I'm new to the terminology, so please correct me if I've phrased any part of my question wrong.
Here's the example that I'm thinking of:
A file synchronization program that lets you pair 2 folders together, and specify options such as mirror the two folders, only copy contents one way, etc.
How would I specify at run time how each of these concrete implementations copy the files (eg, different types of encryption).
Here is what I'd somewhat like to accomplish:
http://i.imgur.com/fkVN9.png
Do I have to make concrete implementations for each? ie MirrorAes, MirrorBlowfish, OnewayAes, etc? Is there a better alternative?
Thanks
The way that your diagram is showing it, the way you encrypt appears to be dependent on the way that you do synchronization. I doubt that this is the case (although I may be wrong).
If the way you sync is truly independent of the way you encrypt, switch from inheritance to composition. Make FolderPair an object that has a SyncStrategy and an EncryptionStrategy, like this:
class FolderPair {
URI a, b;
private final SyncStrategy syncStrategy;
private final EncryptionStrategy cryptStrategy;
public FolderPair(
URI a
, URI b
, SyncStrategy syncStrategy
, EncryptionStrategy cryptStrategy) {
...
}
public void sync() {
syncStrategy.synchronize(a, b, cryptStrategy);
}
}
interface SyncStrategy {
void synchronize(URI a, URI b, EncryptionStrategy cryptStrategy);
}
interface EncryptionStrategy {
byte[] encrypt(byte[] data);
}
Now you can configure your FolderPair objects with instances of SyncStrategy and EncryptionStrategy, mixing and matching them without creating combinatorial explosion:
FolderPair p1 = new FolderPair(aUri, bUri, new OneWyaSync(), new AesCrypt());
This design features two applications of the Strategy Pattern - one for the synchronization behavior, and the other one for the encryption.
You've got orthogonal concerns - the sync type and the encryption. One way to approach this is the Strategy Pattern, where your concrete implementations of the synchronization classes aggregate an encryption class, and the synchronizers interact with an encryption interface, allowing "mix and match" encryption and synchronization without having a multiplier effect on the number of classes you write.
You mean, you need an encryption strategy?
Use an abstract factory together with a set of strategies for encryption. In case you have multiple options, use a builder.
Let's say, you have a SHA1Encryption and a DESEncryption. Both implement an interface, say, GeneralEncryptionStrategy, and you have an EncryptionFactory, which takes a string (either "sha1" or "des") as an argument and creates an instance of the corresponding class.
Related
I'm building an app that generates random sequences of musical notes and displays them to the user as musical notation. These sequences can be generated according to several parameters, including density and maximum consecutive notes of the same pitch.
Musical sequences are captured by a sequence object whose notes property is a simple string of notes such as "abcdaba".
My early attempts to generate random sequences involved a SequenceGenerator class that compiled random sequences using several private methods. This looks like a service to me. But I'm trying to honour the principle expressed in Domain-Driven Design (Evans 2003) to only use services where necessary and to prefer associating behaviour with domain objects.
So my question is:
Should the job of producing random sequences be taken care of by a public method on sequence itself (such as generateRandom()) or should it be kept separate?
I considered the possibility that my original design is more along the lines of a builder or factory pattern than a service, but the the code is very different for creating a random sequence than for creating one with a supplied string of notes.
One concern I have with the method route is that generateRandom() as a method on sequence changes the content of sequence but isn't actually generating a new sequence object. This just feels wrong, but I can't express why.
I'm still getting my head around some the core OO design principles, so any help is greatly appreciated.
Should the job of producing random sequences be taken care of by a public method on sequence itself (such as generateRandom()) or should it be kept separate?
I usually find that I get cleaner designs if I treat "random" the same way that I treat "time", or "I/O" -- as an input to the model, rather than as an aspect of the model itself.
If you don't consider time an input value, think about it until you do -- it is an important concept (John Carmack, 1998).
Within the constraints of DDD, that could either mean passing a "domain service" as an argument to your method, allowing your aggregate to invoke the service as needed, or it could mean having a method on the aggregate, so that the application can pass in random numbers when needed.
So any creation of a sequence would involve passing in some pattern or seed, but whether that is random or not is decided outside of the sequence itself?
Yes, exactly.
The creation of an object is not usually considered part of the logic for the object.
How you do that technically is a different matter. You could potentially use delegation. For example:
public interface NoteSequence {
void play();
}
public final class LettersNoteSequence implements NoteSequence {
public LettersNoteSequence(String letters) {
...
}
...
}
public final class RandomNoteSequence implements NoteSequence {
...
#Override
public void play() {
new LetterNoteSequence(generateRandomLetters()).play();
}
}
This way you don't have to have a "service" or a "factory", but this is only one alternative, may or may not fit your use-case.
I have a sample(incomplete) class like
class ABC{
public:
void login();
void query_users();
//other methods
private:
//member data
}
This class should be used in a way that login needs to be called first and then only other methods like query_users, etc., can be called. Login sets some private member data for the other methods to use. Is there any simpler way to achieve this other than calling a function that checks if the member data is set at the start of every other method in the class?
There are two general approach I know of, and they differ a good bit. You'll have to pick the appropriate mechanism for the task - in standard class-based OO languages (e.g. Java/C++/C#/Python), they are the only two approaches I know of. (There may be other approaches in different paradigms that I am unfamiliar with.)
1. Check the state.
This is done in many classes already that have to track the state of the system/backing resource. Two common examples are (file) stream and database connections.
A "template" might look like:
void Logon(credentials) { ..; loggedOn = true }
void DieUnlessLoggedIn { if (!loggedOn) { throw .. } }
void DoStuff () { DieUnlessLoggedIn(); .. }
While the above approach is pretty generic, some languages may support invariants (Eiffel), decorations (Python), annotations, AOP, or other assertion mechanisms.
This approach is useful for dynamic state in a mutable world: e.g. what happens after "Logout"? The state for DoStuff is invalid again until a re-logon (if it's allowed). However, this approach cannot be used for compile-time checks in general in mainstream OOP languages because the run-time state simply is not available at compile-time.
2. Use multiple types to represent state.
Create two separate types, such that type ServiceLogon (method Logon) creates ServiceAccess (method DoStuff). Thus DoStuff can only be called (on type ServiceAccess) after created from Logon (on ServiceLogon). This works well to enforce calling order semantics in static languages with member hiding - because programs won't compile if it's wrong.
login = new ServiceLogon(credentials)
access = login.Logon();
access.DoStuff(); // can't be called before obtained via Logon
Using the type to encode additional state can be overly complex as it can fracture a class-based type system, but is useful in "builder" and "repository" patterns and such; basically, ask if the type warrants being split to maintain SRP, then considering this approach.
This approach cannot handle things like "logout" entirely without incorporating state checking as type ServiceAccess would (in the clean sense) always represent the same state due to it being encoded in the type.
1. & 2. Use state checking and state/role-specific types.
A hybrid is totally acceptable, of course, and the above two approaches are not mutually exclusive. It may make sense to separate the roles making one type (and thus methods invoked upon it) dependent upon another method while still checking runtime state as appropriate. As per above, #1 is really good for runtime guards (which can be highly dynamic) while #2 can enforce certain rules at compile-time.
What you can do is to create instances of ABC form a static factory method that returns the instance you can use. In pseudo-code:
abc = ABC.login(); //sets all the state
users = abc.query_users();
I am not sure this is the best way but you can make login() private and call it as part of the constructor, which would ensure that login() is called at time of object creation itself and after that only any other functions can be called (unless you have static functions)
class ABC{
public ABC(credentials){
login(credentails);
}
public:
void query_users();
//other methods
private:
void login();
//member data
}
It will already work first when it goes from the top down. If you want to make sure that login is successful then call the other methods from inside the login() method.
like:
public void login(){
//do login code
if(//code for login check){
//run other methods
}
else{
login(); //re-run login workings
}
}
If you really want to follow good patterns you might try making as many of your classes immutable as possible.
This would imply that your constructor sets the total state (does the entire login) and then the order of the method calls is totally irrelevant.
Let's consider, as an example, the domain of GPS and Geographical (GIS) entities.
We would model the meaningful geographic entities (points, paths, regions) as classes in any desired programming language, and these classes would be a conceptual, "implementation-free" representation of these entities.
On the other hand, there are a lot of file formats that save these features with more or less the same meaning. In the GPS domain the most common file formats are GPX, KML, ShapeFile, WellKnownText, etc.
Supposing, then, I want to create a GpsFeatureCollection class which would contain a Points property, a Paths property, and so on. Also, I would implement classes like GpsReader, KmlReader, ShapeFileReader (and their respective Writers) and so on.
THE QUESTION IS:
Which is the best practice in OOAD:
Have a GpsFeatureCollection to instantiate a FileFormat(Reader/Writer) class?
Have a GpsFeatureCollection to implement Read/WriteFromFormat methods instead of classes?
Have each file format reader to instantiate an empty GpsFeatureCollection, populate it with data read from file, then pass the populated object as a return value?
Have a mediator class to avoid any dependency between FileFormatClass and ObjectModelClass?
None of the above?
"Well, it depends..."
I am really interested in doing "the right thing". My immediate plans are to use Python, but most probably this would matter for other languages too. This is causing some "analysis paralysis" in my pet project currently...
Here is my take wherein I pass reader and writer instances to read() and write() methods, this seems to achieve good level of decoupling and yet provides flexibility to pick various readers and writers.
Code uses Java-like syntax
Declare a Reader interface, we will assuming multiple implementation such KMLReader,
ShapeFileReader, etc
interface Reader {
GpsFeatureCollection read();
}
Declare a Writer interface, we will assuming multiple implementation such KMLWriter, ShapeFileWriter, etc
interface Writer {
void write(GpsFeatureCollection c);
}
Let's declare GpsFeatureCollection class to have read and write methods which accept respective interfaces as parameter to perform the job.
class GpsFeatureCollection {
...
public static GpsFeatureCollection read(Reader r) {
return r.read();
}
public static void write(Writer w) {
w.write(this);
}
}
Some example of usage using different readers and writers.
// Reading data
GpsFeaureCollection data = GpsFeatureCollection.read(new ShapeFileReader("/tmp/shapefile"));
// Writing data
data.write(new KMLWriter("/tmp/kmlfile"));
I have been exploring the CQRS/DDD-principles and patterns for a while now and have started implementing a sample project where I have split my storage-model into a WriteModel and a ReadModel. The WriteModel will use a simple NoSQL-like database where aggregates are stored in a key-value style, with value being just a serialized version of the aggregate.
I am now looking at ProtoBuf-Net for serializing and deserializing my domain model aggregates in and out of storage. Other than this post I haven't found any guidance or tips for using ProtoBuf-Net in this area. The point is that the (ideal) requirements for serialization and deserialization of aggregates is that the domain model should have as little knowledge as possible about this infrastructural concern, which implies the following:
No attributes on the classes
No constructors, getters, setters or any other piece of code just for the sake of serialization.
Ability to use any (custom) type possible and have it serialized/deserialized.
Thus far I have implemented just the serialization of the first versions of my aggregates which works perfectly fine. I use the RuntimeTypeModel.Default-instance to configure the MetaModel at runtime and have UseConstructor = false everywhere, which enables me to completely separate the serialization mechanics from my domain-assembly. I have even implemented a custom post-deserialization mechanism that enables me to just-in-time initialize fields after ProtoBuf-Net has deserialized it into a valid instance. So suppose I have class AggregateA like so:
[Version(1)]
public sealed class AggregateA
{
private readonly int _x;
private readonly string _y;
...
}
Then in my serialization-library I have code something along the following lines:
var metaType = RuntimeTypeModel.Default.Add(typeof(AggregateA), false);
metaType.UseConstructor = false;
metaType.AddField(1, "_x");
metaType.AddField(2, "_y");
...
However, I realize that up to this point I have only implemented the basic scenario, and I am now starting to think about how to approach versioning of my model. I am particularly interested in larger refactoring-scenario's, where type A has been split into type A1 and A2, for example:
[Version(2)]
public sealed class AggregateA1
{
private readonly int _x;
...
}
[Version(2)]
public sealed class AggregateA2
{
private readonly string _y;
...
}
Suppose I have a serialized bunch of instances of AggregateA, but now my domain model knows only AggregateA1 and AggregateA2, how would you handle this scenario with ProtoBuf-Net?
A second question deals with point 3: is ProtoBuf-Net capable of handling arbitrary types if you're willing to put in some extra configuration-effort? I've read about exceptions raised when using the DateTimeOffset-type, which makes me think not all types can be serialized by the framework out-of-the-box, but can I serialize these types by registering them in the RuntimeTypeModel? Should I even want to go there? Or better to forget about serializing common .NET types other than the simple ones?
protobuf-net is intended to work with predictable known models. It is true that everything can be configured at runtime, but I have not put any thought as to how to handle your A1/A2 scenario, precisely because that is not a supported scenario (in my defense, I can't see that working nicely with most serializers). Thinking off the top of my head, if you have the configuration/mapping data somewhere, then you could simply deserialize twice; i.e. as long as we still tell it that AggregateA1._x maps to 1 and AggregateA2._y maps to 2, you can do:
object a1 = model.Deserialize(source, null, typeof(AggregateA1));
source.Position = 0; // rewind
object a2 = model.Deserialize(source, null, typeof(AggregateA2));
However, more complex tweaks would require additional thought.
Re "arbitrary types"... define "arbitrary" ;p In particular, there is support for "surrogate" types which can be useful for some transformations - but without a very specific "problem statement" it is hard to answer completely.
Summary:
protobuf-net has an intended usage, which includes both serialization-aware (attributed, etc) and non-aware scenarios (runtime configuration, etc) - but it also works for a range of more bespoke scenarios (letting you drop to the raw reader/writer API if you want to). It does not and cannot guarantee to be a direct fit for every serialization scenario imaginable, and how well it behaves will depend on how far from that scenario you are.
I am working on a little pinball-game project for a hobby and am looking for a pattern to encapsulate constant variables.
I have a model, within which there are values which will be constant over the life of that model e.g. maximum speed/maximum gravity etc. Throughout the GUI and other areas these values are required in order to correctly validate input. Currently they are included either as references to a public static final, or just plain hard-coded. I'd like to encapsulate these "constant variables" in an object which can be injected into the model, and retrieved by the view/controller.
To clarify, the value of the "constant variables" may not necessarily be defined at compile-time, they could come from reading in a file; user input etc. What is known at compile time is which ones are needed. A way which may be easier to explain it is that whatever this encapsulation is, the values it provides are immutable.
I'm looking for a way to achieve this which:
has compile time type-safety (i.e. not mapping a string to variable at runtime)
avoids anything static (including enums, which can't be extended)
I know I could define an interface which has the methods such as:
public int getMaximumSpeed();
public int getMaximumGravity();
... and inject an instance of that into the model, and make it accessible in some way. However, this results in a lot of boilerplate code, which is pretty tedious to write/test etc (I am doing this for funsies :-)).
I am looking for a better way to do this, preferably something which has the benefits of being part of a shared vocabulary, as with design patterns.
Is there a better way to do this?
P.S. I've thought some more about this, and the best trade-off I could find would be to have something like:
public class Variables {
enum Variable {
MaxSpeed(100),
MaxGravity(10)
Variable(Object variableValue) {
// assign value to field, provide getter etc.
}
}
public Object getVariable(Variable v) { // look up enum and get member }
} // end of MyVariables
I could then do something like:
Model m = new Model(new Variables());
Advantages: the lookup of a variable is protected by having to be a member of the enum in order to compile, variables can be added with little extra code
Disadvantages: enums cannot be extended, brittleness (a recompile is needed to add a variable), variable values would have to be cast from Object (to Integer in this example), which again isn't type safe, though generics may be an option for that... somehow
Are you looking for the Singleton or, a variant, the Monostate? If not, how does that pattern fail your needs?
Of course, here's the mandatory disclaimer that Anything Global Is Evil.
UPDATE: I did some looking, because I've been having similar debates/issues. I stumbled across a list of "alternatives" to classic global/scope solutions. Thought I'd share.
Thanks for all the time spent by you guys trying to decipher what is a pretty weird question.
I think, in terms of design patterns, the closest that comes to what I'm describing is the factory pattern, where I have a factory of pseudo-constants. Technically it's not creating an instance each call, but rather always providing the same instance (in the sense of a Guice provider). But I can create several factories, which each can provide different psuedo-constants, and inject each into a different model, so the model's UI can validate input a lot more flexibly.
If anyone's interested I've came to the conclusion that an interface providing a method for each psuedo-constant is the way to go:
public interface IVariableProvider {
public int maxGravity();
public int maxSpeed();
// and everything else...
}
public class VariableProvider {
private final int maxGravity, maxSpeed...;
public VariableProvider(int maxGravity, int maxSpeed) {
// assign final fields
}
}
Then I can do:
Model firstModel = new Model(new VariableProvider(2, 10));
Model secondModel = new Model(new VariableProvider(10, 100));
I think as long as the interface doesn't provide a prohibitively large number of variable getters, it wins over some parameterised lookup (which will either be vulnerable at run-time, or will prohibit extension/polymorphism).
P.S. I realise some have been questioning what my problem is with static final values. I made the statement (with tongue in cheek) to a colleague that anything static is an inherently not object-oriented. So in my hobby I used that as the basis for a thought exercise where I try to remove anything static from the project (next I'll be trying to remove all 'if' statements ;-D). If I was on a deadline and I was satisfied public static final values wouldn't hamstring testing, I would have used them pretty quickly.
If you're just using java/IOC, why not just dependency-inject the values?
e.g. Spring inject the values via a map, specify the object as a singleton -
<property name="values">
<map>
<entry> <key><value>a1</value></key><value>b1</value></entry>
<entry> <key><value>a2</value></key><value>b3</value></entry>
</map>
</property>
your class is a singleton that holds an immutable copy of the map set in spring -
private Map<String, String> m;
public String getValue(String s)
{
return m.containsKey(s)?m.get(s):null;
}
public void setValues(Map m)
{
this.m=Collections.unmodifiableMap(m):
}
From what I can tell, you probably don't need to implement a pattern here -- you just need access to a set of constants, and it seems to me that's handled pretty well through the use of a publicly accessible static interface to them. Unless I'm missing something. :)
If you simply want to "objectify" the constants though, for some reason, than the Singleton pattern would probably be called for, if any; I know you mentioned in a comment that you don't mind creating multiple instances of this wrapper object, but in response I'd ask, then why even introduce the sort of confusion that could arise from having multiple instances at all? What practical benefit are you looking for that'd be satisfied with having the data in object form?
Now, if the values aren't constants, then that's different -- in that case, you probably do want a Singleton or Monostate. But if they really are constants, just wrap a set of enums or static constants in a class and be done! Keep-it-simple is as good a "pattern" as any.