I'm undecided as to what classes I could have that could adapt to an existing system which is an online video game. Here's what I want to achieve:
Get a series of settings from objects in the server.
Listen for clients to connect.
For each client, check that the settings on the client correspond with those from the server.
If settings don't correspond (something has been tampered with), either disconnect the client or change their settings.
This will be handled by class that will act as an entry point and can serve as a form of controller.
Now, the settings are strewn accross a number of instances: players, weapons, flags, lights, etc. In procedural programming, I'd get all this information and store it an array. However, is there a better way of doing this according to an OO approach? Can I make one or more classes that will have the values of these settings and act as a form of facade?
Encapsulate the settings data and behavior into at least one object (i.e. Settings). Depending on how your system is constructed this becomes part of other objects' composition (e.g. Player, Weapon, etc...), perhaps via dependency injection, or referenced from some global context. Settings is responsible for validation the match between client and server (e.g. Settings.validateClientServerSettingsMatch()). In terms of retrieving individual settings, two possible approaches explicit or implicit.
Explicit
Your Settings object, or perhaps other entities that make its composition, have methods for each setting managed. So it could be something like Settings.getPlayerSettings().getSomeSetting() or 'Settings.getSomePlayerSetting()`. How nested really depends on your system. Either has the advantage of making clear what settings are available to the client development and it procides compile time type checking if you're using a language such as Java. The tradeoff is needing to alter an object every time a new setting comes into play.
Implicit
This just has a generic method in the Settings object - Settings.getSetting(settingName). This makes it very easy to add settings, at the expense of any sort of useful type checking, unless you do something on your own using some meta magic of sorts in a language such as Python or Ruby or large case statements in Java.
Related
We want to write an API (Python Library) which provides information about few systems in our company. We really aren't sure what is the best OOP approach to implement what we want, so I hope you'll have an idea.
The API will expose a series of tests for each system. Each system will be presented as a Class (with properties and methods) and all systems will inherit from a base class (GenericSystem) which will contain basic, generic info regarding the system (I.E dateOfCreation, authors, systemType, name, technology, owner, etc.) Each system has many instances and each instance has a unique ID. Data about each system instance is stored in different databases, so the API will be a place where all users can find info regarding those systems at once. These are the requirements:
We want each user to be able to create an instance of a system (SystemName Class for example) and to be able to get some info about it.
We want each user to be able to create multiple instances of a system (or of GenericSystem) and to be able to get info about all of them at once. (It must be efficient. One query only, not one for each instance). So we thought that we may need to create MultipleSystemNames class which will implement all those plural-approach methods. This is the most challenging requirement, as it seems.
We want that data will be populated and cached to the instances properties and methods. So if I create a SystemName instance and calls systemNameInstance.propertyName, it will run needed queries and populate the data into propertyName. Next time the user will call this property, the data will be immediately returned.
Last one, a single system class approach must be preserved. Each system must be presented as a sole system. We can later create MultiSystem class if needed (For requirement 2) but at it's most basic form, each system must be represented singly (I hope you understand what I mean).
The second and the fourth (2,4) requirements are the ones that we really struggle to figure out.
Should we use MultiSystemNames class for each class and also for GenericSystem (MultiGenericSystems)? We don't want to complicate the user and ourselves.
Do you know any OOP (or another) best practice clean and simplified way? Have we missed something?
I'm sorry if I added some unnecessary information but I really wanted to give you a feel about how we want things to be.
If you've reach so far or not, thank you!
System and instance represents exactly the same think but are used in different contexts. It doesn't matter how you store or retrieve them. So if you need a collection of System you just use native collection data structure (e.g List, Queue, Map in java). The operations related to System/List must be decoupled from POJOs. That means you implement them in services, repositories,etc.
How you store and retrieve the data must not have impact on how you design your data structures. You achieve performance by applying different techniques and/or using proper technologies e.g caching, using key-value stores or nosql databases, denormalize relational database tables and/or using indexes,etc
I've had a certain feeling these last couple of days that dependency-injection should really be called "I can't make up my mind"-pattern. I know this might sound silly, but really it's about the reasoning behind why I should use Dependency Injection (DI). Often it is said that I should use DI, to achieve a higher level of loose-coupling, and I get that part. But really... how often do I change my database, once my choice has fallen on MS SQL or MySQL .. Very rarely right?
Does anyone have some very compelling reasons why DI is the way to go?
Two words, unit testing.
One of the most compelling reasons for DI is to allow easier unit testing without having to hit a database and worry about setting up 'test' data.
DI is very useful for decoupling your system. If all you're using it for is to decouple the database implementation from the rest of your application, then either your application is pretty simple or you need to do a lot more analysis on the problem domain and discover what components within your problem domain are the most likely to change and the components within your system that have a large amount of coupling.
DI is most useful when you're aiming for code reuse, versatility and robustness to changes in your problem domain.
How relevant it is to your project depends upon the expected lifespan of your code. Depending on the type of work you're doing zero reuse from one project to the next for the majority of code you're writing might actually be quite acceptable.
An example for use the use of DI is in creating an application that can be deployed for several clients using DI to inject customisations for the client, which could also be described as the GOF Strategy pattern. Many of the GOF patterns can be facilitated with the use of a DI framework.
DI is more relevant to Enterprise application development in which you have a large amount of code, complicated business requirements and an expectation (or hope) that the system will be maintained for many years or decades.
Even if you don't change the structure of your program during development phases you will find out you need to access several subsystems from different parts of your program. With DI each of your classes just needs to ask for services and you're free of having to provide all the wiring manually.
This really helps me on concentrating on the interaction of things in the software design and not on "who needs to carry what around because someone else needs it later".
Additionally it also just saves a LOT of work writing boilerplate code. Do I need a singleton? I just configure a class to be one. Can I test with such a "singleton"? Yes, I still can (since I just CONFIGURED it to exist only once, but the test can instantiate an alternative implementation).
But, by the way before I was using DI I didn't really understand its worth, but trying it was a real eye-opener to me: My designs are a lot more object-oriented as they have been before.
By the way, with the current application I DON'T unit-test (bad, bad me) but I STILL couldn't live with DI anymore. It is so much easier moving things around and keeping classes small and simple.
While I semi-agree with you with the DB example, one of the large things that I found helpful to use DI is to help me test the layer I build on top of the database.
Here's an example...
You have your database.
You have your code that accesses the database and returns objects
You have business domain objects that take the previous item's objects and do some logic with them.
If you merge the data access with your business domain logic, your domain objects can become difficult to test. DI allows you to inject your own data access objects into your domain so that you don't depend on the database for testing or possibly demonstrations (ran a demo where some data was pulled in from xml instead of a database).
Abstracting 3rd party components and frameworks like this would also help you.
Aside from the testing example, there's a few places where DI can be used through a Design by Contract approach. You may find it appropriate to create a processing engine of sorts that calls methods of the objects you're injecting into it. While it may not truly "process it" it runs the methods that have different implementation in each object you provide.
I saw an example of this where the every business domain object had a "Save" function that the was called after it was injected into the processor. The processor modified the component with configuration information and Save handled the object's primary state. In essence, DI supplemented the polymorphic method implementation of the objects that conformed to the Interface.
Dependency Injection gives you the ability to test specific units of code in isolation.
Say I have a class Foo for example that takes an instance of a class Bar in its constructor. One of the methods on Foo might check that a Property value of Bar is one which allows some other processing of Bar to take place.
public class Foo
{
private Bar _bar;
public Foo(Bar bar)
{
_bar = bar;
}
public bool IsPropertyOfBarValid()
{
return _bar.SomeProperty == PropertyEnum.ValidProperty;
}
}
Now let's say that Bar is instantiated and it's Properties are set to data from some datasource in it's constructor. How might I go about testing the IsPropertyOfBarValid() method of Foo (ignoring the fact that this is an incredibly simple example)? Well, Foo is dependent on the instance of Bar passed in to the constructor, which in turn is dependent on the data from the datasource that it's properties are set to. What we would like to do is have some way of isolating Foo from the resources it depends upon so that we can test it in isolation
This is where Dependency Injection comes in. What we want is to have some way of faking an instance of Bar passed to Foo such that we can control the properties set on this fake Bar and achieve what we set out to do, test that the implementation of IsPropertyOfBarValid() does what we expect it to do, i.e. return true when Bar.SomeProperty == PropertyEnum.ValidProperty and false for any other value.
There are two types of fake object, Mocks and Stubs. Stubs provide input for the application under test so that the test can be performed on something else. Mocks on the other hand provide input to the test to decide on pass\fail.
Martin Fowler has a great article on the difference between Mocks and Stubs
I think that DI is worth using when you have many services/components whose implementations must be selected at runtime based on external configuration. (Note that such configuration can take the form of an XML file or a combination of code annotations and separate classes; choose what is more convenient.)
Otherwise, I would simply use a ServiceLocator, which is much "lighter" and easier to understand than a whole DI framework.
For unit testing, I prefer to use a mocking API that can mock objects on demand, instead of requiring them to be "injected" into the tested unit from a test. For Java, one such library is my own, JMockit.
Aside from loose coupling, testing of any type is achieved with much greater ease thanks to DI. You can put replace an existing dependency of a class under test with a mock, a dummy or even another version. If a class is created with its dependencies directly instantiated it can often be difficult or even impossible to "stub" them out if required.
I just understood tonight.
For me, dependancy injection is a method for instantiate objects which require a lot of parameters to work in a specific context.
When should you use dependancy injection?
You can use dependancy injection if you instanciate in a static way an object. For example, if you use a class which can convert objects into XML file or JSON file and if you need only the XML file. You will have to instanciate the object and configure a lot of thing if you don't use dependancy injection.
When should you not use depandancy injection?
If an object is instanciated with request parameters (after a submission form), you should not use depandancy injection because the object is not instanciated in a static way.
Dynamic Ice manual section doesn't explain how to obtain a list of operations (their names, argument and result types) implemented by an object, which seems to be pretty much necessary to "create applications such as object browsers, protocol analyzers". Is it possible? I am thinking of a case where a client doesn't have access to all Slice interfaces known to the server (e.g. because new ones can be loaded dynamically) and so wants to learn about them at the runtime. Is there any built-in way to do this in Ice?
Ice doesn't provide any introspection along the lines of the CORBA interface repository. You can create requests dynamically (without using compiled stubs), and you can respond to them dynamically (without using compiled skeletons) but, if you need to find out what types are involved, you have to get this knowledge from somewhere else.
Michi.
Our current application uses a smart object style for working with the database. We are looking at the feasibility of moving to PetaPoco instead. Looking over the features I notice you can add attributes to make it easier to CRUD objects. Does adding these attributes have any negative side effects that I should be aware of?
Has anyone found a reason NOT to use these decorators?
Directly to the use of the POCO object instance itself? None.
At least not that I would be aware of. Jon Skeet should be able to provide more info because he knows compiler inner workings through and through, so he knows exactly what happens with this metadata after it's been compiled.
Other implications indirectly related to these
There are of course implications when accessing these declarative attributes, because they're read using reflection which is normally a slow process.
But there's nothing to worry here, because PetaPoco is a smart library and reads these only once then compiles & caches these things, so you only get penalized once then you get blazing performance afterwards. Because it uses compiled code.
Non-performance related implications
By putting attributes (any) on your classes/properties/methods you somehow bind your code to particular engine that will use this class, because they're directives for this particular engine to understand your code.
In case of PetaPoco attributes this means that your class can be used with PetaPoco but not with some other DAL (ie. EF) unless you add attributes of that one as well (EF Code First uses the very same approach with attributes).
The second implication is related to back-end database. In case you rename a table, column or any other part that is provided in your PetaPoco attribute as a constant magic string, you will subsequently have to change this string as well. This just means that you have to be thorough when doing database changes...
One downside is that it breaks the separation between the "domain" layer and the "data" layer, since it introduces the PetaPoco file (which contains data logic) to domain classes that should really not have any knowledge or dependency on the data layer.
If you're doing a single-project MVC app or something then it's okay to just use the Models directory for both, but for non-trivial and separated apps you'll have to have two PetaPoco files or play around with abstracting portions of the file in order to annotate your models without making them "know too much" about the underlying data, or else have you specify the table and/or primary key name all over the place.
What functionality do you think should be built into a persistable business object at bare minimum?
For example:
validation
a way to compare to another object of the same type
undo capability (the ability to roll-back changes)
The functionality dictated by the domain & business.
Read Domain Driven Design.
A persistable business object should consist of the following:
Data
New
Save
Delete
Serialization
Deserialization
Often, you'll abstract the functionality to retrieve them into a repository that supports:
GetByID
GetAll
GetByXYZCriteria
You could also wrap this type of functionality into collection classes (e.g. BusinessObjectTypeCollection), however there's a lot of movement towards using the Repository Pattern in Domain Driven Design to provide these type of accessors (e.g. InvoicingRepository.GetAllCustomers, InvoicingRepository.GetAllInvoices).
You could put the business rules in the New, Save, Update, Delete ... but sometimes you could have an external business rules engine that you pass off the objects to.
This is just one piece of an answer, but I would say that you need a way to get to all objects with which this object has a relationship. In the beginning you may try to be smart and only include one-way navigability for some relationships, but I have found that this is usually more trouble than it's worth.
All persistent frameworks also include finders, ways to do cascading deletes... sorts....
Once you start modeling, all business objects should know how to manage themselves. Whenever you find another class referring TO your business object too much, it's usually time to push that behavior into the business object itself.
Of the three things noted in the question, I would say that validation is the only one that is truly required. The others depend on the overall archetecture of the application.
Also, the business rules should be in the business objects.
Whether an object should do its own serialization is an interesting question. I have had great success in the past by having each object handle its own serialization, but I can also see merit in having a serialization module load and save the business objects just the same way as the GUI writes to and reads from the objects. Then your validation will protect against errors in the database or files too.
I can't think of anything else that is required in general.