Related
Hey i have question with a real word example.
Its related to my two other, but not really answered questions here:
https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/423392/no-trivial-god-class-refactoring
and
https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/425113/different-composition-techniques-from-the-perspective-of-the-client
Let's say we have a switch with the methods switchOn(), switchOff().
The switch(es) are included in some other structure, for example a switch-bag, from where i can pull out the switches.
This can be seen as a ready system.
Now i want to introduce the possibility of switching these switches on after a certain time automatically: A time switch
The time switch ueses now the "normal" switch.
The normal switch doesn't have to know something about the time switch.
So but now the client can pull out the normal switch from the switch-bag and now he want also to get to the time-switch related to these normal switch, maybe to configure a new time.
And this is my question, how can the client get to the time-switch?
There are a few possibilites:
I refactor the normal switch class to a third-class where the
normal-switch and the time switch lives bundled in it. But for this,
i break some other client code which still uses the normal switch, but
get now from the switch bag a "Combinator"-Class/Object out of it.
I don't change anything of the normal switch class. The client if he
wants to get access to the time switch have to ask a Map which time switch is related to it. (I think this approach is classical a
relation-programming style like a sql relationship database and its
not anymore real object-oriented style)
I extend the normal switch: Here i also have different options:
I change it to a big facade, which delegates the calls to the
normal-switch and time switch (its similar to my first solution with
the combinator, but here with an facade don't breaking some existing
client code)
i extend the normal switch letting the existing normal switch code
untouched and introduce a component holder. Into this component
holder i inject the time switch. So i have these methods there:
switchOn(); switchOff(); getComponent("timeSwitch"). But these
approach feels like a entity-component system
(https://medium.com/ingeniouslysimple/entities-components-and-systems-89c31464240d)
but is that still object oriented programming?
i think the last solution is the best one, because its the most flexible.
But what do you think which approach is the best, maybe some approach i didnt mentionend here?
Edit:
One more thing you must to know here: The time switch is one extension of the normal switch. One of many. So i want to add of course different more things XYZ switches/behavior extensions to the normal switch
Update: answer totally re-written (so the first comment won't make sense any more).
To summarize:
SwitchBag provides access to a list/collection of switches.
Switches have methods like on() and off().
You want to extend the behavior of at least some switches can do stuff themselves based on the passing of time, etc.
Clients (e.g. the UI) need access to the switches classes.
You make comments like
and now he want also to get to the time-switch related to these normal
switch
which suggests you have one of each, etc - which is way more complex than it needs to be. Here's some options to consider - some of your ones were heading in the right direction.
Option A: One type of switch
This assumes that the solutions design & functional drivers don't push you to create huge and overly complex switches. For example, let's say some of your switches need to do something after a period of time, others don't. Such a difference is not necessarily reason enough to make a separate class.
E.g. you can implement a time related property like Duration, if Duration > 0 then time logic applies and gets executed; < 0 means no time logic is applied (normal switch behavior).
I'm assuming here that any client can get access to any switch via the SwitchBag.
This is the option I would start with because it's simple and still allows plenty of functional scope.
Option B: Smart SwitchBag, Dumb Swithes
I'm not sure if I like the smell of this option because it tightly-couples the SwitchBag and Switch classes, but it could be useful.
Keep the switch class as dumb as possible.
SwitchBag knows about switches, it controls access to them (and their properties/methods). Use class structure and access modifiers to control this.
SwitchBag can decide to do stuff to switches based on time if it wants to.
In this approach, switches will be mostly properties, and be a little bit like the SwitchBags personal database, only it's fluid based on objects at runtime.
Note - you can still have events on the switches.
Option C: Interfaces
Create a basic switch. Create interfaces that are designed to be applied to switch class(es), that extend them as necessary. E.g.:
interface ITimeBehaviour{
double InitialDuration
double TimeUntilChange
}
At runtime you can see if a given switch instance implements the interface and respond accordingly. But whilst you can do this I'm not sure why you would, based on what I understand of your problem.
Other Thoughts
Your comments suggest you've thought a lot about OO concepts like inheritance and methods, but I saw no evidence you've considered asynchronous programming techniques - such as using events. If you know nothing about this then do some research and get up to speed, then see if that offers an elegant solution to your problem.
Design Patterns - are you familiar with the idea of design patterns? If you aren't, be sure to research that too. There's heaps of good content online, which describe patterns that might already solve the fundamentals of your problem.
We have a number of processes that rely on interactions between two people/groups. I am trying to figure out the best way to illustrate this in BPMN.
CONSIDER:
Using the example of a pizza order, I call a pizzeria to order, an order-taker answers the phone and then we discuss my order. I am trying to accurately capture the "we discuss the order" portion of the process. Here is how I envision the diagram playing out. I call, they answer, then there's branching for a simultaneous exchange, which converges at the end of the call and my order is finished. Is this illustrated correctly? or are there better ways to show that two different entities communicating with each other at the same time to accomplish a task?
The moment you want to show interaction in greater detail than high level bird view, you typically run into troubles when remaining within the paradigm of using "one pool with several lanes". In such a case you need to draw a so called "collaboration diagram", which means you make use of several pools and hence several process definitions interacting with each other by means of message exchange. I give you an example here:
You may use those envelope symbols attached to the message flows, but you don't need to.
The big advantage of that approach is that you can now show that those processes are dependent on each other, yes, but each participant also wants to remain in drivers seat of his/her own process, e.g. by deciding what to do if the other side doesn't provide the desired answer, doesn't do anything within a reasonable time and so on. Furthermore you can look at that diagram from both perspectives and people will actually see "their own process" - and not something mixed with the concerns of others involved.
For that same reason BPMN also offers the concept of "collapsed pools" to be able to look just at the communication from one side and treat the internal details of the other side as a kind of "black box":
Erm - what the question said. It's something I keep hearing about, but I've not got round to looking into it yet.
(updated) I could look up the definition... but why not (as pointed out by #erikson) get insight into your real experiences and anecdotes. Community Wiki'd incase that helps folks vote up the most insightful answer. Interesting reading so far, thanks!
Short answer, it is a technique that you can use to express systems with concrete states (as opposed to quantum states / probability distributions).
Quoting the Wikipedia article:
A finite state machine (FSM) or finite
state automaton (plural: automata) or
simply a state machine, is a model of
behavior composed of a finite number
of states, transitions between those
states, and actions. A finite state
machine is an abstract model of a
machine with a primitive internal
memory.
So, what does that mean to you? Put simply, it is an effective way to represent the path(s) from a starting state to the end state(s) of the system that you care about. Using regular expressions as a fairly easy to understand example, let's look at the pattern AB+C (imagine that that plus is a superscript). I would expect to this pattern to accept strings such as "ABC", "ABBC", "ABBBC", etc. A at the start, C at the end, some number of B's in the middle (greater than or equal to one).
If you think about it, it's almost easier to think about this in terms of a picture. Faking it with text (and that my parentheses are a loopback arc), you can see that A (on the left), is the starting state and C (on the right) is the end state on the right.
_
( )
A --> B --> C
From FSAs, you can continue your journey into computational complexity by heading over to the land of Turing Machines.
However, you can also use state machines to represent real behaviors and systems. In my world, we use them to model certain workflow of actual people working with components that are extremely intolerant of mistakes in state order. As in, "A had better happen before C or there will be a very serious problem. Make that be not possible right now."
You could look it up, but what the hell. Intuitively, a finite state automaton is an abstraction of something that has some finite number of states, and rules by which you can go from state to state. A state is something for which a true or false statement can be made, and a rule is a way that you change from one state to another. So, you could have, say, two states: "I'm at home" and "I'm at work" and two rules, "go to work" and "go home."
It turns out that you can look at machines like this mathematically, and find there are things they can and cannot do. Regular expressions are basically a way of describing a finite state machine in which the states are a set of different strings, and the rules move you from state to state based on the next character read. You can prove that. But you can also prove that no finite state machine can tell whether or not the parentheses in an expression are matched (via the pumping lemma for FSAs.)
The reason you should learn about FSAs is that they can be used to solve many problems: string matching, control of systems, business process descriptions, digital circuit design. They're also inherently pretty.
Formally, an FSA is a algebraic structure F = 〈Σ, S, s0, F, δ〉 where Σ is the input alphabet, S is a set of states, s0 ∈ S is a particular start state, F ⊆ S is a set of accepting states, and δ:S×Σ → S is the state transition function.
in OOP terms: if you have an object with methods that you call on certain events, and some (other) methods that have different behaviour depending on the previous calls.... surprise! you have a state machine!
now, if you know the theory, you don't have to rethink it all. you simply say: "piece of cake, it's just a state machine" and go on to implement it.
if you don't know the theory you'll think about it for a while, write some clever hacks, and get something that's difficult to explain and document... because you don't have the words to describe it
Good answers above. I would only add that FSA are primarily a thinking tool, not a programming technique. What makes them useful is they have nice properties, and anything that acts like one has those properties. If you can think of something as an FSA, there are many ways you can build it:
as a regular expression
as a state-transition table
as a while-switch-on-state loop
as a goto-net (horrors!)
as simple structured program code
etc. etc.
If somebody says something is a FSA, you can immediately know what they are talking about, no matter how it is built.
You need state machines whenever you have to release your thread before you have completed your operation.
Since web services are often not statefull, you don't usually see this in web services--you re-arrange your URL so that each URL corresponds to a single path through the code.
I guess another way to think about it could be that every web server is a FSM where the state information is kept in the URL.
You often see it when processing input. You have to release your thread before the input has all been completed, so you set a flag saying "input in progress" or something like that. When done you set the flag to "awaiting input". That flag is your state monitor.
More often than not, a FSM is implemented as a switch statement that switches on a variable. Each case is a different state. At the end of the case, you may set the state to a new value. You've almost certainly seen this somewhere.
The nice thing about a FSM is that you can make the state a part of your data rather than your code. Imagine that you need to fill out 1000 items in the database. The incoming data will address one of the 1000 items, but you generally don't have enough data to complete the operation.
Without an FSM you might have hundreds of threads waiting around for the rest of the data so they can complete processing and write the results to the DB. With a FSM, you write the state to the DB, then exit your thread. Next time you can check the incoming data, read the state from the thread and that should give you enough info to determine what code to run.
Nearly every FSM operation COULD be done by dedicating a thread to it, but probably not as well (The complexity multiplies based on number of states, whereas with a state machine the rise in complexity is more linear). Also, there are some conceptual design issues--examining your code at the state level is in some cases much easier than examining it at the line of code level.
Every programmer should know about them because they are an excellent tool for certain kinds of problems, where the usual 'iterative-thinking' approach would yield nasty, complex code.
A typical example is game AI, where NPCs have different states that change according to where the player is, something like:
NPC_STATE_IDLE
NPC_STATE_ALERT (player at less than 100 meters)
NPC_STATE_ENGAGE (player attacked NPC)
NPC_STATE_FLEE (low on health)
where a FSM can describe easily the transitions and help perform complex reasoning about the system the FSM is describing.
Important: If you are a "visual" style learner, stop everything you are doing and go to this link ... Right Now.
If you are a "visual" learner, here is an excellent link that gives a very accessible introduction.
Reanimator by Oliver Steele
It looks like you've already approved an answer, but if you appreciate "visual" introduction to new concepts, as is common, you really should check out the link. It is simply outstanding.
(Note: the link points to a discussion of DFA and NDFA in the context of regular expressions -- with animated interactive diagrams)
Yes! You could look it up!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_state_machine
What it is is better answered on other sites (such as Wikipedia), because there are pretty extensive answers out there already.
Why you should know them: Because you probably implemented them already.
Any time your code has a limited number of possible states (that's the "finite state" part) and switches to another one once some input/event happend (that's the "machine" part) you've written a finite state machine.
It is a very common tool and knowing the theoretical basics for that, being able to reason about it and knowing how to combine two FSMs into a single one that does the same work can be a great help.
FSAs are great data structures to understand because any chance you have to implement them, you're working at the lowest level of computational complexity on the Chomsky hierarchy. A great example is in word morphology (how parts of words come together). A lot of work has been done to show that even the most severe cases can be analyzed in this extremely fast analytical framework. Take a look at Karttunnen and Beesley's work out of PARC.
FSAs are also a great place to start learning about machine learning concepts like hidden markov models, because in many ways, the problem can be broken down using the same ideas and vocabulary.
One item that hasn't been mentioned so far is the semantic equivalence of finite state automata and regular expressions. A regular expression can be compiled to a finite state automaton (this is how regex libraries work) and vice-versa.
FSA (including DFA and NFA) are very important for computer science and they are use in many fields including many fields. For instance hidden markov fields for speech recognition also regular expressions are converted to the FSA's before they are interpreted by the software and NLP (Natural Language Processing), AI (game programming), Robot Programming etc.
One of the disadvantage of FSA's are they are usually slow and usually hard to implement and hard to understand or visualize while reading the code, but they are good because they usually provide generic solutions to the problems and they are well-known with a lot of studies on FSA's.
When starting a new application what are some ways to decide what objects you will need, what they should do, and how they should interact with each other?
Is this a job for a white board, or is it easier to just start coding and move stuff around as needed?
CRC Cards, or Class-Responsibility-Collaboration Cards, are a good way to do this - see the Wikipedia page.
They're a good way to brainstorm (as a team or just by yourself) which classes you'll needed, what each class will be responsible for, and how they'll interact with each other.
You might want to try:
CRC Cards
The cards will help define the object, its responsibilities, and its collaborations.
There's an entire process that you go through when creating the CRC cards. That process defines the rules that help make each class concise and really only perform the operations it needs.
This should fall more or less 'naturally' from the requirements.
Do you have a solid understanding of what the app is supposed to do, its scope, et al?
It really depends on what the size of the project is you're talking about: the approach and rigor one must apply is different for a team building commercial software than a personal project.
That said, some general tips are:
1) On your medium of choice (I like whiteboards) start enumerating the use cases or user stories. Keep going until you feel like you've gotten the most important/encompassing 80% covered.
2) When you're satisfied that you have the "WHAT" (use cases) succinctly and more-or-less sufficiently defined, you can start working out the "HOW" (objects, algorithms, et al). I would suggest a bias towards less complexity: you do not want a complicated and multi-layered object hierarchy unless you really, really need it (and even then, you probably don't).
3) I tend to enforce a "no-coding" rule until #1 and #2 are done, throw-away prototypes or explorations of particular approaches notwithstanding. It's very very easy to start slinging code and discover you're "trapped" by the object model you came up with before you fully understood what it is you're building.
4) Once you're done with your requirements gathering you can use any # of approaches to start breaking out functional units/objects/roles/etc. CRC cards are one approach; I've also had success with UML class & sequence diagrams.
I personally like to do lots of whiteboarding in UML; I take pictures with a digital camera frequently to archive thinking/approaches. These are much better than nothing when it comes to poor-man's documentation or answering the question "why did/didn't we..." 2 months down the road.
I think the answer depends on a couple of factors:
what is the size of the project? For a small project it's fairly easy to have a good idea of the three or four objects that might be required and just start coding. For bigger projects it's important to start listing them beforehand so that you can develop good object names and hierarchy.
how many people are on the project? If there is more than just you, you should sit down and plan who is going to be working on what and that requires a list of the classes that are going to be needed.
For anything bigger than a small (one or two day) project, it's worth putting some time into design before you start coding. White boards are fine for this but make sure you take a picture when you're done!
Sequence and class diagrams. These go a long way when your in design. The last thing you want to do, unless you aren't constrained in terms of time & resources, is just start coding.
Probably best to start on a whiteboard or some design overview. It all depends on what your application needs to do really. Figure out what actions your application needs to do. Associate objects accordingly with the methods you come up after breaking your application down into appropriate pieces.
As a second interview I get people to sit down and write code...I try to make the problem really technology independent.
My programming problems that I have don't really exercise peoples OO abilities. I tend to try and keep the coding problem solvable within 2 hours ish. So, I've struggled to find a problem small enough and involved enough that it exposes peoples OO design skills.
Any suggestions?
This is a problem that I use with some trainings, looks simple but is tricky OOP-wise:
Create model classes that will properly represent the following constructs:
Define a Shape object, where the object is any two dimensional figure, and has the following characteristics: a name, a perimeter, and a surface area.
Define a Circle, retaining and accurately outputting the values of the aforementioned characteristics of a Shape.
Define a Triangle. This time, the name of the triangle should take into account if it is equilateral (all 3 sides are the same length), isoceles (only 2 sides are the same length), or scalene (no 2 sides are the same).
You can go on and on with quadrelaterals (which include squares, rectangles, rhombi, etc) and other polygons.
The way that they would solve the above problems would reveal the people who understand OOP apart from those who don't.
ideally, you want to present a problem that appears difficult, but has a simple, elegant, obvious solution if you think in OO terms
perhaps:
we need to control access to a customer web site
each customer may have one or more people to access the site
different people from different customers may be able to view different parts of the site
the same person may work for more than one customer
customers want to manage permissions based on the person, department, team, or project
design a solution for this using object-oriented techniques
one OO solution is to have a Person, a Customer, an Account, and AccountPermissions, where the Account specifies a Person and a Customer and an optional Parent Account. the use of a recursive Account object collapses the otherwise cumbersome person/team/department/project structure a direct ERD solution might yield
I have used the FizzBuzz Programming Test. And shockingly can corroborate the claims made by the article. As a second follow up I have asked candidates to compute the angle(s) between the hands on an analog clock. We set up a laptop with VS 2008 installed and the stub in place. all they have to do is fill in the implementation.
I am always stunned at how poorly candidates do on these two questions. I really am.
Designing Social Security Application is something which I ask a lot of people during interviews.
The nice thing about this is everyone is aware of how it works and what things to keep track of.
They also have to justify their design and this really helps me get inside their head :)
(As there is lots of flexibility here)
Kind regards,
Whether or not people do some coding in the interview, I make it a point to ask this:
Tell me about a problem you solved recently using object oriented programming. You'd be surprised how often people cannot answer that simple question. A lot of times I get a blank stare, or they say something like "what do you mean? I program in .NET, which is all object oriented."
These aren't specifically OO Questions, but check out the other questions tagged interview-questions
Edit: What about implementing some design patterns? I don't have the best knowledge in the area but it seems as if you would be getting two questions for the price of one. You can test for both OO and Design pattens in the one question.
How about some sort of simple GUI. It's got inheritance, overriding, possibly events. If you mean for them to actually implement as part of the test then you could hand them a blank windows-form with an OnPaint() and tell them to get to it.
You could do worse than ask them to design a MapReduce library with a single-process implementation. Will the interface still work for a distributed implementation? What's the exception-handling policy? Should there be special support for chaining MapReduce jobs in a pipeline? What's the interface to the inputs and outputs? How are inputs chunked up? Can different inputs in one job go to different mappers? What defaults are reasonable?
A good solution in Python takes about a page of code.
I've got a super simple set. The idea is mainly to use them to filter out people who really don't know their stuff rather than filtering in the rock stars.
These are all 5 minute white-board type questions, so they are really not that hard. But the act of writing up code, and talking through it reveals a lot about a candidate - and is brilliant for exposing those that can otherwise BS through the talk.
Write a method that takes a radius of a circle as an argument, and returns the area of the circle (You would be amazed how many people struggle on this one!)
Write a program that accepts a series of numbers as arguments from the command line. Add them up, and print the sum
Write a class that acts as a keyed counter (basically a map that keeps track of how many times each key is "counted")