Say you want to add a lengthOfFirstLine method to the predefined File class. Is it a better practice to modify the existing class, or make a new class that extends the File class with your new method?
EDIT -- Specifically, the situation is that a class is lacking one method in particular. I don't want to completely change the class, but rather augment it with that method.
It depends if the method is applicable to all elements of the class File. For instance, lengthOfFirstLine doesn't apply to binary files, so probably it doesn't belong in a generic File class, but if your class only represent text files, then it should go there.
For .NET languages, there's also the option of using extension methods. This way you don't have to "dirty up" a class by adding helper/utility methods to it, and no inheritance is required as well - you add functionality to a class by simply adding a using statement to your code.
Agree with Luis and Lester. If you are using .Net the extension methods are the way to go for this sort of functionality. But you should try not add LengthOfFirstLine to a base class if you can open all sorts of files such as binary files. You would sub class it to a FileClass and add the method to that.
Remember that the extension methods in .Net are syntactic sugar anyway. You can simulate it in your own language using Static classes and methods. This is what .Net does under the covers anyway.
For example have a static FileHelpers class and have various static helper methods on it. The first parameter for each of these static methods would be the File class. So you could call this using FileHelpers.GetLengthOfFirstLine(myOpenedFile)
Related
I'm working in Kotlin, and I have a library that I can't modify (without maintaining my own fork of this huge and rapidly changing library).
There's a class in that library I need to instantiate, and it requires an instance of another class that does some stuff for it. I need to change how that second class works, so it feeds different information to the first class. But the second class is not open, and the first class asks for it by its full, non-open type.
How do I force my way into the non-open class and extend it anyway, against the desires of the library authors? Alternately, how do I cheat the type system to pass my own class off as an instance of the class the library is demanding?
Do I need to do some fiddling around at the JAR/build system level to replace the library's class files with my own versions? Can I use reflection to somehow impersonate the non-open class? Is there some other way to do it?
I work with a codebase where there are many classes with thousands of lines of code. I've noticed inconsistencies in style concerning prepending class names when using their methods and I'm trying to figure out the previous developer's reasoning. If we
import GeneralCode
in Class A, is it bad practice to write
GeneralCode.DoSomething()
in Class A since we already imported it (instead of simply using DoSomething())? I would think so, but I suppose it's also nice to know which methods come from which classes at a glance, since Class A imports many classes and uses methods from several of them.
EDIT: This is for VB.NET, not Java (sorry for the wrong tag, rough morning). I am new to VB.NET but GeneralCode and DoSomething() are not declared as static, neither is the import in Class A.
Might be something to do with VB.NET, but DoSomething() can indeed be used with or without prepending GeneralCode.
A method need to be prefixed with
The class name if it's a static method.
The name of the instance when it's not a static method.
Unless you are calling a method from your own class.
Let's say I have a few extension methods for "MyClass".
My question is, what's the best practice to organize/store these methods?
Should they be simply put into a "MyClassExtensions" Kotlin file?
I have tried to encapsulate these methods within a class, but after importing the class I couldn't seem to figure out how to use/access the extension methods.
Edit:
For clarification, I was not asking for help what to call a file that contains extension methods. I was asking about best practices/approaches to store/organize such methods. Ie. should they be simply put into kotlin files, or should they be encapsulated in a class. I am coming from a Java background, so I'm used to store stuff in classes.
As far as I am concerned, you should put them into a utility file, as you did in Java code base before.
But mention, you no longer need to put them into a class. Top-level functions are the best choice.
You can refer to the kotlin standard library or some open source projects like anko, those would be good examples.
In my case, I put extensions of one class into a file which have the same name of the original file in another package, and use
#JvmMultifileClass
to reduce the number of generated class files.
Some of my co-workers make extensive use of the VB.net concept of Modules. Unfortunately, I just don't 'get it'. I see no benefit in using modules over shared classes. Am I missing something? When would it be preferable to use a module? Or am I (as I do quite often in this language) 'just not getting it'?
In VB.net a module is a shared class. When they are compiled they are given a private constructor and methods set to shared.
There are some times when you are forced to use modules by the compiler (in the same way static classes are in C#) such as for extension methods which can not be created in side a VB.Net class.
By using modules for your helper methods you will make it easier to convert them over to extension methods later and restrict others from adding any instance methods or constructors.
That said they are a hang over from VB6 that did not support full OO programming and beyond standalone helper methods they would not widely be used.
A module is essentially the same as a shared class. The major difference is that in a module, there's no need for all the extra "shared"s, cause everything's implicitly shared. If you have no instance data and are just using the class as a kind of namespace for functions, then it's a better idea (IMO) to use a module instead and make that clear.
I have a Util module in my VB.NET program that has project-wide methods such as logging and property parsing. The general practice where I work seems to be to call these methods directly without prefixing them with Util. When I was new to VB, it took me a while to figure out where these methods/functions were coming from. As I use my own Util methods now, I can't help thinking that it's a lot clearer and more understandable to add Util. before each method call (you know immediately that it's user-defined but not within the current class, and where to find it), and is hardly even longer. What's the general practice when calling procedures/functions of VB modules? Should we prefix them with the module name or not?
Intellisense (and "Goto Definition") should make it trivial to find where things are located, but I always preface the calls with a better namespace, just for clarity of reading. Then it's clear that it's a custom function, and not something built in or local to the class you're working with.
Maybe there's a subtle difference I'm missing, but I tend to use shared classes instead of modules for any code that's common and self-contained - it just seems easier to keep track of for me, and it would also enforce your rule of prefacing it, since you can't just call it from everywhere without giving a namespace to call it from.
I usually put the complete namespace for a shared function, for readibility.
Call MyNameSpace.Utils.MySharedFunction()
Util is such a generic name.
Example from the .Net framework. You have System.Web.HttpUtility.UrlEncode(...). Usually you refer to this as HttpUtility.UrlEncode since you have an import statement at the top.
The name of the class which has the static utility methods should be readable and explainable. That is good practice. If you have good class names they might just as well reside in a Utils namespace, but the class name should not be Utils.
Put all your logging in a Logger class. All your string handing in a StringUtils class etc. And try to keep the class names as specific as possible, and I'd rather have more classes with fewer functions than the other way around.