I'm developing an application for transferring databases and directories of user-uploaded images/documents from our production server to the development server. The application is written in Coldfusion, but I don't think the language is relevant to this question - it's more of a structural/architecture question than a question specific to the language.
I'll be writing pseudo code for my examples, so please don't pick apart the syntax.
When I've seen class inheritance demonstrated, it's usually something simple like class Student extends Person() {}. Obviously, a Student is a more specialized Person, so this makes sense.
In my application, I have a class Site() which contains relevant information such as the DSN, file upload directory, etc. I perform my SQL exports in one class and my file upload exports in another class, both of which are called from within the site class(pseudo-code):
class Site {
public function exportSql() {
sqlExport = new sqlExport(this.dsn);
sqlExport.createDumpAndZipItAndStuff();
}
public function exportUploads() {
uploadsExport = new uploadsExport(this.uploadDirectory);
uploadsExport.copyAndZipFilesAndStuff();
}
}
The Site class doesn't do anything other than control the flow of traffic that is requested from the front-end of the application, everything else is handed off to one of the export classes.
This works fine for me, but I'd like to structure it properly. Right now, I have to pass Site's properties to the constructor of the export classes, and then set the export class's properties with those arguments. This causes a lot of duplication.
Would it be appropriate to have my export classes inherit the Site class so that I could access the properties directly? The export classes are not a more specialized Site, as in the Person/Student example I gave earlier. Rather, they just perform the heavy lifting for the Site class.
If this is not an appropriate situation for inheritance, how should I structure the application? As I said earlier, the way I'm doing it right now works, but I would like to take this opportunity to learn more about design patterns and write my code in a way that makes sense.
Inheritance should be use when something is a kind of another thing.
Like a dog is kind of animal, therefor it should inherit from animal.
Export is not a kind of Site, so it shouldn't inherit from it.
What you're looking for is Composition. Export should hold a reference to a Site which it exports. Then you can pass the Site object to it on contruction, and it can get the data from the site whenever you need.
Export shouldn't extend your Site class, since things that are Exports are not members of a subset of things that are Sites. Inheritance is overused, and Composition makes more sense in this case as you have done. One way you can refine your existing object model and improve testability is by using Dependency Injection.
Calling "new" inside an object instance makes your object model more brittle and harder to test. You could inject the instances of your exporters into the Site class.
Side note: I named the export classes a little more obviously as nouns (SQLExporter, not SQLExport). This is a stylistic thing, but I think it communicates the role of the class better: it is an object that has been delegated the role of exporting data.
public setSQLExporter( SQLExporter exporter )
{
variables.sqlExporter = arguments.exporter;
// set some properties on exporter here, like the DSN
variables.sqlExporter.dsn = this.dsn;
}
public setUploadsExporter( UploadsExporter exporter )
{
variables.uploadsExporter = arguments.exporter;
// set some properties on exporter here, like the upload directory
variables.uploadsExporter.uploadDirectory = this.uploadDirectory;
}
public function exportSql() {
variables.sqlExporter.createDumpAndZipItAndStuff();
// or maybe your generalize the interface to these exporters and do something like
// variables.sqlExporter.export();
}
public function exportUploads() {
variables.uploadsExporter.copyAndZipFilesAndStuff();
// or maybe your generalize the interface to these exporters and do something like
// variables.uploadsExporter.export();
}
Then, in your main application (or whatever was instantiating the Site object in the first place):
thisSite = new Site(...);
// Get some Exporters
thisSite.setSQLExporter( new SQLExporter() );
thisSite.setUploadsExporter( new UploadsExporter() );
// Trigger exports
thisSite.exportSql();
thisSite.exportUploads();
This opens the door to using Mock Objects to directly test Site without it needing to have a database or a filesystem to talk to. If you use a DI framework like ColdSpring, the framework could do this wiring for you.
Related
I'm learning Clean Architecture with the artical .
I know Domain Layer is the most INNER part of the onion (no dependencies with other layers) and it contains Entities, Use cases & Repository Interfaces.
The following code is from the project https://github.com/lopspower/CleanRxArchitecture
GetListRepo.kt and RepoRepository.kt are located in Domain Layer, you can see Image 1
1: I think the GetListRepo class should be abstract or interface, right?
2: There are three parameters for constructor of the class GetListRepo. I don't understand why the author add dependency injection #Inject for the class's constructor.
I think I can instance GetListRepo with any way in Data Layout, why does the author need to set dependency injection in Domain Layer with Clean Architecture ?
GetListRepo.kt
class GetListRepo
#Inject internal constructor(
private val repoRepository: RepoRepository,
useCaseScheduler: UseCaseScheduler? = null,
logger: Logger? = null
) : SingleUseCase<List<Repo>, String>(useCaseScheduler, logger) {
...
}
RepoRepository.kt
interface RepoRepository {
val isConnected: Boolean
...
}
Image 1
This is similar to your another question about interfaces/abstract classes. I will quote myself:
With such architecture you could create alternative implementations of GetAlbumListUseCase in the future and switch them smoothly. You could even use multiple implementations at the same time, for example different objects use different implementations GetAlbumListUseCase. Note that in your current architecture all objects directly depend on a specific implementation, so switching to another one requires to modify half of your code.
Imagine you did as you suggested, you didn't use dependency injection, but you created GetListRepo object everywhere in your code. Then in the future you need to have two alternative ways of providing the data, e.g. with local files and with remote server. Imagine you need to make it configurable in the application settings. Or imagine that you need to create unit tests and it would be good to provide a fake, testing variant of the GetListRepo.
How would you do this if your code everywhere would just instantiate GetListRepo directly? You would need to modify many different places in the code and put some logic related to loading of application settings, etc. everywhere. By using dependency injection all components receive their dependencies from outside, they don't know how they're being created and you can put your creation logic in one place only.
Making long story short: using DI lets us decouple components of our application. It makes our code more flexible and adaptable to different scenarios.
I'm not so sure the title is a good match for this question I want to put on the table.
I'm planning to create a web MVC framework as my graduation dissertation and in a previous conversation with my advisor trying to define some achivements, he convinced me that I should choose a modular design in this project.
I already had some things developed by then and stopped for a while to analyze how much modular it would be and I couldn't really do it because I don't know the real meaning of "modular".
Some things are not very cleary for me, like for example, just referencing another module blows up the modularity of my system?
Let's say I have a Database Access module and it OPTIONALY can use a Cache module for storing results of complex queries. As anyone can see, I at least will have a naming dependency for the cache module.
In my conception of "modular design", I can distribute each component separately and make it interact with others developed by other people. In this case I showed, if someone wants to use my Database Access module, they will have to take the Cache as well, even if he will not use it, just for referencing/naming purposes.
And so, I was wondering if this is really a modular design yet.
I came up with an alternative that is something like creating each component singly, without don't even knowing about the existance of other components that are not absolutely required for its functioning. To extend functionalities, I could create some structure based on Decorators and Adapters.
To clarify things a little bit, here is an example (in PHP):
Before
interface Cache {
public function isValid();
public function setValue();
public function getValue();
}
interface CacheManager {
public function get($name);
public function put($name, $value);
}
// Some concrete implementations...
interface DbAccessInterface {
public doComplexOperation();
}
class DbAccess implements DbAccessInterface {
private $cacheManager;
public function __construct(..., CacheManager $cacheManager = null) {
// ...
$this->cacheManager = $cacheManager;
}
public function doComplexOperation() {
if ($this->cacheManager !== null) {
// return from cache if valid
}
// complex operation
}
}
After
interface Cache {
public function isValid();
public function setValue();
public function getValue();
}
interface CacheManager {
public function get($name);
public function put($name, $value);
}
// Some concrete implementations...
interface DbAccessInterface {
public function doComplexOperation();
}
class DbAccess implements DbAccessInterface {
public function __construct(...) {
// ...
}
public function doComplexQuery() {
// complex operation
}
}
// And now the integration module
class CachedDbAcess implements DbAccessInterface {
private $dbAccess;
private $cacheManager;
public function __construct(DbAccessInterface $dbAccess, CacheManager $cacheManager) {
$this->dbAccess = $dbAccess;
$this->cacheManager = $cacheManager;
}
public function doComplexOperation() {
$cache = $this->cacheManager->get("Foo")
if($cache->isValid()) {
return $cache->getValue();
}
// Do complex operation...
}
}
Now my question is:
Is this the best solution? I should do this for all the modules that do not have as a requirement work together, but can be more efficient doing so?
Anyone would do it in a different way?
I have some more further questions involving this, but I don't know if this is an acceptable question for stackoverflow.
P.S.: English is not my first language, maybe some parts can get a little bit confuse
Some resources (not theoretical):
Nuclex Plugin Architecture
Python Plugin Application
C++ Plugin Architecture (Use NoScript on that side, they have some weird login policies)
Other SO threads (design pattern for plugins in php)
Django Middleware concept
Just referencing another module blows up the modularity of my system?
Not necessarily. It's a dependency. Having a dependencies is perfectly normal. Without dependencies modules can't interact with each other (unless you're doing such interaction indirectly which in general is a bad practice since it hides dependencies and complicates the code). Modular desing implies managing of dependencies, not removing them.
One tool - is using interfaces. Referencing module via interface makes a so called soft dependency. Such module can accept any implementation of an interface as a dependency so it is more independant and as a result - more maintainable.
The other tool - designing modules (and their interfaces) that have only single responcibility. This also makes them more granular, independant and maintainable.
But there is a line which you should not cross - blindly applying these tools may leed to a too modular and too generic desing. Making things too granular makes the whole system more complex. You should not solve universe problems, making generic modules, that all developers can use (unless it is your goal). First of all your system should solve your domain tasks and make things generic enough, but not more than that.
I came up with an alternative that is something like creating each component singly, without don't even knowing about the existance of other components that are not absolutely required for its functioning
It is great if you came up with this idea by yourself. The statement itself, is a key to modular programming.
Plugin architecture is the best in terms of extensibility, but imho it is hard to maintenance especially in intra application. And depending the complexity of plugin architecture, it can make your code more complex by adding plugin logics, etc.
Thus, for intra modular design, I choose the N-Tier, interface based architecture. Basically, the architecture relays on those tiers:
Domain / Entity
Interface [Depend on 1]
Services [Depend on 1 and 2]
Repository / DAL [Depend on 1 and 2]
Presentation Layer [Depend on 1,2,3,4]
Unfortunately, I don't think this is achieveable neatly in php projects as it need separated project / dll references in each tier. However, following the architecture can help to modularize the application.
For each modules, we need to do interface-based design. It can help to enhance the modularity of your code, because you can change the implementation later, but still keep the consumer the same.
I have provided an answer similiar to this interface-based design, at this stackoverflow question.
Lastly but not least, if you want to make your application modular to the UI, you can do Service Oriented Architecture. This is simply make your application as bunch of services, and then make the UI to consume the service. This design can help to separate your UI with your logic. You can later use different UI such as desktop app, but still use the same logic. Unfortunately, I don't have any reliable source for SOA.
EDIT:
I misunderstood the question. This is my point of view about modular framework. Unfortunately, I don't know much about Zend so I will give examples in C#:
It consist of modules, from the smallest to larger modules. Example in C# is you can using the Windows Form (larger) at your application, and also the Graphic (smaller) class to draw custom shapes in the screen.
It is extensible, or replaceable without making change to base class. In C# you can assign FormLoad event (extensible) to the Form class, inherit the Form or List class (extensible) or overridding form draw method to create a custom window graphic (replaceable).
(optional) it is easy to use. In normal DI interface design, we usually inject smaller modules into a larger (high level) module. This will require an IOC container. Refer to my question for detail.
Easy to configure, and does not involve any magical logic such as Service Locator Pattern. Search Service Locator is an Anti Pattern in google.
I don't know much about Zend, however I guess that the modularity in Zend can means that it can be extended without changing the core (replacing the code) inside framework.
If you said that:
if someone wants to use my Database Access module, they will have to take the Cache as well, even if he will not use it, just for referencing/naming purposes.
Then it is not modular. It is integrated, means that your Database Access module will not work without Cache. In reference of C# components, it choose to provide List<T> and BindingList<T> to provide different functionality. In your case, imho it is better to provide CachedDataAccess and DataAccess.
Let's say I have a few controllers. Each controller can at some point create new objects which will need to be stored on the server. For example I can have a RecipeCreationViewController which manages a form. When this form is submitted, a new Recipe object is created and needs to be saved on the server.
What's the best way to design the classes to minimize complexity and coupling while keeping the code as clean and readable as possible?
Singleton
Normally I would create a singleton NetworkAdapter that each controller can access directly in order to save objects.
Example:
[[[NetworkAdapter] sharedAdapter] saveObject:myRecipe];
But I've realized that having classes call singletons on their own makes for coupled code which is hard to debug since the access to the singleton is hidden in the implementation and not obvious from the interface.
Direct Reference
The alternative is to have each controller hold a reference to the NetworkAdapter and have this be passed in by the class that creates the controller.
For example:
[self.networkAdapter saveObject:myRecipe];
Delegation
The other approach that came to mind is delegation. The NetworkAdapter can implement a "RemoteStorageDelegate" protocol and each controller can have a remoteStorageDelegate which it can call methods like saveObject: on. The advantage being that the controllers don't know about the details of a NetworkAdapter, only that the object that implements the protocol knows how to save objects.
For example:
[self.remoteStorageDelegate saveObject:myRecipe];
Direct in Model
Yet another approach would be to have the model handle saving to the network directly. I'm not sure if this is a good idea though.
For example:
[myRecipe save];
What do you think of these? Are there any other patterns that make more sense for this?
I would also stick with Dependency Injection in your case. If you want to read about that you will easily find good articles in the web, e.g. on Wikipedia. There are also links to DI frameworks in Objective C.
Basically, you can use DI if you have two or more components, which must interact but shouldn't know each other directly in code. I'll elaborate your example a bit, but in C#/Java style because I don't know Objective C syntax. Let's say you have
class NetworkAdapter implements NetworkAdapterInterface {
void save(object o) { ... }
}
with the interface
interface NetworkAdapterInterface {
void save(object o);
}
Now you want to call that adapter in a controller like
class Controller {
NetworkAdapterInterface networkAdapter;
Controller() {
}
void setAdapter(NetworkAdapterInterface adapter) {
this.networkAdapter = adapter;
}
void work() {
this.networkAdapter.save(new object());
}
}
Calling the Setter is where now the magic of DI can happen (called Setter Injection; there is also e.g. Constructor Injection). That means that you haven't a single code line where you call the Setter yourself, but let it do the DI framework. Very loose coupled!
Now how does it work? Typically with a common DI framework you can define the actual mappings between components in a central code place or in a XML file. Image you have
<DI>
<component="NetworkAdapterInterface" class="NetworkAdapter" lifecycle="singleton" />
</DI>
This could tell the DI framework to automatically inject a NetworkAdapter in every Setter for NetworkAdapterInterface it finds in your code. In order to do this, it will create the proper object for you first. If it builds a new object for every injection, or only one object for all injections (Singleton), or e.g. one object per Unit of Work (if you use such a pattern), can be configured for each type.
As a sidenote: If you are unit testing your code, you can also use the DI framework to define completely other bindings, suitable for your test szenario. Easy way to inject some mocks!
I have been a web developer for some time now using ASP.NET and C#, I want to try and increase my skills by using best practices.
I have a website. I want to load the settings once off, and just reference it where ever I need it. So I did some research and 50% of the developers seem to be using the singleton pattern to do this. And the other 50% of the developers are ant-singleton. They all hate singletons. They recommend dependency injection.
Why are singletons bad? What is best practice to load websites settings? Should they be loaded only once and referenced where needed? How would I go about doing this with dependency injection (I am new at this)? Are there any samples that someone could recommend for my scenario? And I also would like to see some unit test code for this (for my scenario).
Thanks
Brendan
Generally, I avoid singletons because they make it harder to unit test your application. Singletons are hard to mock up for unit tests precisely because of their nature -- you always get the same one, not one you can configure easily for a unit test. Configuration data -- strongly-typed configuration data, anyway -- is one exception I make, though. Typically configuration data is relatively static anyway and the alternative involves writing a fair amount of code to avoid the static classes the framework provides to access the web.config anyway.
There are a couple of different ways to use it that will still allow you to unit test you application. One way (maybe both ways, if your singleton doesn't lazily read the app.cofnig) is to have a default app.config file in your unit test project providing the defaults required for your tests. You can use reflection to replace any specific values as needed in your unit tests. Typically, I'd configure a private method that allows the private singleton instance to be deleted in test set up if I do make changes for particular tests.
Another way is to not actually use the singleton directly, but create an interface for it that the singleton class implements. You can use hand injection of the interface, defaulting to the singleton instance if the supplied value is null. This allows you to create a mock instance that you can pass to the class under test for your tests, but in your real code use the singleton instance. Essentially, every class that needs it maintains a private reference to the singleton instance and uses it. I like this way a little better, but since the singleton will be created you may still need the default app.config file, unless all of the values are lazily loaded.
public class Foo
{
private IAppConfiguration Configuration { get; set; }
public Foo() : this(null) { }
public Foo( IAppConfiguration config )
{
this.Configuration = config ?? AppConfiguration.Instance;
}
public void Bar()
{
var value = this.Config.SomeMaximum;
...
}
}
There's a good discussion of singleton patterns, and coding examples here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singleton_pattern See also here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_injection
For some reason, singletons seem to divide programmers into strong pro- and anti- camps. Whatever the merits of the approach, if your colleagues are against it, it's probably best not to use one. If you're on your own, try it and see.
Design Patterns can be amazing things. Unfortunately, the singleton seems to stick out like a sore thumb and in many cases can be considered an anti-pattern (it promotes bad practices). Bizarely, the majority of developers will only know one design pattern, and that is the singleton.
Ideally your settings should be a member variable in a high level location, for example the application object which owns the webpages you are spawning. The pages can then ask the app for the settings, or the application can pass the settings as pages are constructed.
One way to approach this problem, is to flog it off as a DAL problem.
Whatever class / web page, etc. needs to use config settings should declare a dependency on an IConfigSettingsService (factory/repository/whatever-you-like-to-call-them).
private IConfigSettingsService _configSettingsService;
public WebPage(IConfigSettingsService configSettingsService)
{
_configSettingsService = configSettingsService;
}
So your class would get settings like this:
ConfigSettings _configSettings = _configSettingsService.GetTheOnlySettings();
the ConfigSettingsService implementation would have a dependency which is Dal class. How would that Dal populate the ConfigSettings object? Who cares.
Maybe it would populate a ConfigSettings from a database or .config xml file, every time.
Maybe it do that the first time but then populate a static _configSettings for subsequent calls.
Maybe it would get the settings from Redis. If something indicates the settings have changed then the dal, or something external, can update Redis. (This approach will be useful if you have more than one app using the settings.
Whatever it does, your only dependency is a non-singleton service interface. That is very easy to mock. In your tests you can have it return a ConfigSettings with whatever you want in it).
In reality it would more likely be MyPageBase which has the IConfigSettingsService dependency, but it could just as easily be a web service, windows service, MVC somewhatsit, or all of the above.
So, I was reading the Google testing blog, and it says that global state is bad and makes it hard to write tests. I believe it--my code is difficult to test right now. So how do I avoid global state?
The biggest things I use global state (as I understand it) for is managing key pieces of information between our development, acceptance, and production environments. For example, I have a static class named "Globals" with a static member called "DBConnectionString." When the application loads, it determines which connection string to load, and populates Globals.DBConnectionString. I load file paths, server names, and other information in the Globals class.
Some of my functions rely on the global variables. So, when I test my functions, I have to remember to set certain globals first or else the tests will fail. I'd like to avoid this.
Is there a good way to manage state information? (Or am I understanding global state incorrectly?)
Dependency injection is what you're looking for. Rather than have those functions go out and look for their dependencies, inject the dependencies into the functions. That is, when you call the functions pass the data they want to them. That way it's easy to put a testing framework around a class because you can simply inject mock objects where appropriate.
It's hard to avoid some global state, but the best way to do this is to use factory classes at the highest level of your application, and everything below that very top level is based on dependency injection.
Two main benefits: one, testing is a heck of a lot easier, and two, your application is much more loosely coupled. You rely on being able to program against the interface of a class rather than its implementation.
Keep in mind if your tests involve actual resources such as databases or filesystems then what you are doing are integration tests rather than unit tests. Integration tests require some preliminary setup whereas unit tests should be able to run independently.
You could look into the use of a dependency injection framework such as Castle Windsor but for simple cases you may be able to take a middle of the road approach such as:
public interface ISettingsProvider
{
string ConnectionString { get; }
}
public class TestSettings : ISettingsProvider
{
public string ConnectionString { get { return "testdatabase"; } };
}
public class DataStuff
{
private ISettingsProvider settings;
public DataStuff(ISettingsProvider settings)
{
this.settings = settings;
}
public void DoSomething()
{
// use settings.ConnectionString
}
}
In reality you would most likely read from config files in your implementation. If you're up for it, a full blown DI framework with swappable configurations is the way to go but I think this is at least better than using Globals.ConnectionString.
Great first question.
The short answer: make sure your application is a function from ALL its inputs (including implicit ones) to its outputs.
The problem you're describing doesn't seem like global state. At least not mutable state. Rather, what you're describing seems like what is often referred to as "The Configuration Problem", and it has a number of solutions. If you're using Java, you may want to look into light-weight injection frameworks like Guice. In Scala, this is usually solved with implicits. In some languages, you will be able to load another program to configure your program at runtime. This is how we used to configure servers written in Smalltalk, and I use a window manager written in Haskell called Xmonad whose configuration file is just another Haskell program.
An example of dependency injection in an MVC setting, here goes:
index.php
$container = new Container();
include_file('container.php');
container.php
container.add("database.driver", "mysql");
container.add("database.name","app");
...
$container.add(new Database($container->get('database.driver', "database.name")), 'database');
$container.add(new Dao($container->get('database')), 'dao');
$container.add(new Service($container->get('dao')));
$container.add(new Controller($container->get('service')), 'controller');
$container.add(new FrontController(),'frontController');
index.php continues here:
$frontController = $container->get('frontController');
$controllerClass = $frontController->getController($_SERVER['request_uri']);
$controllerAction = $frontController->getAction($_SERVER['request_uri']);
$controller = $container->get('controller');
$controller->$action();
And there you have it, the controller depends on a service layer object which depends on
a dao(data access object) object which depends on a database object with depends on the
database driver, name etc