup()
{Console.WriteLine("Doing Base Cleanup.");}
public abstract void CustomWork();
}
class MyClass : BaseClass
{
public override void CustomWork()
{Console.WriteLine("Doing Custome work.");}
public override void Cleanup()
{
Console.WriteLine("Doing Custom Cleanup");
//You can skip the next line if you want to replace the
//cleanup code rather than extending it
base.Cleanup();
}
}
void Main()
{
MyClass worker = new MyClass();
worker.Start();
}