Related
Many articles/books/.... talk about class or package dependency, few explain what it is. I did find some definitions, but they vary and probably don't cover all cases. E.g.:
"when one class uses another concrete class within its implementation" (so there exists no dependency on an interface?)
"when a class uses another as a variable" (what about inheritance?)
"if changes to the definition of one element may cause changes to the other" (so dependency is a transitive relationship not just on packages, but also on class level?)
"the degree to which each program module relies on each one of the other modules" (but how do you define "relies"?)
Further aspects to consider are method parameters, dependency injection, aspect oriented programming, generics. Any more aspects?
So, can you give a (formal) definition for dependency amongst classes and amongst packages that is fool-proof and covers all these cases and aspects?
If you are asking for dependency in the context of inversion of control or dependency injection, well, you're probably interested in classes that interact with one another directly. That means mostly constructor parameters and properties.
In the context of a UML domain diagram, you're probably interested in "real world" dependency. A dog needs food. That's a dependency. The dog's Bark() method returns a Sound object: that's not something you're interested in, in a UML domain model. The dog doesn't depend on sounds to exist.
You could go philosophical on this also: All classes depend on each other to accomplish a common goal; a (hopefully) great software.
So, all in all, dependency or coupling is not a matter of yes or no. It really depends on the context and on a degree of coupling (weak, strong). I thinks that explains why there are some many divergent definition of dependency.
I wrote a blog post on that topic a while ago: Understanding Code: Static vs Dynamic Dependencies. Basically you need to make a difference between static dependencies, those that are resolved by the compiler at compile-time, and dynamic dependencies, those that are resolved by the runtime (JVM or CLR) at run-time.
static dependencies are typically provoked by calls to static/final methods, read/write to a field, in the definition of the class C the implementation of the interface I by C ... all these associations between code elements that can be found explicitly in the bytecode and source code.
dynamic dependencies are typically provoked by everything that abstracts a method call at compile time, like calls to abstract/virtual methods (polymorphism), variables or parameters typed with an interface (the implementation class is abstracted at compile-time), but also delegates (.NET) or pointers to function (C++).
Most of the time, when you'll read about dependencies in the literature, they are talking about static dependencies.
A static dependencies is direct (meaning not transitive). A tool like NDepend that I mention in the blog post, can also infer indirect (or call it transitive) static dependencies from the set of direct static dependencies.
The idea I defend in the blog post is that when it comes to understand and maintain a program, one needs to focus mostly on the static dependencies, the ones found in the source code.. Indeed, abstractions facilities are used to, well ... abstract, implementation for callers. This makes source code much more easy to develop and maintain. There are however situations, typically at debugging time, where one needs to know what's really behind an abstraction at run-time.
This post is about static dependency - for dynamic dependency and the difference, see
Patrick Smacchia's answer.
In an easy to understand way: an entity (class or package) A depends on an entity B when A cannot be used standalone without B.
Inheritance, aggregation, composition, all of them introduces dependency between related entities.
so there exists no dependency on an interface?
there is, but interface only serves as the glue.
what about inheritance?
see above.
so dependency is a transitive relationship not just on packages, but also on class level?
yep.
but how do you define "relies"?
see above "easy to understand" definition. also related to the 3rd definition you posted.
Update:
So if you have interface A in Package P1, and class C in Package P2 uses A as
method parameter, or
local variable woven into C via AOP, or
class C implements A, or
class C<E extends A>,
then C depends on A and P2 depends on P1.
But if interface A is implemented by class B and class C programs against the interface A and only uses B via dependency injection, then C still (statically!) only depends on A, not on B, because the point of dependency injection is that it doesn't make glued components dependent.
Do you have any input on how to organize and name utility classes?
Whenever I run in to some code-duplication, could be just a couple of code lines, I move them to a utility class.
After a while, I tend to get a lot of small static classes, usually with only one method, which I usualy put in a utility namespace that gets bloated with classes.
Examples:
ParseCommaSeparatedIntegersFromString( string )
CreateCommaSeparatedStringFromIntegers( int[] )
CleanHtmlTags( string )
GetListOfIdsFromCollectionOfX( CollectionX )
CompressByteData( byte[] )
Usually, naming conventions tell you to name your class as a Noun. I often end up with a lot of classes like HtmlHelper, CompressHelper but they aren't very informative. I've also tried being really specific like HtmlTagCleaner, which usualy ends up with one class per utility method.
Have you any ideas on how to name and group these helper methods?
I believe there is a continuum of complexity, therefore corresponding organizations. Examples follow, choose depending of the complexity of your project and your utilities, and adapt to other constraints :
One class (called Helper), with a few methods
One package (called helper), with a few classes (called XXXHelper), each class with a few methods.
Alternatively, the classes may be split in several non-helper packages if they fit.
One project (called helper), with a few packages (called XXX), each package with ...
Alternatively, the packages can be split in several non-helper packages if they fit.
Several helper projects (split by tier, by library in use or otherwise)...
At each grouping level (package, class) :
the common part of the meaning is the name of the grouping name
inner codes don't need that meaning anymore (so their name is shorter, more focused, and doesn't need abbreviations, it uses full names).
For projects, I usually repeat the common meaning in a superpackage name. Although not my prefered choice in theory, I don't see in my IDE (Eclipse) from which project a class is imported, so I need the information repeated. The project is actually only used as :
a shipping unit : some deliverables or products will have the jar, those that don't need it won't),
to express dependencies : for example, a business project have no dependency on web tier helpers ; having expressed that in projects dependencies, we made an improvement in apparent complexity, good for us ; or finding such a dependency, we know something is wrong, and start to investigate... ; also, by reducing the dependencies, we may accelerate compilation and building ....
to categorize the code, to find it faster : only when it's huge, I'm talking about thousands of classes in the project
Please note that all the above applies to dynamic methods as well, not only static ones.
It's actually our good practices for all our code.
Now that I tried to answer your question (although in a broad way), let me add another thought
(I know you didn't ask for that).
Static methods (except those using static class members) work without context, all data have to be passed as parameters. We all know that, in OO code, this is not the preferred way. In theory, we should look for the object most relevant to the method, and move that method on that object. Remember that code sharing doesn't have to be static, it only has to be public (or otherwise visible).
Examples of where to move a static method :
If there is only one parameter, to that parameter.
If there are several parameters, choose between moving the method on :
the parameter that is used most : the one with several fields or methods used, or used by conditionals (ideally, some conditionnals would be removed by subclasses overriding) ...
one existing object that has already good access to several of the parameters.
build a new class for that need
Although this method moving may seem for OO-purist, we find this actually helps us in the long run (and it proves invaluable when we want to subclass it, to alter an algorithm). Eclipse moves a method in less than a minute (with all verifications), and we gain so much more than a minute when we look for some code, or when we don't code again a method that was coded already.
Limitations : some classes can't be extended, usually because they are out of control (JDK, libraries ...). I believe this is the real helper justification, when you need to put a method on a class that you can't change.
Our good practice then is to name the helper with the name of the class to extend, with Helper suffix. (StringHelper, DateHelper). This close matching between the class where we would like the code to be and the Helper helps us find those method in a few seconds, even without knowledge if someone else in our project wrote that method or not.
Helper suffix is a good convention, since it is used in other languages (at least in Java, IIRC rails use it).
The intent of your helper should be transported by the method name, and use the class only as placeholder. For example ParseCommaSeparatedIntegersFromString is a bad name for a couple of reasons:
too long, really
it is redundant, in a statically typed language you can remove FromString suffix since it is deduced from signature
What do you think about:
CSVHelper.parse(String)
CSVHelper.create(int[])
HTMLHelper.clean(String)
...
Is it acceptable to use the word 'Base' in a class name which is a the bottom of the inheritance tree?
I have always found this a bit of a cop-out, just wondering if anyone agrees with me.
For example, if I am refactoring certain elements from MyClassA and MyClassB into a common base class, I'd be tempted to create a MyBaseClass from which the two inherit.
But what happens if I ever need to refactor MyBaseClass? MyBaseBaseClass? Now that's just silly.
I know that Rocky Lhotka doesn't mind with his CSLA framework, but I'm always uneasy about 'definites' in programming.
Thoughts?
Let me clarify why I'm even worrying about this.
I have two namespaces - MySpecificNamespace and MyCommonNamespace. MyNamespace uses MyCommonNamespace, as you might expect.
Now, I like to make maximum use of Namespaces wherever possible to describe the context of the problem, and avoid adding the context to the class name. So, for example, consider that I have a class in MyNamespace which descends from one in MyCommonNamespace.
Option A
I could call this
MySpecificClass: MyClass
{
}
But then I'm adding 'Specific' (the context) to the name - which is redundant as it's already in MySpecificNamespace.
Option B
MyClass: MyCommonNamespace.MyClass
{
}
You can see how we could get confused here, right?
Option C
The one I think is fishy:
MyClass: MyBaseClass
{
}
I tend to add a Base suffix to the name of the base class only if it exists from technical perspective (to share some code), and doesn't really constitute any usable class on its own (so all of these classes are abstract). These are quite rare cases though, and should be avoided just as Helper classes.
"All your BaseClass are belong to us."
I side with a definitive no, with a single exception. If you are writing an app to manage military installations or baseball stadiums, go for it.
I side with "no" for exactly the refactoring reason you've cited.
A class should be named after what it logically represents, and nothing but the Object class is really really Base. Metaphysics ftw :)
re: Option B, there is nothing confusing about
namespace MySpecificNamespace
{
MyClass: MyCommonNamespace.MyClass
{
}
}
Classes that have the same name as their parent classes bug me to no end. In Java java.sql.Date extends java.util.Date. This is very annoying because you have to specify the exact class you want to import or else specify the classname fully (including package/namespace).
Personally I prefer to name things as they are; if a Base or Abstract class exists only to provide a partial implementation of something, and doesn't represent the interface for that thing, it is often acceptable to put the word Abstract or Base in its name. However, if that class represents the interface as well, then you should just name it after what it does.
For example, in Java, we have the Connection interface (for DB connections). It's just called Connection, not IConnection. You use it like this:
Connection con = getConnectionFromSomewhere();
If you are making a JDBC driver and need to implement connection, you could have a ConnectionBase or AbstractConnection which is the lower layer of the implementation detail of your particular Connection. You might have
abstract class AbstractConnection implements Connection
class OracleConnection extends AbstractConnection
or something like that. The clients of your code, however, never see AbstractConnection nor do they see OracleConnection, they only see Connection.
So, in general, classes that are meant to be generally useful should be named after what they represent/do, whereas classes that are helpers for code maintenance/organization can be named after what they are.
*ps I hate naming Interfaces with I. Do people name all their classes with C? It's 2009! your IDE can tell you what type of object that is, in the odd case when it even matters if it's an interface or a class.
I think it's worth wiki-fying this question.
FWIW, I agree. I usually try to find a more "generic" term for my base classes. So if I have a "Customer" class and need to introduce a new base class for it, I'd go with "Contact" or something rather than "CustomerBase".
I too would suggest No, but not cast in stone...
Following OO mantra, your naming system should best represent the underlying objects that the code is supposed to be encapsulating. There should really be no 'meta language', related to the actual syntactical makeup of the programming language of choice in there.
That said, if your object is truly abstract and you really don't see it changing anytime soon, there is an argument that adding 'Base' helps with general readability.
As with most things, there's no blanket right and wrong answer - it depends on the overall layout of your codebase, what this specific code is supposed to be representing and the in-house style that you have. Just try to be consistent.
Is base used anywhere else?
In Java I tend to provide a base implementation of an interface Foo in an abstract class FooBase. I think that is perfectly ok, and makes the connection to the interface very clear and regular.
Without the interface I would call the abstract base class Foo.
I also side with the no camp...place a Base in there today and in 6 months someone will whack a MyDerivedClass class in you code base while you're not looking.
"Abstract" prefix maybe?
I usually go with IFoo for the interface and AbstractFoo for the skeletal implementation, which is a mix of .NET and Java conventions.
I think it should probably be avoided where possible in favour of an identifier that actually describes what it is!
This question is difficult to answer because it's abstract. I might, for example, consider calling the base of MyClassA and MyClassB, "MyClass".
I agree, AbstractFoo is a decent solution. I try to pick names that don't need additional adjectives. I would shy away from using Base.
It seems like any principled answer will end up being no... However, comma, when I'm looking at code I'm not particularly familiar with, which happens a lot in python (where the source code is sometimes the only dependable documentation), I find it really helpful when a class has Base in it. Python is different from other OO languages where the class is defined with an "abstract" or "interface" specifier though. For naming, I like to ask myself "if I have never seen this code before, which way would make it easier for me to understand this code?" (Then, depending on how lazy I'm feeling, I name it accordingly).
If I understand correctly, the typical mechanism for Dependency Injection is to inject either through a class' constructor or through a public property (member) of the class.
This exposes the dependency being injected and violates the OOP principle of encapsulation.
Am I correct in identifying this tradeoff? How do you deal with this issue?
Please also see my answer to my own question below.
There is another way of looking at this issue that you might find interesting.
When we use IoC/dependency injection, we're not using OOP concepts. Admittedly we're using an OO language as the 'host', but the ideas behind IoC come from component-oriented software engineering, not OO.
Component software is all about managing dependencies - an example in common use is .NET's Assembly mechanism. Each assembly publishes the list of assemblies that it references, and this makes it much easier to pull together (and validate) the pieces needed for a running application.
By applying similar techniques in our OO programs via IoC, we aim to make programs easier to configure and maintain. Publishing dependencies (as constructor parameters or whatever) is a key part of this. Encapsulation doesn't really apply, as in the component/service oriented world, there is no 'implementation type' for details to leak from.
Unfortunately our languages don't currently segregate the fine-grained, object-oriented concepts from the coarser-grained component-oriented ones, so this is a distinction that you have to hold in your mind only :)
It's a good question - but at some point, encapsulation in its purest form needs to be violated if the object is ever to have its dependency fulfilled. Some provider of the dependency must know both that the object in question requires a Foo, and the provider has to have a way of providing the Foo to the object.
Classically this latter case is handled as you say, through constructor arguments or setter methods. However, this is not necessarily true - I know that the latest versions of the Spring DI framework in Java, for example, let you annotate private fields (e.g. with #Autowired) and the dependency will be set via reflection without you needing to expose the dependency through any of the classes public methods/constructors. This might be the kind of solution you were looking for.
That said, I don't think that constructor injection is much of a problem, either. I've always felt that objects should be fully valid after construction, such that anything they need in order to perform their role (i.e. be in a valid state) should be supplied through the constructor anyway. If you have an object that requires a collaborator to work, it seems fine to me that the constructor publically advertises this requirement and ensures it is fulfilled when a new instance of the class is created.
Ideally when dealing with objects, you interact with them through an interface anyway, and the more you do this (and have dependencies wired through DI), the less you actually have to deal with constructors yourself. In the ideal situation, your code doesn't deal with or even ever create concrete instances of classes; so it just gets given an IFoo through DI, without worrying about what the constructor of FooImpl indicates it needs to do its job, and in fact without even being aware of FooImpl's existance. From this point of view, the encapsulation is perfect.
This is an opinion of course, but to my mind DI doesn't necessarily violate encapsulation and in fact can help it by centralising all of the necessary knowledge of internals into one place. Not only is this a good thing in itself, but even better this place is outside your own codebase, so none of the code you write needs to know about classes' dependencies.
This exposes the dependency being injected and violates the OOP principle of encapsulation.
Well, frankly speaking, everything violates encapsulation. :) It's a kind of a tender principle that must be treated well.
So, what violates encapsulation?
Inheritance does.
"Because inheritance exposes a subclass to details of its parent's implementation, it's often said that 'inheritance breaks encapsulation'". (Gang of Four 1995:19)
Aspect-oriented programming does. For example, you register onMethodCall() callback and that gives you a great opportunity to inject code to the normal method evaluation, adding strange side-effects etc.
Friend declaration in C++ does.
Class extention in Ruby does. Just redefine a string method somewhere after a string class was fully defined.
Well, a lot of stuff does.
Encapsulation is a good and important principle. But not the only one.
switch (principle)
{
case encapsulation:
if (there_is_a_reason)
break!
}
Yes, DI violates encapsulation (also known as "information hiding").
But the real problem comes when developers use it as an excuse to violate the KISS (Keep It Short and Simple) and YAGNI (You Ain't Gonna Need It) principles.
Personally, I prefer simple and effective solutions. I mostly use the "new" operator to instantiate stateful dependencies whenever and wherever they are needed. It is simple, well encapsulated, easy to understand, and easy to test. So, why not?
A good depenancy injection container/system will allow for constructor injection. The dependant objects will be encapsulated, and need not be exposed publicly at all. Further, by using a DP system, none of your code even "knows" the details of how the object is constructed, possibly even including the object being constructed. There is more encapsulation in this case since nearly all of your code not only is shielded from knowledge of the encapsulated objects, but does not even participate in the objects construction.
Now, I am assuming you are comparing against the case where the created object creates its own encapsulated objects, most likely in its constructor. My understanding of DP is that we want to take this responsibility away from the object and give it to someone else. To that end, the "someone else", which is the DP container in this case, does have intimate knowledge which "violates" encapsulation; the benefit is that it pulls that knowledge out of the object, iteself. Someone has to have it. The rest of your application does not.
I would think of it this way: The dependancy injection container/system violates encapsulation, but your code does not. In fact, your code is more "encapsulated" then ever.
This is similar to the upvoted answer but I want to think out loud - perhaps others see things this way as well.
Classical OO uses constructors to define the public "initialization" contract for consumers of the class (hiding ALL implementation details; aka encapsulation). This contract can ensure that after instantiation you have a ready-to-use object (i.e. no additional initialization steps to be remembered (er, forgotten) by the user).
(constructor) DI undeniably breaks encapsulation by bleeding implemenation detail through this public constructor interface. As long as we still consider the public constructor responsible for defining the initialization contract for users, we have created a horrible violation of encapsulation.
Theoretical Example:
Class Foo has 4 methods and needs an integer for initialization, so its constructor looks like Foo(int size) and it's immediately clear to users of class Foo that they must provide a size at instantiation in order for Foo to work.
Say this particular implementation of Foo may also need a IWidget to do its job. Constructor injection of this dependency would have us create a constructor like Foo(int size, IWidget widget)
What irks me about this is now we have a constructor that's blending initialization data with dependencies - one input is of interest to the user of the class (size), the other is an internal dependency that only serves to confuse the user and is an implementation detail (widget).
The size parameter is NOT a dependency - it's simple a per-instance initialization value. IoC is dandy for external dependencies (like widget) but not for internal state initialization.
Even worse, what if the Widget is only necessary for 2 of the 4 methods on this class; I may be incurring instantiation overhead for Widget even though it may not be used!
How to compromise/reconcile this?
One approach is to switch exclusively to interfaces to define the operation contract; and abolish the use of constructors by users.
To be consistent, all objects would have to be accessed through interfaces only, and instantiated only through some form of resolver (like an IOC/DI container). Only the container gets to instantiate things.
That takes care of the Widget dependency, but how do we initialize "size" without resorting to a separate initialization method on the Foo interface? Using this solution, we lost the ability to ensure that an instance of Foo is fully initialized by the time you get the instance. Bummer, because I really like the idea and simplicity of constructor injection.
How do I achieve guaranteed initialization in this DI world, when initialization is MORE than ONLY external dependencies?
As Jeff Sternal pointed out in a comment to the question, the answer is entirely dependent on how you define encapsulation.
There seem to be two main camps of what encapsulation means:
Everything related to the object is a method on an object. So, a File object may have methods to Save, Print, Display, ModifyText, etc.
An object is its own little world, and does not depend on outside behavior.
These two definitions are in direct contradiction to each other. If a File object can print itself, it will depend heavily on the printer's behavior. On the other hand, if it merely knows about something that can print for it (an IFilePrinter or some such interface), then the File object doesn't have to know anything about printing, and so working with it will bring less dependencies into the object.
So, dependency injection will break encapsulation if you use the first definition. But, frankly I don't know if I like the first definition - it clearly doesn't scale (if it did, MS Word would be one big class).
On the other hand, dependency injection is nearly mandatory if you're using the second definition of encapsulation.
It doesn't violate encapsulation. You're providing a collaborator, but the class gets to decide how it is used. As long as you follow Tell don't ask things are fine. I find constructer injection preferable, but setters can be fine as well as long as they're smart. That is they contain logic to maintain the invariants the class represents.
Pure encapsulation is an ideal that can never be achieved. If all dependencies were hidden then you wouldn't have the need for DI at all. Think about it this way, if you truly have private values that can be internalized within the object, say for instance the integer value of the speed of a car object, then you have no external dependency and no need to invert or inject that dependency. These sorts of internal state values that are operated on purely by private functions are what you want to encapsulate always.
But if you're building a car that wants a certain kind of engine object then you have an external dependency. You can either instantiate that engine -- for instance new GMOverHeadCamEngine() -- internally within the car object's constructor, preserving encapsulation but creating a much more insidious coupling to a concrete class GMOverHeadCamEngine, or you can inject it, allowing your Car object to operate agnostically (and much more robustly) on for example an interface IEngine without the concrete dependency. Whether you use an IOC container or simple DI to achieve this is not the point -- the point is that you've got a Car that can use many kinds of engines without being coupled to any of them, thus making your codebase more flexible and less prone to side effects.
DI is not a violation of encapsulation, it is a way of minimizing the coupling when encapsulation is necessarily broken as a matter of course within virtually every OOP project. Injecting a dependency into an interface externally minimizes coupling side effects and allows your classes to remain agnostic about implementation.
It depends on whether the dependency is really an implementation detail or something that the client would want/need to know about in some way or another. One thing that is relevant is what level of abstraction the class is targeting. Here are some examples:
If you have a method that uses caching under the hood to speed up calls, then the cache object should be a Singleton or something and should not be injected. The fact that the cache is being used at all is an implementation detail that the clients of your class should not have to care about.
If your class needs to output streams of data, it probably makes sense to inject the output stream so that the class can easily output the results to an array, a file, or wherever else someone else might want to send the data.
For a gray area, let's say you have a class that does some monte carlo simulation. It needs a source of randomness. On the one hand, the fact that it needs this is an implementation detail in that the client really doesn't care exactly where the randomness comes from. On the other hand, since real-world random number generators make tradeoffs between degree of randomness, speed, etc. that the client may want to control, and the client may want to control seeding to get repeatable behavior, injection may make sense. In this case, I'd suggest offering a way of creating the class without specifying a random number generator, and use a thread-local Singleton as the default. If/when the need for finer control arises, provide another constructor that allows for a source of randomness to be injected.
Having struggled with the issue a little further, I am now in the opinion that Dependency Injection does (at this time) violate encapsulation to some degree. Don't get me wrong though - I think that using dependency injection is well worth the tradeoff in most cases.
The case for why DI violates encapsulation becomes clear when the component you are working on is to be delivered to an "external" party (think of writing a library for a customer).
When my component requires sub-components to be injected via the constructor (or public properties) there's no guarantee for
"preventing users from setting the internal data of the component into an invalid or inconsistent state".
At the same time it cannot be said that
"users of the component (other pieces of software) only need to know what the component does, and cannot make themselves dependent on the details of how it does it".
Both quotes are from wikipedia.
To give a specific example: I need to deliver a client-side DLL that simplifies and hides communication to a WCF service (essentially a remote facade). Because it depends on 3 different WCF proxy classes, if I take the DI approach I am forced to expose them via the constructor. With that I expose the internals of my communication layer which I am trying to hide.
Generally I am all for DI. In this particular (extreme) example, it strikes me as dangerous.
I struggled with this notion as well. At first, the 'requirement' to use the DI container (like Spring) to instantiate an object felt like jumping thru hoops. But in reality, it's really not a hoop - it's just another 'published' way to create objects I need. Sure, encapsulation is 'broken' becuase someone 'outside the class' knows what it needs, but it really isn't the rest of the system that knows that - it's the DI container. Nothing magical happens differently because DI 'knows' one object needs another.
In fact it gets even better - by focusing on Factories and Repositories I don't even have to know DI is involved at all! That to me puts the lid back on encapsulation. Whew!
I belive in simplicity. Applying IOC/Dependecy Injection in Domain classes does not make any improvement except making the code much more harder to main by having an external xml files describing the relation. Many technologies like EJB 1.0/2.0 & struts 1.1 are reversing back by reducing the stuff the put in XML and try put them in code as annoation etc. So applying IOC for all the classes you develope will make the code non-sense.
IOC has it benefits when the dependent object is not ready for creation at compile time. This can happend in most of the infrasture abstract level architecture components, trying establish a common base framework which may need to work for different scenarios. In those places usage IOC makes more sense. Still this does not make the code more simple / maintainable.
As all the other technologies, this too has PROs & CONs. My worry is, we implement latest technologies in all the places irrespective of their best context usage.
Encapsulation is only broken if a class has both the responsibility to create the object (which requires knowledge of implementation details) and then uses the class (which does not require knowledge of these details). I'll explain why, but first a quick car anaology:
When I was driving my old 1971 Kombi,
I could press the accelerator and it
went (slightly) quicker. I did not
need to know why, but the guys who
built the Kombi at the factory knew
exactly why.
But back to the coding. Encapsulation is "hiding an implementation detail from something using that implementation." Encapsulation is a good thing because the implementation details can change without the user of the class knowing.
When using dependency injection, constructor injection is used to construct service type objects (as opposed to entity/value objects which model state). Any member variables in service type object represent implementation details that should not leak out. e.g. socket port number, database credentials, another class to call to perform encryption, a cache, etc.
The constructor is relevant when the class is being initially created. This happens during the construction-phase while your DI container (or factory) wires together all the service objects. The DI container only knows about implementation details. It knows all about implementation details like the guys at the Kombi factory know about spark plugs.
At run-time, the service object that was created is called apon to do some real work. At this time, the caller of the object knows nothing of the implementation details.
That's me driving my Kombi to the beach.
Now, back to encapsulation. If implementation details change, then the class using that implementation at run-time does not need to change. Encapsulation is not broken.
I can drive my new car to the beach too. Encapsulation is not broken.
If implementation details change, the DI container (or factory) does need to change. You were never trying to hide implementation details from the factory in the first place.
DI violates Encapsulation for NON-Shared objects - period. Shared objects have a lifespan outside of the object being created, and thus must be AGGREGATED into the object being created. Objects that are private to the object being created should be COMPOSED into the created object - when the created object is destroyed, it takes the composed object with it.
Let's take the human body as an example. What's composed and what's aggregated. If we were to use DI, the human body constructor would have 100's of objects. Many of the organs, for example, are (potentially) replaceable. But, they are still composed into the body. Blood cells are created in the body (and destroyed) everyday, without the need for external influences (other than protein). Thus, blood cells are created internally by the body - new BloodCell().
Advocators of DI argue that an object should NEVER use the new operator.
That "purist" approach not only violates encapsulation but also the Liskov Substitution Principle for whoever is creating the object.
PS. By providing Dependency Injection you do not necessarily break Encapsulation. Example:
obj.inject_dependency( factory.get_instance_of_unknown_class(x) );
Client code does not know implementation details still.
Maybe this is a naive way of thinking about it, but what is the difference between a constructor that takes in an integer parameter and a constructor that takes in a service as a parameter? Does this mean that defining an integer outside the new object and feeding it into the object breaks encapsulation? If the service is only used within the new object, I don't see how that would break encapsulation.
Also, by using some sort of autowiring feature (Autofac for C#, for example), it makes the code extremely clean. By building extension methods for the Autofac builder, I was able to cut out a LOT of DI configuration code that I would have had to maintain over time as the list of dependencies grew.
I think it's self evident that at the very least DI significantly weakens encapsulation. In additional to that here are some other downsides of DI to consider.
It makes code harder to reuse. A module which a client can use without having to explicitly provide dependencies to, is obviously easier to use than one where the client has to somehow discover what that component's dependencies are and then somehow make them available. For example a component originally created to be used in an ASP application may expect to have its dependencies provided by a DI container that provides object instances with lifetimes related to client http requests. This may not be simple to reproduce in another client that does not come with the same built in DI container as the original ASP application.
It can make code more fragile. Dependencies provided by interface specification can be implemented in unexpected ways which gives rise to a whole class of runtime bugs that are not possible with a statically resolved concrete dependency.
It can make code less flexible in the sense that you may end up with fewer choices about how you want it to work. Not every class needs to have all its dependencies in existence for the entire lifetime of the owning instance, yet with many DI implementations you have no other option.
With that in mind I think the most important question then becomes, "does a particular dependency need to be externally specified at all?". In practise I have rarely found it necessary to make a dependency externally supplied just to support testing.
Where a dependency genuinely needs to be externally supplied, that normally suggests that the relation between the objects is a collaboration rather than an internal dependency, in which case the appropriate goal is then encapsulation of each class, rather than encapsulation of one class inside the other.
In my experience the main problem regarding the use of DI is that whether you start with an application framework with built in DI, or you add DI support to your codebase, for some reason people assume that since you have DI support that must be the correct way to instantiate everything. They just never even bother to ask the question "does this dependency need to be externally specified?". And worse, they also start trying to force everyone else to use the DI support for everything too.
The result of this is that inexorably your codebase starts to devolve into a state where creating any instance of anything in your codebase requires reams of obtuse DI container configuration, and debugging anything is twice as hard because you have the extra workload of trying to identify how and where anything was instantiated.
So my answer to the question is this. Use DI where you can identify an actual problem that it solves for you, which you can't solve more simply any other way.
I agree that taken to an extreme, DI can violate encapsulation. Usually DI exposes dependencies which were never truly encapsulated. Here's a simplified example borrowed from Miško Hevery's Singletons are Pathological Liars:
You start with a CreditCard test and write a simple unit test.
#Test
public void creditCard_Charge()
{
CreditCard c = new CreditCard("1234 5678 9012 3456", 5, 2008);
c.charge(100);
}
Next month you get a bill for $100. Why did you get charged? The unit test affected a production database. Internally, CreditCard calls Database.getInstance(). Refactoring CreditCard so that it takes a DatabaseInterface in its constructor exposes the fact that there's dependency. But I would argue that the dependency was never encapsulated to begin with since the CreditCard class causes externally visible side effects. If you want to test CreditCard without refactoring, you can certainly observe the dependency.
#Before
public void setUp()
{
Database.setInstance(new MockDatabase());
}
#After
public void tearDown()
{
Database.resetInstance();
}
I don't think it's worth worrying whether exposing the Database as a dependency reduces encapsulation, because it's a good design. Not all DI decisions will be so straight forward. However, none of the other answers show a counter example.
I think it's a matter of scope. When you define encapsulation (not letting know how) you must define what is the encapsuled functionality.
Class as is: what you are encapsulating is the only responsability of the class. What it knows how to do. By example, sorting. If you inject some comparator for ordering, let's say, clients, that's not part of the encapsuled thing: quicksort.
Configured functionality: if you want to provide a ready-to-use functionality then you are not providing QuickSort class, but an instance of QuickSort class configured with a Comparator. In that case the code responsible for creating and configuring that must be hidden from the user code. And that's the encapsulation.
When you are programming classes, it is, implementing single responsibilities into classes, you are using option 1.
When you are programming applications, it is, making something that undertakes some useful concrete work then you are repeteadily using option 2.
This is the implementation of the configured instance:
<bean id="clientSorter" class="QuickSort">
<property name="comparator">
<bean class="ClientComparator"/>
</property>
</bean>
This is how some other client code use it:
<bean id="clientService" class"...">
<property name="sorter" ref="clientSorter"/>
</bean>
It is encapsulated because if you change implementation (you change clientSorter bean definition) it doesn't break client use. Maybe, as you use xml files with all written together you are seeing all the details. But believe me, the client code (ClientService)
don't know nothing about its sorter.
It's probably worth mentioning that Encapsulation is somewhat perspective dependent.
public class A {
private B b;
public A() {
this.b = new B();
}
}
public class A {
private B b;
public A(B b) {
this.b = b;
}
}
From the perspective of someone working on the A class, in the second example A knows a lot less about the nature of this.b
Whereas without DI
new A()
vs
new A(new B())
The person looking at this code knows more about the nature of A in the second example.
With DI, at least all that leaked knowledge is in one place.
What can be reasons to prevent a class from being inherited? (e.g. using sealed on a c# class)
Right now I can't think of any.
Because writing classes to be substitutably extended is damn hard and requires you to make accurate predictions of how future users will want to extend what you've written.
Sealing your class forces them to use composition, which is much more robust.
How about if you are not sure about the interface yet and don't want any other code depending on the present interface? [That's off the top of my head, but I'd be interested in other reasons as well!]
Edit:
A bit of googling gave the following:
http://codebetter.com/blogs/patricksmacchia/archive/2008/01/05/rambling-on-the-sealed-keyword.aspx
Quoting:
There are three reasons why a sealed class is better than an unsealed class:
Versioning: When a class is originally sealed, it can change to unsealed in the future without breaking compatibility. (…)
Performance: (…) if the JIT compiler sees a call to a virtual method using a sealed types, the JIT compiler can produce more efficient code by calling the method non-virtually.(…)
Security and Predictability: A class must protect its own state and not allow itself to ever become corrupted. When a class is unsealed, a derived class can access and manipulate the base class’s state if any data fields or methods that internally manipulate fields are accessible and not private.(…)
I want to give you this message from "Code Complete":
Inheritance - subclasses - tends to
work against the primary technical
imperative you have as a programmer,
which is to manage complexity.For the sake of controlling complexity, you should maintain a heavy bias against inheritance.
The only legitimate use of inheritance is to define a particular case of a base class like, for example, when inherit from Shape to derive Circle. To check this look at the relation in opposite direction: is a Shape a generalization of Circle? If the answer is yes then it is ok to use inheritance.
So if you have a class for which there can not be any particular cases that specialize its behavior it should be sealed.
Also due to LSP (Liskov Substitution Principle) one can use derived class where base class is expected and this is actually imposes the greatest impact from use of inheritance: code using base class may be given an inherited class and it still has to work as expected. In order to protect external code when there is no obvious need for subclasses you seal the class and its clients can rely that its behavior will not be changed. Otherwise external code needs to be explicitly designed to expect possible changes in behavior in subclasses.
A more concrete example would be Singleton pattern. You need to seal singleton to ensure one can not break the "singletonness".
This may not apply to your code, but a lot of classes within the .NET framework are sealed purposely so that no one tries to create a sub-class.
There are certain situations where the internals are complex and require certain things to be controlled very specifically so the designer decided no one should inherit the class so that no one accidentally breaks functionality by using something in the wrong way.
#jjnguy
Another user may want to re-use your code by sub-classing your class. I don't see a reason to stop this.
If they want to use the functionality of my class they can achieve that with containment, and they will have much less brittle code as a result.
Composition seems to be often overlooked; all too often people want to jump on the inheritance bandwagon. They should not! Substitutability is difficult. Default to composition; you'll thank me in the long run.
I am in agreement with jjnguy... I think the reasons to seal a class are few and far between. Quite the contrary, I have been in the situation more than once where I want to extend a class, but couldn't because it was sealed.
As a perfect example, I was recently creating a small package (Java, not C#, but same principles) to wrap functionality around the memcached tool. I wanted an interface so in tests I could mock away the memcached client API I was using, and also so we could switch clients if the need arose (there are 2 clients listed on the memcached homepage). Additionally, I wanted to have the opportunity to replace the functionality altogether if the need or desire arose (such as if the memcached servers are down for some reason, we could potentially hot swap with a local cache implementation instead).
I exposed a minimal interface to interact with the client API, and it would have been awesome to extend the client API class and then just add an implements clause with my new interface. The methods that I had in the interface that matched the actual interface would then need no further details and so I wouldn't have to explicitly implement them. However, the class was sealed, so I had to instead proxy calls to an internal reference to this class. The result: more work and a lot more code for no real good reason.
That said, I think there are potential times when you might want to make a class sealed... and the best thing I can think of is an API that you will invoke directly, but allow clients to implement. For example, a game where you can program against the game... if your classes were not sealed, then the players who are adding features could potentially exploit the API to their advantage. This is a very narrow case though, and I think any time you have full control over the codebase, there really is little if any reason to make a class sealed.
This is one reason I really like the Ruby programming language... even the core classes are open, not just to extend but to ADD AND CHANGE functionality dynamically, TO THE CLASS ITSELF! It's called monkeypatching and can be a nightmare if abused, but it's damn fun to play with!
From an object-oriented perspective, sealing a class clearly documents the author's intent without the need for comments. When I seal a class I am trying to say that this class was designed to encapsulate some specific piece of knowledge or some specific service. It was not meant to be enhanced or subclassed further.
This goes well with the Template Method design pattern. I have an interface that says "I perform this service." I then have a class that implements that interface. But, what if performing that service relies on context that the base class doesn't know about (and shouldn't know about)? What happens is that the base class provides virtual methods, which are either protected or private, and these virtual methods are the hooks for subclasses to provide the piece of information or action that the base class does not know and cannot know. Meanwhile, the base class can contain code that is common for all the child classes. These subclasses would be sealed because they are meant to accomplish that one and only one concrete implementation of the service.
Can you make the argument that these subclasses should be further subclassed to enhance them? I would say no because if that subclass couldn't get the job done in the first place then it should never have derived from the base class. If you don't like it then you have the original interface, go write your own implementation class.
Sealing these subclasses also discourages deep levels of inheritence, which works well for GUI frameworks but works poorly for business logic layers.
Because you always want to be handed a reference to the class and not to a derived one for various reasons:
i. invariants that you have in some other part of your code
ii. security
etc
Also, because it's a safe bet with regards to backward compatibility - you'll never be able to close that class for inheritance if it's release unsealed.
Or maybe you didn't have enough time to test the interface that the class exposes to be sure that you can allow others to inherit from it.
Or maybe there's no point (that you see now) in having a subclass.
Or you don't want bug reports when people try to subclass and don't manage to get all the nitty-gritty details - cut support costs.
Sometimes your class interface just isn't meant to be inheirited. The public interface just isn't virtual and while someone could override the functionality that's in place it would just be wrong. Yes in general they shouldn't override the public interface, but you can insure that they don't by making the class non-inheritable.
The example I can think of right now are customized contained classes with deep clones in .Net. If you inherit from them you lose the deep clone ability.[I'm kind of fuzzy on this example, it's been a while since I worked with IClonable] If you have a true singelton class, you probably don't want inherited forms of it around, and a data persistence layer is not normally place you want a lot of inheritance.
Not everything that's important in a class is asserted easily in code. There can be semantics and relationships present that are easily broken by inheriting and overriding methods. Overriding one method at a time is an easy way to do this. You design a class/object as a single meaningful entity and then someone comes along and thinks if a method or two were 'better' it would do no harm. That may or may not be true. Maybe you can correctly separate all methods between private and not private or virtual and not virtual but that still may not be enough. Demanding inheritance of all classes also puts a huge additional burden on the original developer to foresee all the ways an inheriting class could screw things up.
I don't know of a perfect solution. I'm sympathetic to preventing inheritance but that's also a problem because it hinders unit testing.
I exposed a minimal interface to interact with the client API, and it would have been awesome to extend the client API class and then just add an implements clause with my new interface. The methods that I had in the interface that matched the actual interface would then need no further details and so I wouldn't have to explicitly implement them. However, the class was sealed, so I had to instead proxy calls to an internal reference to this class. The result: more work and a lot more code for no real good reason.
Well, there is a reason: your code is now somewhat insulated from changes to the memcached interface.
Performance: (…) if the JIT compiler sees a call to a virtual method using a sealed types, the JIT compiler can produce more efficient code by calling the method non-virtually.(…)
That's a great reason indeed. Thus, for performance-critical classes, sealed and friends make sense.
All the other reasons I've seen mentioned so far boil down to "nobody touches my class!". If you're worried someone might misunderstand its internals, you did a poor job documenting it. You can't possibly know that there's nothing useful to add to your class, or that you already know every imaginable use case for it. Even if you're right and the other developer shouldn't have used your class to solve their problem, using a keyword isn't a great way of preventing such a mistake. Documentation is. If they ignore the documentation, their loss.
Most of answers (when abstracted) state that sealed/finalized classes are tool to protect other programmers against potential mistakes. There is a blurry line between meaningful protection and pointless restriction. But as long as programmer is the one who is expected to understand the program, I see no hardly any reasons to restrict him from reusing parts of a class. Most of you talk about classes. But it's all about objects!
In his first post, DrPizza claims that designing inheritable class means anticipating possible extensions. Do I get it right that you think that class should be inheritable only if it's likely to be extended well? Looks as if you were used to design software from the most abstract classes. Allow me a brief explanation of how do I think when designing:
Starting from the very concrete objects, I find characteristics and [thus] functionality that they have in common and I abstract it to superclass of those particular objects. This is a way to reduce code duplicity.
Unless developing some specific product such as a framework, I should care about my code, not others (virtual) code. The fact that others might find it useful to reuse my code is a nice bonus, not my primary goal. If they decide to do so, it's their responsibility to ensure validity of extensions. This applies team-wide. Up-front design is crucial to productivity.
Getting back to my idea: Your objects should primarily serve your purposes, not some possible shoulda/woulda/coulda functionality of their subtypes. Your goal is to solve given problem. Object oriented languages uses fact that many problems (or more likely their subproblems) are similar and therefore existing code can be used to accelerate further development.
Sealing a class forces people who could possibly take advantage of existing code WITHOUT ACTUALLY MODIFYING YOUR PRODUCT to reinvent the wheel. (This is a crucial idea of my thesis: Inheriting a class doesn't modify it! Which seems quite pedestrian and obvious, but it's being commonly ignored).
People are often scared that their "open" classes will be twisted to something that can not substitute its ascendants. So what? Why should you care? No tool can prevent bad programmer from creating bad software!
I'm not trying to denote inheritable classes as the ultimately correct way of designing, consider this more like an explanation of my inclination to inheritable classes. That's the beauty of programming - virtually infinite set of correct solutions, each with its own cons and pros. Your comments and arguments are welcome.
And finally, my answer to the original question: I'd finalize a class to let others know that I consider the class a leaf of the hierarchical class tree and I see absolutely no possibility that it could become a parent node. (And if anyone thinks that it actually could, then either I was wrong or they don't get me).