I need to write some instance method, something like this (code in ruby):
def foo_bar(param)
foo(param)
if some_condition
do_bar(param)
else
do_baz(param)
end
end
Method foo_bar is a public api.
But I think, param variable here appears too many times. Maybe it would be better to create an private instance variable and use it in foo, do_bar and do_baz method? Like here: (#param is an instance variable in ruby, it can be initialized any time)
def foo_bar(param)
#param = param
foo
if some_condition
do_bar
else
do_baz
end
end
Which code is better? And why?
Is param replacing part of the state of the object?
If param is not changing the object state then it would be wrong to introduce non-obvious coupling between these methods as a convenience.
If param is altering the state of the object then it may still be bad practice to have a public api altering the state - much better to have a single private method responsible for checking and changing the state.
If param is directly setting the state of the object then I would change the instance variable here but only after checking that the new state is not inconsistent
The first version should be preferred for a couple of reasons. First, it makes testing much easier as each method is independent of other state. To test the do_bar method, simply create an instance of its containing class and invoke the method with various parameters. If you chose the second version of code, you'd have to make sure that the object had all the proper instance variables set before invoking the method. This tightly couples the test code with the object and results in broken test cases or, even worse, testcases that should no longer pass, but still do since they haven't been updated to match how the object now works.
The second reason to prefer the first version of code is that it is a more functional style and facilitates easier reuse. Say that another module or lambda function implements do_bar better than the current one. It won't have been coded to assume some parent class with a certain named instance variable. To be reusable, it will have expected any variables to be passed in as parameters.
The functional approach is the much better approach ... even in object oriented languages.
If you do not need param outside of the foo_bar method the first version is better. It is more obvious what information is being passed around and you are keeping it more thread friendly.
And I also agree with Mladen in the comment above: don't add something to the object state that doesn't belong there.
Related
What's the recommended way to handle an object that may not be fully initialized?
e.g. taking the following code (off the top of my head in ruby):
class News
attr_accessor :number
def initialize(site)
#site = site
end
def setup(number)
#number = number
end
def list
puts news_items(#site, #number)
end
end
Clearly if I do something like:
news = News.new("siteA")
news.list
I'm going to run into problems. I'd need to do news.setup(3) before news.list.
But, are there any design patterns around this that I should be aware of?
Should I be creating default values? Or using fixed numbers of arguments to ensure objects are correctly initialized?
Or am I simply worrying too much about the small stuff here.
Should I be creating default values?
Does it make sense to set a default? If so this is a perfectly valid approach IMHO
Or using fixed numbers of arguments to ensure objects are correctly initialized?
You should ensure that your objects cannot be constructed in an invalid state, this will make your's and other users of your code much simpler.
in your example not initializing number in some way is a problem, and this method is an example of temporal coupling. You should avoid this, and the two ways you suggested are ways to do this. Alternatively you can have another object or static method responsible for building your object in a valid state instead
If you do have an object which in not fully initialised then any invalid methods should produce appropriate and descriptive exceptions which let the users know that they are using the code incorrectly, and gives examples of the correct usage patterns.
In c# InvalidStateException is usually appropriate and similar exceptions exist in Java. Ruby is beyond my pay grade unfortunately :)
Let's assume I have a class and whenever I set certain attributes bla, foo (which can be set externally and internally) I want to call another method of the class, let's call it onChangeFunction().
Would it be a good way to simply call onChangeFunction() when setting internal values directly, e.g.
function someFunction()
// Some Calculations here ...
this.bla = some_value;
this.onChangeFunction()
end
or would it be better to also set those variables bla and foo ONLY by using the internal setter-methods because there is a certain action triggered with it and thus it would be a more clearly arranged code.
I even go a step further: Let's say I don't need an extern setter which can be called from outside (access type = public), would it than still be good to invent a private setter to do the same approach and only use the setter because of the triggered set-action?
EDIT: What I mean is the following: Even if I would NOT have a public setter (because there should not be a public access to set the variable, because it's only an internal variable) would it be still good to have a setter which is private-only just because of the triggered action thing?
Thanks in advance!
I think in the long term it is much less error-prone to always use a setter, and to call onChangeFunction() from within the setter.
You don't specify which programming languages you have in mind, but some languages allow one to define a "property" that looks like a data member but always calls a function when an attempt is made to change it. See, for example, property et al in Python.
As to your second question, I don't think there's anything wrong with having a private setter.
Is setX() method name appropriate for only for setting class property X?
For instance, I have a class where the output is a string of an html table. Before you can you can call getTable, you have to call setTable(), which just looks at a other properties and decides how to construct the table. It doesn't actually directly set any class property -- only causes the property to be set. When it's called, the class will construct strHtmlTable, but you can't specify it.
So, calling it setTable breaks the convention of get and set being interfaces for class properties.
Is there another naming convention for this kind of method?
Edit: in this particular class, there are at least two ( and in total 8 optional ) other methods that must be called before the class knows everything it needs to to construct the table. I chose to have the data set as separate methods rather than clutter up the __construct() with 8 optional parameters which I'll never remember the order of.
I would recommend something like generateTable() instead of setTable(). This provides a situation where the name of the method clearly denotes what it does.
I would probably still use a setTable() method to actually set the property, though. Ideally, you could open the possibility of setting a previously defined table for further flexibility.
Yes, setX() is primarily used for setting a field X, though setX() may have some additional code that needs to run in addition to a direct assignment to a field. Using it for something else may be misleading to other developers.
I would definitely recommend against having a public setTable() and would say that setTable() could be omitted or just an unused private method depending upon your requirements.
It sounds like the activity to generate the table is more of a view of other properties on the object, so you might consider moving that to a private method on the object like generateHtmlTable(). This could be done during construction (and upon updates to the object) so that any subsequent calls to getTable() will return the the appropriate HTML.
Below is a code snippet that is creating object.
Form userexit_save_document_prepare.
data: /bks/exitmanager type ref to /bks/exit_manager.
create object /bks/exitmanager
exporting main_prog = 'SAPMV45A'
exit_form = 'USEREXIT_SAVE_DOCUMENT_PREPARE'.
include /bks/exitman.
ENDFORM.
I got this from the documentation
For performance reasons, the parameters "main_prog" and "exit_form" should be filled, in the case of userexits, which are performed very often like "user_field_modification" in "SAPMV45A" which is called for every single screen-field.
1) What happened exactly behind when create object /bks/exitmanager is called? memory allocated for the object etc?
2) Why for performance reasons the exporting parameters of create object needs to be filled?
I'm not 100% sure, but here is my best guess:
an object called /bks/exitmanager is constructed (which is an oject of the class /bks/exit_manager or more specific a reference/"pointer" to an object of this class) .. the required memory allocated etc., but also the "constructor" code is called (probably sets some instance variables as passed to the call).
If you're explicitly passing these parameters, they don't have to be "calculated" at run-time (e.g. by looking at the call stack). This should save some time, especially if it would have to be done quite often (as described in the documentation).
It would help to see what /bks/exit_manager actually is, and a brief explanation of what you are trying to accomplish.
Expanding on what IronGoofy wrote:
data: /bks/exitmanager type ref to /bks/exit_manager
This creates a reference pointer in the ABAP memory of your program, much like a field symbol. Also it must be already delared. If it is in the include, you need to move the include.
create object /bks/exitmanager
exporting main_prog = 'SAPMV45A'
exit_form = 'USEREXIT_SAVE_DOCUMENT_PREPARE'.
This creates an object instance based on the declared class, and assigns it to the referance pointer. It does this by calling the constructor method first.
Only by examing /bks/exit_manager will you find out exactly what you need to export.
It's impossible to tell what's going on and why the parameters should be passed without taking a look at the constructor of /BKS/EXIT_MANAGER. It's a common pattern though to keep a buffer of settings (think of a static hashed table with the key being the parameters and the value holding whatever is complicated and time-consuming to fetch). In this case, I would have expected a protected constructor that cannot be accessed directly, but only using a static factory method that uses a hashed table to keep the references of the exit handler itself - optimally using weak references...
I have an object called Parameters that gets tossed from method to method down and up the call tree, across package boundaries. It has about fifty state variables. Each method might use one or two variables to control its output.
I think this is a bad idea, beacuse I can't easily see what a method needs to function, or even what might happen if with a certain combination of parameters for module Y which is totally unrelated to my current module.
What are some good techniques for decreasing coupling to this god object, or ideally eliminating it ?
public void ExporterExcelParFonds(ParametresExecution parametres)
{
ApplicationExcel appExcel = null;
LogTool.Instance.ExceptionSoulevee = false;
bool inclureReferences = parametres.inclureReferences;
bool inclureBornes = parametres.inclureBornes;
DateTime dateDebut = parametres.date;
DateTime dateFin = parametres.dateFin;
try
{
LogTool.Instance.AfficherMessage(Variables.msg_GenerationRapportPortefeuilleReference);
bool fichiersPreparesAvecSucces = PreparerFichiers(parametres, Sections.exportExcelParFonds);
if (!fichiersPreparesAvecSucces)
{
parametres.afficherRapportApresGeneration = false;
LogTool.Instance.ExceptionSoulevee = true;
}
else
{
The caller would do :
PortefeuillesReference pr = new PortefeuillesReference();
pr.ExporterExcelParFonds(parametres);
First, at the risk of stating the obvious: pass the parameters which are used by the methods, rather than the god object.
This, however, might lead to some methods needing huge amounts of parameters because they call other methods, which call other methods in turn, etcetera. That was probably the inspiration for putting everything in a god object. I'll give a simplified example of such a method with too many parameters; you'll have to imagine that "too many" == 3 here :-)
public void PrintFilteredReport(
Data data, FilterCriteria criteria, ReportFormat format)
{
var filteredData = Filter(data, criteria);
PrintReport(filteredData, format);
}
So the question is, how can we reduce the amount of parameters without resorting to a god object? The answer is to get rid of procedural programming and make good use of object oriented design. Objects can use each other without needing to know the parameters that were used to initialize their collaborators:
// dataFilter service object only needs to know the criteria
var dataFilter = new DataFilter(criteria);
// report printer service object only needs to know the format
var reportPrinter = new ReportPrinter(format);
// filteredReportPrinter service object is initialized with a
// dataFilter and a reportPrinter service, but it doesn't need
// to know which parameters those are using to do their job
var filteredReportPrinter = new FilteredReportPrinter(dataFilter, reportPrinter);
Now the FilteredReportPrinter.Print method can be implemented with only one parameter:
public void Print(data)
{
var filteredData = this.dataFilter.Filter(data);
this.reportPrinter.Print(filteredData);
}
Incidentally, this sort of separation of concerns and dependency injection is good for more than just eliminating parameters. If you access collaborator objects through interfaces, then that makes your class
very flexible: you can set up FilteredReportPrinter with any filter/printer implementation you can imagine
very testable: you can pass in mock collaborators with canned responses and verify that they were used correctly in a unit test
If all your methods are using the same Parameters class then maybe it should be a member variable of a class with the relevant methods in it, then you can pass Parameters into the constructor of this class, assign it to a member variable and all your methods can use it with having to pass it as a parameter.
A good way to start refactoring this god class is by splitting it up into smaller pieces. Find groups of properties that are related and break them out into their own class.
You can then revisit the methods that depend on Parameters and see if you can replace it with one of the smaller classes you created.
Hard to give a good solution without some code samples and real world situations.
It sounds like you are not applying object-oriented (OO) principles in your design. Since you mention the word "object" I presume you are working within some sort of OO paradigm. I recommend you convert your "call tree" into objects that model the problem you are solving. A "god object" is definitely something to avoid. I think you may be missing something fundamental... If you post some code examples I may be able to answer in more detail.
Query each client for their required parameters and inject them?
Example: each "object" that requires "parameters" is a "Client". Each "Client" exposes an interface through which a "Configuration Agent" queries the Client for its required parameters. The Configuration Agent then "injects" the parameters (and only those required by a Client).
For the parameters that dictate behavior, one can instantiate an object that exhibits the configured behavior. Then client classes simply use the instantiated object - neither the client nor the service have to know what the value of the parameter is. For instance for a parameter that tells where to read data from, have the FlatFileReader, XMLFileReader and DatabaseReader all inherit the same base class (or implement the same interface). Instantiate one of them base on the value of the parameter, then clients of the reader class just ask for data to the instantiated reader object without knowing if the data come from a file or from the DB.
To start you can break your big ParametresExecution class into several classes, one per package, which only hold the parameters for the package.
Another direction could be to pass the ParametresExecution object at construction time. You won't have to pass it around at every function call.
(I am assuming this is within a Java or .NET environment) Convert the class into a singleton. Add a static method called "getInstance()" or something similar to call to get the name-value bundle (and stop "tramping" it around -- see Ch. 10 of "Code Complete" book).
Now the hard part. Presumably, this is within a web app or some other non batch/single-thread environment. So, to get access to the right instance when the object is not really a true singleton, you have to hide selection logic inside of the static accessor.
In java, you can set up a "thread local" reference, and initialize it when each request or sub-task starts. Then, code the accessor in terms of that thread-local. I don't know if something analogous exists in .NET, but you can always fake it with a Dictionary (Hash, Map) which uses the current thread instance as the key.
It's a start... (there's always decomposition of the blob itself, but I built a framework that has a very similar semi-global value-store within it)