Imagine we have a number of related objects (equivalently DB tables), for example:
public class Person {
private String name;
private Date birthday;
private int height;
private Job job;
private House house;
..
}
public class Job {
private String company;
private int salary;
..
}
public class House {
private Address address;
private int age;
private int numRooms;
..
}
public class Address {
private String town;
private String street;
..
}
How to best design a system for easily defining and accessing widely varying subsets of data on these objects/tables? Design patterns, pros and cons, are very welcome. I'm using Java, but this is a more general problem.
For example, I want to easily say:
I'd like some object with (Person.name, Person.height, Job.company, Address.street)
I'd like some object with (Job.company, House.numRooms, Address.town)
Etc.
Other assumptions:
We can assume that we're always getting a known structure of objects on the input, e.g. a Person with its Job, House, and Address.
The resulting object doesn't necessarily need to know the names of the fields it was constructed from, i.e. for subset defined as (Person.name, Person.height, Job.company, Address.street) it can be the array of Objects {"Joe Doe", 180, "ACompany Inc.", "Main Street"}.
The object/table hierarchy is complex, so there are hundreds of data fields.
There may be hundreds of subsets that need to be defined.
A minority of fields to obtain may be computed from actual fields, e.g. I may want to get a person's age, computed as (now().getYear() - Person.birtday.getYear()).
Here are some options I see:
A SQL view for each subset.
Minuses:
They will be almost the same for similar subsets. This is OK just for field names, but not great for the joins part, which could ideally be refactored out to a common place.
Less testable than a solution in code.
Using a DTO assembler, e.g. http://www.genericdtoassembler.org/
This could be used to flatten the complex structure of input objects into a single DTO.
Minuses:
I'm not sure how I'd then proceed to easily define subsets of fields on this DTO. Perhaps if I could somehow set the ones irrelevant to the current subset to null? Not sure how.
Not sure if I can do computed fields easily in this way.
A custom mapper I came up with.
Relevant code:
// The enum has a value for each field in the Person objects hierarchy
// that we may be interested in.
public enum DataField {
PERSON_NAME(new PersonNameExtractor()),
..
PERSON_AGE(new PersonAgeExtractor()),
..
COMPANY(new CompanyExtractor()),
..
}
// This is the container for field-value pairs from a given instance of
// the object hierarchy.
public class Vector {
private Map<DataField, Object> fields;
..
}
// Extractors know how to get the value for a given DataField
// from the object hierarchy. There's one extractor per each field.
public interface Extractor<T> {
public T extract(Person person);
}
public class PersonNameExtractor implements Extractor<String> {
public String extract(Person person) {
return person.getName();
}
}
public class PersonAgeExtractor implements Extractor<Integer> {
public int extract(Person person) {
return now().getYear() - person.getBirthday().getYear();
}
}
public class CompanyExtractor implements Extractor<String> {
public String extract(Person person) {
return person.getJob().getCompany();
}
}
// Building the Vector using all the fields from the DataField enum
// and the extractors.
public class FullVectorBuilder {
public Vector buildVector(Person person) {
Vector vector = new Vector();
for (DataField field : DataField.values()) {
vector.addField(field, field.getExtractor().extract(person));
}
return vector;
}
}
// Definition of a subset of fields on the Vector.
public interface Selector {
public List<DataField> getFields();
}
public class SampleSubsetSelector implements Selector {
private List<DataField> fields = ImmutableList.of(PERSON_NAME, COMPANY);
...
}
// Finally, a builder for the subset Vector, choosing only
// fields pointed to by the selector.
public class SubsetVectorBuilder {
public Vector buildSubsetVector(Vector fullVector, Selector selector) {
Vector subsetVector = new Vector();
for (DataField field : selector.getFields()) {
subsetVector.addField(field, fullVector.getValue(field));
}
return subsetVector;
}
}
Minuses:
Need to create a tiny Extractor class for each of hundreds of data fields.
This is a custom solution that I came up with, seems to work and I like it, but I feel this problem must have been encountered and solved before, likely in a better way.. Has it?
Edit
Each object knows how to turn itself into a Map of fields, keyed on an enum of all fields.
E.g.
public enum DataField {
PERSON_NAME,
..
PERSON_AGE,
..
COMPANY,
..
}
public class Person {
private String name;
private Date birthday;
private int height;
private Job job;
private House house;
..
public Map<DataField, Object> toMap() {
return ImmutableMap
.add(DataField.PERSON_NAME, name)
.add(DataField.BIRTHDAY, birthday)
.add(DataField.HEIGHT, height)
.add(DataField.AGE, now().getYear() - birthday.getYear())
.build();
}
}
Then, I could build a Vector combining all the Maps, and select subsets from it like in 3.
Minuses:
Enum name clashes, e.g. if Job has an Address and House has an Address, then I want to be able to specify a subset taking street name of both. But how do I then define the toMap() method in the Address class?
No obvious place to put code doing computed fields requiring data from more than one object, e.g. physical distance from Address of House to Address of Company.
Many thanks!
Over in-memory object mapping in the application, I would favor database processing of the data for better performance. Views, or more elaborate OLAP/datawarehouse tooling could do the trick. If the calculated fields remain basic, as in "age = now - birth", I see nothing wrong with having that logic in the DB.
On the code side, given the large number of DTOs you have to deal with, you could use classless dynamic (available in some JVM languages) or JSON objects. The idea is that when a data structure changes, you only need to modify the DB and the UI, saving you the cost of changing a whole bunch of classes in between.
If I had a class with immutable members in Java, I would do this:
class MyClass {
private final String name;
private final int id;
myClass(String name, int id) {
this.name = name;
this.id = id;
}
String getName() { return name; }
int getId() { return id; }
}
In Progress-4GL, you'd typically see something like this: (Please, no lectures on Hungarian Notation. I hate it too, but it's very common in the Progress community, so it's something I just live with.)
CLASS MyClass :
DEFINE VARIABLE mcName as CHARACTER NO-UNDO.
DEFINE VARIABLE miId as INTEGER NO-UNDO.
CONSTRUCTOR PUBLIC MyClass(INPUT ipcName AS CHARACTER,
INPUT ipiId AS INTEGER):
ASSIGN mcName = ipcName
miId = ipiID.
END. /* constructor(char,int)*/
END CLASS. /* MyClass */
I was told in that in Progress 10.2B, they added the ability to make constants/final variables. However, I am unable to find any reference to it anywhere. In my Architect (version 10.2A) I do see that FINAL is considered a keyword. But the documentation behind it simply eludes me.
And if you've ever tried to search for Progress documentation, you know my dilemma.
How can I do immutable variables in Progress 10.2B? Are there any gotchyas I need to be aware of?
Thanks!
EDIT 1 I found documentation on FINAL. It appears to only apply to classes and methods. My current approach is
CLASS ImmutableString :
DEFINE PRIVATE VARIABLE mcValue AS CHARACTER NO-UNDO.
CONSTRUCTOR PUBLIC ImmutableString(INPUT ipcValue AS CHARACTER) :
ASSIGN mcValue = ipcValue.
END.
METHOD PUBLIC CHARACTER getValue() :
RETURN mcValue. /* Is a defensive copy required? */
END METHOD.
END CLASS.
You could also create a public property with a public "GET" and a private "SET":
DEF PUBLIC PROPERTY Value AS CHAR NO-UNDO
GET.
PRIVATE SET.
CONSTRUCTOR PUBLIC ImmutableString(INPUT ipcValue AS CHARACTER) :
Value = ipcValue.
END.
That's a little less code and does the same thing.
EDITED to change the property name to match the original poster's example.
Can a class return an object of itself.
In my example I have a class called "Change" which represents a change to the system, and I am wondering if it is in anyway against design principles to return an object of type Change or an ArrayList which is populated with all the recent Change objects.
Yes, a class can have a method that returns an instance of itself. This is quite a common scenario.
In C#, an example might be:
public class Change
{
public int ChangeID { get; set; }
private Change(int changeId)
{
ChangeID = changeId;
LoadFromDatabase();
}
private void LoadFromDatabase()
{
// TODO Perform Database load here.
}
public static Change GetChange(int changeId)
{
return new Change(changeId);
}
}
Yes it can. In fact, that's exactly what a singleton class does. The first time you call its class-level getInstance() method, it constructs an instance of itself and returns that. Then subsequent calls to getInstance() return the already-constructed instance.
Your particular case could use a similar method but you need some way of deciding the list of recent changes. As such it will need to maintain its own list of such changes. You could do this with a static array or list of the changes. Just be certain that the underlying information in the list doesn't disappear - this could happen in C++ (for example) if you maintained pointers to the objects and those objects were freed by your clients.
Less of an issue in an automatic garbage collection environment like Java since the object wouldn't disappear whilst there was still a reference to it.
However, you don't have to use this method. My preference with what you describe would be to have two clases, changelist and change. When you create an instance of the change class, pass a changelist object (null if you don't want it associated with a changelist) with the constructor and add the change to that list before returning it.
Alternatively, have a changelist method which creates a change itself and returns it, remembering the change for its own purposes.
Then you can query the changelist to get recent changes (however you define recent). That would be more flexible since it allows multiple lists.
You could even go overboard and allow a change to be associated with multiple changelists if so desired.
Another reason to return this is so that you can do function chaining:
class foo
{
private int x;
public foo()
{
this.x = 0;
}
public foo Add(int a)
{
this.x += a;
return this;
}
public foo Subtract(int a)
{
this.x -= a;
return this;
}
public int Value
{
get { return this.x; }
}
public static void Main()
{
foo f = new foo();
f.Add(10).Add(20).Subtract(1);
System.Console.WriteLine(f.Value);
}
}
$ ./foo.exe
29
There's a time and a place to do function chaining, and it's not "anytime and everywhere." But, LINQ is a good example of a place that hugely benefits from function chaining.
A class will often return an instance of itself from what is sometimes called a "factory" method. In Java or C++ (etc) this would usually be a public static method, e.g. you would call it directly on the class rather than on an instance of a class.
In your case, in Java, it might look something like this:
List<Change> changes = Change.getRecentChanges();
This assumes that the Change class itself knows how to track changes itself, rather than that job being the responsibility of some other object in the system.
A class can also return an instance of itself in the singleton pattern, where you want to ensure that only one instance of a class exists in the world:
Foo foo = Foo.getInstance();
The fluent interface methods work on the principal of returning an instance of itself, e.g.
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder("123");
sb.Append("456").Append("789");
You need to think about what you're trying to model. In your case, I would have a ChangeList class that contains one or more Change objects.
On the other hand, if you were modeling a hierarchical structure where a class can reference other instances of the class, then what you're doing makes sense. E.g. a tree node, which can contain other tree nodes.
Another common scenario is having the class implement a static method which returns an instance of it. That should be used when creating a new instance of the class.
I don't know of any design rule that says that's bad. So if in your model a single change can be composed of multiple changes go for it.
Why should we make the constructor private in class? As we always need the constructor to be public.
Some reasons where you may need private constructor:
The constructor can only be accessed from static factory method inside the class itself. Singleton can also belong to this category.
A utility class, that only contains static methods.
By providing a private constructor you prevent class instances from being created in any place other than this very class. There are several use cases for providing such constructor.
A. Your class instances are created in a static method. The static method is then declared as public.
class MyClass()
{
private:
MyClass() { }
public:
static MyClass * CreateInstance() { return new MyClass(); }
};
B. Your class is a singleton. This means, not more than one instance of your class exists in the program.
class MyClass()
{
private:
MyClass() { }
public:
MyClass & Instance()
{
static MyClass * aGlobalInst = new MyClass();
return *aGlobalInst;
}
};
C. (Only applies to the upcoming C++0x standard) You have several constructors. Some of them are declared public, others private. For reducing code size, public constructors 'call' private constructors which in turn do all the work. Your public constructors are thus called delegating constructors:
class MyClass
{
public:
MyClass() : MyClass(2010, 1, 1) { }
private:
MyClass(int theYear, int theMonth, int theDay) { /* do real work */ }
};
D. You want to limit object copying (for example, because of using a shared resource):
class MyClass
{
SharedResource * myResource;
private:
MyClass(const MyClass & theOriginal) { }
};
E. Your class is a utility class. That means, it only contains static members. In this case, no object instance must ever be created in the program.
To leave a "back door" that allows another friend class/function to construct an object in a way forbidden to the user. An example that comes to mind would be a container constructing an iterator (C++):
Iterator Container::begin() { return Iterator(this->beginPtr_); }
// Iterator(pointer_type p) constructor is private,
// and Container is a friend of Iterator.
Everyone is stuck on the Singleton thing, wow.
Other things:
Stop people from creating your class on the stack; make private constructors and only hand back pointers via a factory method.
Preventing creating copys of the class (private copy constructor)
This can be very useful for a constructor that contains common code; private constructors can be called by other constructors, using the 'this(...);' notation. By making the common initialization code in a private (or protected) constructor, you are also making explicitly clear that it is called only during construction, which is not so if it were simply a method:
public class Point {
public Point() {
this(0,0); // call common constructor
}
private Point(int x,int y) {
m_x = x; m_y = y;
}
};
There are some instances where you might not want to use a public constructor; for example if you want a singleton class.
If you are writing an assembly used by 3rd parties there could be a number of internal classes that you only want created by your assembly and not to be instantiated by users of your assembly.
This ensures that you (the class with private constructor) control how the contructor is called.
An example : A static factory method on the class could return objects as the factory method choses to allocate them (like a singleton factory for example).
We can also have private constructor,
to enfore the object's creation by a specific class
only(For security reasons).
One way to do it is through having a friend class.
C++ example:
class ClientClass;
class SecureClass
{
private:
SecureClass(); // Constructor is private.
friend class ClientClass; // All methods in
//ClientClass have access to private
// & protected methods of SecureClass.
};
class ClientClass
{
public:
ClientClass();
SecureClass* CreateSecureClass()
{
return (new SecureClass()); // we can access
// constructor of
// SecureClass as
// ClientClass is friend
// of SecureClass.
}
};
Note: Note: Only ClientClass (since it is friend of SecureClass)
can call SecureClass's Constructor.
You shouldn't make the constructor private. Period. Make it protected, so you can extend the class if you need to.
Edit: I'm standing by that, no matter how many downvotes you throw at this.
You're cutting off the potential for future development on the code. If other users or programmers are really determined to extend the class, then they'll just change the constructor to protected in source or bytecode. You will have accomplished nothing besides to make their life a little harder. Include a warning in your constructor's comments, and leave it at that.
If it's a utility class, the simpler, more correct, and more elegant solution is to mark the whole class "static final" to prevent extension. It doesn't do any good to just mark the constructor private; a really determined user may always use reflection to obtain the constructor.
Valid uses:
One good use of a protected
constructor is to force use of static
factory methods, which allow you to
limit instantiation or pool & reuse
expensive resources (DB connections,
native resources).
Singletons (usually not good practice, but sometimes necessary)
when you do not want users to create instances of this class or create class that inherits this class, like the java.lang.math, all the function in this package is static, all the functions can be called without creating an instance of math, so the constructor is announce as static.
If it's private, then you can't call it ==> you can't instantiate the class. Useful in some cases, like a singleton.
There's a discussion and some more examples here.
I saw a question from you addressing the same issue.
Simply if you don't want to allow the others to create instances, then keep the constuctor within a limited scope. The practical application (An example) is the singleton pattern.
Constructor is private for some purpose like when you need to implement singleton or limit the number of object of a class.
For instance in singleton implementation we have to make the constructor private
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
class singletonClass
{
static int i;
static singletonClass* instance;
public:
static singletonClass* createInstance()
{
if(i==0)
{
instance =new singletonClass;
i=1;
}
return instance;
}
void test()
{
cout<<"successfully created instance";
}
};
int singletonClass::i=0;
singletonClass* singletonClass::instance=NULL;
int main()
{
singletonClass *temp=singletonClass::createInstance();//////return instance!!!
temp->test();
}
Again if you want to limit the object creation upto 10 then use the following
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
class singletonClass
{
static int i;
static singletonClass* instance;
public:
static singletonClass* createInstance()
{
if(i<10)
{
instance =new singletonClass;
i++;
cout<<"created";
}
return instance;
}
};
int singletonClass::i=0;
singletonClass* singletonClass::instance=NULL;
int main()
{
singletonClass *temp=singletonClass::createInstance();//return an instance
singletonClass *temp1=singletonClass::createInstance();///return another instance
}
Thanks
You can have more than one constructor. C++ provides a default constructor and a default copy constructor if you don't provide one explicitly. Suppose you have a class that can only be constructed using some parameterized constructor. Maybe it initialized variables. If a user then uses this class without that constructor, they can cause no end of problems. A good general rule: If the default implementation is not valid, make both the default and copy constructor private and don't provide an implementation:
class C
{
public:
C(int x);
private:
C();
C(const C &);
};
Use the compiler to prevent users from using the object with the default constructors that are not valid.
Quoting from Effective Java, you can have a class with private constructor to have a utility class that defines constants (as static final fields).
(EDIT: As per the comment this is something which might be applicable only with Java, I'm unaware if this construct is applicable/needed in other OO languages (say C++))
An example as below:
public class Constants {
private Contants():
public static final int ADDRESS_UNIT = 32;
...
}
EDIT_1:
Again, below explanation is applicable in Java : (and referring from the book, Effective Java)
An instantiation of utility class like the one below ,though not harmful, doesn't serve
any purpose since they are not designed to be instantiated.
For example, say there is no private Constructor for class Constants.
A code chunk like below is valid but doesn't better convey intention of
the user of Constants class
unit = (this.length)/new Constants().ADDRESS_UNIT;
in contrast with code like
unit = (this.length)/Constants.ADDRESS_UNIT;
Also I think a private constructor conveys the intention of the designer of the Constants
(say) class better.
Java provides a default parameterless public constructor if no constructor
is provided, and if your intention is to prevent instantiation then a private constructor is
needed.
One cannot mark a top level class static and even a final class can be instantiated.
Utility classes could have private constructors. Users of the classes should not be able to instantiate these classes:
public final class UtilityClass {
private UtilityClass() {}
public static utilityMethod1() {
...
}
}
You may want to prevent a class to be instantiated freely. See the singleton design pattern as an example. In order to guarantee the uniqueness, you can't let anyone create an instance of it :-)
One of the important use is in SingleTon class
class Person
{
private Person()
{
//Its private, Hense cannot be Instantiated
}
public static Person GetInstance()
{
//return new instance of Person
// In here I will be able to access private constructor
}
};
Its also suitable, If your class has only static methods. i.e nobody needs to instantiate your class
It's really one obvious reason: you want to build an object, but it's not practical to do it (in term of interface) within the constructor.
The Factory example is quite obvious, let me demonstrate the Named Constructor idiom.
Say I have a class Complex which can represent a complex number.
class Complex { public: Complex(double,double); .... };
The question is: does the constructor expects the real and imaginary parts, or does it expects the norm and angle (polar coordinates) ?
I can change the interface to make it easier:
class Complex
{
public:
static Complex Regular(double, double = 0.0f);
static Complex Polar(double, double = 0.0f);
private:
Complex(double, double);
}; // class Complex
This is called the Named Constructor idiom: the class can only be built from scratch by explicitly stating which constructor we wish to use.
It's a special case of many construction methods. The Design Patterns provide a good number of ways to build object: Builder, Factory, Abstract Factory, ... and a private constructor will ensure that the user is properly constrained.
In addition to the better-known uses…
To implement the Method Object pattern, which I’d summarize as:
“Private constructor, public static method”
“Object for implementation, function for interface”
If you want to implement a function using an object, and the object is not useful outside of doing a one-off computation (by a method call), then you have a Throwaway Object. You can encapsulate the object creation and method call in a static method, preventing this common anti-pattern:
z = new A(x,y).call();
…replacing it with a (namespaced) function call:
z = A.f(x,y);
The caller never needs to know or care that you’re using an object internally, yielding a cleaner interface, and preventing garbage from the object hanging around or incorrect use of the object.
For example, if you want to break up a computation across methods foo, bar, and zork, for example to share state without having to pass many values in and out of functions, you could implement it as follows:
class A {
public static Z f(x, y) {
A a = new A(x, y);
a.foo();
a.bar();
return a.zork();
}
private A(X x, Y y) { /* ... */ };
}
This Method Object pattern is given in Smalltalk Best Practice Patterns, Kent Beck, pages 34–37, where it is the last step of a refactoring pattern, ending:
Replace the original method with one that creates an instance of the new class, constructed with the parameters and receiver of the original method, and invokes “compute”.
This differs significantly from the other examples here: the class is instantiable (unlike a utility class), but the instances are private (unlike factory methods, including singletons etc.), and can live on the stack, since they never escape.
This pattern is very useful in bottoms-up OOP, where objects are used to simplify low-level implementation, but are not necessarily exposed externally, and contrasts with the top-down OOP that is often presented and begins with high-level interfaces.
Sometimes is useful if you want to control how and when (and how many) instances of an object are created.
Among others, used in patterns:
Singleton pattern
Builder pattern
On use of private constructors could also be to increase readability/maintainability in the face of domain-driven design.
From "Microsoft .NET - Architecing Applications for the Enterprise, 2nd Edition":
var request = new OrderRequest(1234);
Quote, "There are two problems here. First, when looking at the code, one can hardly guess what’s going
on. An instance of OrderRequest is being created, but why and using which data? What’s 1234? This
leads to the second problem: you are violating the ubiquitous language of the bounded context. The
language probably says something like this: a customer can issue an order request and is allowed to
specify a purchase ID. If that’s the case, here’s a better way to get a new OrderRequest instance:"
var request = OrderRequest.CreateForCustomer(1234);
where
private OrderRequest() { ... }
public OrderRequest CreateForCustomer (int customerId)
{
var request = new OrderRequest();
...
return request;
}
I'm not advocating this for every single class, but for the above DDD scenario I think it makes perfect sense to prevent a direct creation of a new object.
If you create a private constructor you need to create the object inside the class
enter code here#include<iostream>
//factory method
using namespace std;
class Test
{
private:
Test(){
cout<<"Object created"<<endl;
}
public:
static Test* m1(){
Test *t = new Test();
return t;
}
void m2(){
cout<<"m2-Test"<<endl;
}
};
int main(){
Test *t = Test::m1();
t->m2();
return 0;
}