Let's say I've made a list of concepts I'll use to draw my Domain Model. Furthermore, I have a couple of Use Cases from which I did a couple of System Sequence Diagrams.
When drawing the Domain Model, I never know where to start from:
Designing the model as I believe the system to be. This is, if I am modelling a the human body, I start by adding the class concepts of Heart, Brain, Bowels, Stomach, Eyes, Head, etc.
Start by designing what the Use Cases need to get done. This is, if I have a Use Case which is about making the human body swallow something, I'd first draw the class concepts for Mouth, Throat, Stomatch, Bowels, etc.
The order in which I do things is irrelevant? I'd say probably it'd be best to try to design from the Use Case concepts, as they are generally what you want to work with, not other kind of concepts that although help describe the whole system well, much of the time might not even be needed for the current project. Is there any other approach that I am not taking in consideration here? How do you usually approach this?
Thanks
Whether DDD, or not, I would recommend with determining the ubiquitous language (UL) by interviewing the product owner(s). Establishing communication in a way that will have you and the product owners speaking the same language not only aides in communication, but being able to discuss the project in common terms tends to help the domain model define itself.
So, my answer is basically to discuss, listen, and learn. Software serves a need. Understanding the model from the viewpoint of the experts will lay the solid groundwork for the application.
I'd start by a drawing a class diagram with all the relationships and implement only the classes that are necessary according to the requirements of your application.
You can use an anemic approach (attributes plus getters and setters) to keep things simple and avoid the step of writing business logic in the same step. With an anemic model, the logic would go into a corresponding Service class. That way you can consider Use Cases later on.
I know some people don't appreciate this way of doing things but it does help with maintenance and avoids some dependency issues.
Answer to devoured elysium's question below:
In terms of analysis, starting with Use cases (What) and then proceeding to the class diagram (How) sounds like a good rule of thumb. Personally, I'd do the Sequence diagram (When and Who?) afterwards, as you'd need to know between which processes/objects messages need to be sent.
Beyond that my take on things is that UML is simply a way to model a system/project and not a methodology by itself (unlike Merise, RAD, RUP, Scrum, etc.). There is nothing stopping someone starting off with any diagram as long as they have the sufficient information to complete it. In fact, they should be done simultaneously since each of the diagrams is a different perspective of the same system/project.
So, all in all it depends on how you go about the analysis. During my studies I was taught the rigid waterfall approach, where you do a complete analysis from start to finish before producing some code. However, things can be different in practice, as the imperative might be to produce a working application in the least time possible.
For example, I was introduced to the Scrum methodology recently for an exercise involving the creation of a web site where people can post their fictions. As there was a time constraint and a clear vision of what should be achieved, we started right away with a bare bones class diagram to represent the domain model. The Use cases were then deduced from a series of mock screens we'd produced.
From memory, the classes were Story, Chapter, User and Category. This last class was phased out in favour of a more flexible Tag class. As you'd imagine, the complete class diagram of the existing project would be much more complex due to applying domain driven design and the specificities of the Java programming language.
This approach could be viewed as sloppy. However, a web site like this could easily be made in a couple of weeks using an iterative process and still be well designed. The advantage an iterative process has over the waterfall approach is that you can continually adjust requirements as you go. Frequent requirements changing is a reality, as people will often change their minds and the possibility of producing a working application after each iteration allows one to stay on course so to speak.
Of course, when you're presenting a project to a client, a complete analysis with UML diagrams and some mock screens would be preferable so they have an idea of what you're offering. This is where the UML comes in. Once you've explained some of the visual conventions, an individual should be able to understand the diagrams.
To finish off, if you're in the situation where you're trying to determine what a client wants, it's probably a good idea to gradually build up a questionnaire you can bring with you. Interviewing a person is the only way you can determine what concepts/features are really needed for an application, and you should expect to go back in order to clarify certain aspects. Another tip would be to do some quick research on the web when you're confronted with a subject matter you're unfamiliar with.
In your example, this would be to go through the basics of anatomy. Among other things, this will help you decide what the model should contain and what granularity it should have (What group of organs should be considered? How precise does it need to be? Do only the organs need to modeled or should they be decomposed into their constituents like tissues, cells, chemical composition, etc. ?).
I think the place to start would be whatever feels logical and comfortable. It's probably best to start with the use cases, as they give you clear direction and goals, and help you avoid YAGNI situations. Given that you should be trying to develop a strong domain model, it shouldn't really matter, as the whole picture of the domain is important.
I would like to share my experience for such type of situations. I usually start with writing tests and code. And try to cover one end to end use case. This gives me fair enough idea about problem and at the end I also have something working with me which I can show case to my client. Most of the time subsequent stories build on top of previous one, but it also happens to me that subsequent stories require changes in the previous model I came up with. But this does not impact me as I already have good test coverage. In this way I came up with the model which fits for the current problem, not the model which maps the real world.
You start with Business Requirements which can be formalized or not. If formalized you would use Use Case Diagrams.
For example here are use case diagrams for an e-commerce app:
http://askuml.com/blog/e-commerce/
http://askuml.com/files/2010/07/e-commerce-use-case.jpg
http://askuml.com/files/2010/07/e-commerce-use-case2b.jpg
From these use cases, you can naturally deduce the business entities: product, category of product, shopping cart, ... that is start to prepare class diagrams.
This is best practice in many methodologies but this is also just common sense and natural.
Short answer
Pick a use case, draw some collaboration diagram (and a class diagram) to realize the domain objects involved. Concentrate only on those objects participated in order to accomplish use case goal. Write TDD test case to set the expectation and gradually model your domain classes to meet the expectations. TDD is very helpful to understand the expected behaviors and it helps to get the cleaner domain model. You will see your domain evolve gradually along with the TDD expectations.
Long answer
My personal experience with DDD was not easy. That was because we didn't have necessary foundations in the first place. Our team had many weak points in different areas; requirements were not captured properly and we only had a customer representative who was not really helpful (not involved). We didn't have a proper release plan and developers had a lack of Object Oriented concepts, best principles and so on. The major problem we had was spending so much time on trying to understand the domain logic. We sketched many class diagrams and we never got the domain model right, so we stopped doing that and found out what went wrong. The problem was that we tried too hard to understand the domain logic and instead of communicating we made assumptions on the requirements. We decided to change our approach, we applied TDD, we started writing the expected behavior and coded the domain model to meet the TDD's expectations. Sometimes we got stuck writing TDD test cases because we didn't understand the domain. We straight away talked to the customer representative and tried to get more input. We changed our release strategy; applied agile methodology and release frequently so that we got real feedback from the end user. However, needed to ensure the end user expectation was set at the right level. We refactored based on the feedback, and in that way the domain model evolved gradually. Subsequently, we applied design patterns to improve reusability and maintainability. My point here is that DDD alone cannot survive, we have to build the ecosystem that embraces the domain, developers must have strong OOP concepts and must appreciate TDD and unit test. I would say DDD sits on top of all the OOP techniques and practices.
Related
When working on a complicated project, many people will involved in the developemnt, over a long time span. Therefore comes the problem of how to get everyone involved to understand the domain model.
When a project is first developed following DDD, it's probably well discussed among all people, and is designed carefully. At this stage it's relatively easy for everyone to understand and agree on the underlying domain model.
However as the project iterated over a longer period, different groups of people may be involved and few people could still hold the full picture. Even if the code is very well maintained, it's hard for non-programmers, including domain expert/ product managers/ testers, to grasp the business rules embeded in the code.
The only way out I could think of, is to keep the documents/umls/graphs well maintained for each changes, and always reflect the underlying model. However I think this is a huge challenge for any non-trival project. And it's very hard to decide how much details need to be included in the document.
Is there any best practice which I could learn from, such that the domain model could be well understood by people, and is also easy to evolve with the product?
Use Behaviour Driven Development (BDD).
BDD is like TDD. But BDD always focuses on testing domain behaviour, and tests are defined using the domain's Ubiquitous Language. All stories/features/scenarios can be written in a structured, human readable form (like this)
And because the tests are tightly coupled to your code, they have to stay in sync (assuming that your team is disciplined in keeping tests up-to-date).
In my experience, this offers the most economical solution for exposing up-to-date domain rules in a moderately readable format.
The most important strategy that comes from the DDD are the Bounded contexts. This corresponds to the (sub)domains in the business. Ideally they should map one to one. So, the first step that should be done is to clearly identify the (sub)domains; this is also the hardest.
Instead of keeping a lot of diagrams with a lot of details that are hard to keep up to date with the project, one should draw a context map.
After this you have already split the problem in pieces that are more manageable. Seeing a context map one could understand the big picture in a manner of minutes.
For each (sub)domain you can keep a list of main business rules. The Task management software (i.e. Jira) could be the single source of truth for these.
I have always wondered if I am thinking ahead too much or too little before I code something. This is especially true for me if I am not sure what possible future requirement changes I will be required to account for are. I don't know how flexible or abstracted I should make my classes. I'll give a quick example.
You want to write a program that plays blackjack against a computer and you're the type of person that likes to experiment. You begin to write the code for the deck, but then you realize blackjack could have 1, 2, 4, or any number of decks. You account for that, but then you realize that maybe the deck will be altered and not have any cards of value ten. You then decide that the deck should be completely versatile to allow any number of suits or ranks. You then decide that the rules for the deck should be able to be altered from the standard number of suits multiplied by the unique ranks to equal the total amount of cards in the deck... You can see where I am going here.
My question is this, are there any guidelines for how flexible a class should be?
Favor minimalism and encapsulation, avoiding functionalities you don't need.
It's of course good to design based on needs, but cluttering designs with things you do not use -- or could possibly use in the future -- should be minimized. It's fine to consider and implement what you are sure you will need.
When you understand and specify a 'future problem' (specifically, at that point in the future), you will often solve it different from today's solution.
Check out the great paper "On the Criteria to be Used in Decomposing Systems into Modules" by David Parnas, from back in 1972.
Generally speaking, you should try to identify areas of responsibility that can be pushed behind a very simple interface that hides useful functionality and complexity. You should strive to separate the what from the how in areas you feel are most likely to change (i.e. predicting variation).
Flexibility is indeed are a requirement for an application / system to be maintainable. Usually I find that a design following SOLID design principle, TDD and stateless business logic is easier to maintain.
Among all of SOLID principle, I find that [S]RP is the rule that makes the application maintainable. Following [S]RP, your system will be broken down to smaller pieces, with replaceable classes. Say that it can be broken to Deck, DeckRule, HitAction, etc.
Interface or inheritance will help, since you can easily swap your Deck with NoTenDeck or SpadeOnlyDeck. And you can swap the DeckRule to HardToWinDeckRule or ImpossibleWinDeckRule. With decorator or other design patterns such as composite will also help to make your system flexible. Don't forget Test Unit, it will help you to refactor the code.
And also sometimes you will need something like Breaking Change in which you need to tear down your current architecture and interfaces to be replaced with another design. Sometimes it is needed, but mostly not.
You can find several discussion at stackoverflow answer for DI vs Singleton and little about state or stateless.
I try to follow the agile principle of YAGNI ! - You Ain't Gonna Need It.
It isn't worth the effort of coming up with all these possible future requirements. There are an infinite number of possible future requirements. You can't account for all of them. Just do what you need to do to fulfill the requirements you already have.
If in the future you get new requirements, THEN change the system. (you do have good tests to make sure you don't break anything during refactoring right?)
Overall thoughts on flexibility
From your description of the problem I don't think your classes should be flexible as in "keep throwing every new aspect of the game rules into the same class". A class with too many responsibilities is fragile, hard to maintain and thus hard to change - ironically, treating a class as if it were flexible will eventually make it rigid ! Don't put all your eggs in one basket. Separate concern means separate class. Your overall design should be flexible, not so much your classes.
On the blackjack problem
Card games, especially complex and/or evolving ones, are generally most peculiar animals and thus probably not a good standard example to start experimenting with when trying to improve your design skills.
If you want real modularity, you'll probably need a pluggable rules engine that allows plugins to hook at different stages of a game, giving you access to relevant resources to alter anything from scores to the sequence of events in a turn to even other rules.
My take on this is
You already know your game will evolve in the future and you're going to need such an engine. To answer the "thinking ahead" part of your question, this means you'll start with a simple standard turn structure, a minimal rules engine and incrementally add to it as you implement each feature in your backlog. The thinking ahead you shouldn't do is trying to forecast every little detail in the engine upfront. In other words you'll use YAGNI as in "I ain't gonna need this rule/type of hook into the game" rather than "I ain't gonna need a rules engine" since you know you've got to have one anyway.
Or,
It's going to be, at least at first, a one-shot fixed-rules game. You'll need less raw flexibility in the game system here. Concentrate on use cases and try to make acceptance tests pass with the simplest possible technical solution. Take one little step at a time. Implement a working solution for just 1 deck with simple rules at first, then expand to more complex areas. This hopefully will lead you to a no-nonsense, well-designed system which may or may not involve some kind of rules engine.
You might also want to have a look at https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/ for game-specific design guidelines.
When writing code I tend to look for things that may be obvious additions later on. "Obvious is probably a word to define though. :-) It means things that you are sure will be in a future release. Other than that, I try not to worry about it.
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.
So no doubt that building a domain model is something that I think happens best when you approach it as as team. Even going so far as to involve someone who is not technical and a member of the 'business' in the modeling sessions. So much can get done quickly when you put the right people in a room and hammer out things on a whiteboard. But what about the times that you don't have that luxury? What about when you have to build a complex domain model alone? I have been doing this for the past month or so and have done the following:
Start off by Noun Idendtification, then use Class-Role-Collaborations to analyze relationships
Look for analysis patterns that can be used to refine the model, Party, etc..
As soon as I have a handle on the basics, I'll bust out an IDE and start writing XUnit tests to show that the model let's me do the things that I want
While these techniques have worked well, I'm not sure they are as efficient as a truely collaborative effort. I think it is easy to get carried away with a concept only to realize later that it violates x or y requirement. What techniques have you used when working in isolation to ensure that your object/domain model is on target?
Everyone does it differently, I think, but...
I almost always start with a Class diagram (usually UML-like and on paper), paying special attention to relationships between classes and their arity. Validation at this stage is mostly trying to understand if the high-level semantics of the entities make sense together.
Then start sketching in the key functions, especially those involved in collaborations. Make sure objects in a collaboration can reach each other through the relationships. At this stage I'll be using a drawing tool (StarUML).
Then come the gedanken experiments. I mentally walk through the trickiest use cases I can think of and see if I can envision a way to address them with the given design. This isn't psuedocode, just stepping through each of the major tasks/functions and following the lines of the diagram to make sure I'm not missing callbacks, circular dependencies, etc.
I think one key is to not get too married to any particular aspect of the design until you've satisfied yourself that it will probably work reasonably well. In my mind, if you can't step through a design mentally to evaluate/validate it you either lack some understanding of the problem, or the design on paper isn't complete enough...
Then, time permitting, set that one aside and see if you can come up with something really different...
If you're building it all on your own, just make sure it's adaptable, because there's no way you'll think of everything on the first shot.
Get some big paper. Draw everything out, and be messy. Don't worry about making it perfect. Put everything down that you think of, cross out stuff as it proves to not be useful. The paper will look like your mind threw up pieces of an object model all over the place. As you think of things that have already been written down, make those things stand out. At the end of this process, you'll have a mess, but for sure you'll have a lot of good ideas. At this point, I would recommend showing this to people, but since you said that's out of the question, we'll move on.
Now sit down in front of a computer with a UML tool and map out something that resembles the highlights of your brain dump. Think of the major pieces of the object model and then think of the more minor things that enable those pieces to work together. Once you have settled on something, turn that UML into code and go about writing some tests to see if it works. Rinse and repeat.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I recently read an interesting comment on an OOP related question in which one user objected to creating a "Manager" class:
Please remove the word manager
from your vocabulary when talking
about class names. The name of the
class should be descriptive of its'
purpose. Manager is just another word
for dumping ground. Any
functionality will fit there. The word
has been the cause of many extremely
bad designs
This comment embodies my struggle to become a good object-oriented developer. I have been doing procedural code for a long time at an organization with only procedural coders. It seems like the main strategy behind the relatively little OO code we produce is to break the problem down into classes that are easily identifiable as discrete units and then put the left over/generalized bits in a "Manager" class.
How can I break my procedural habits (like the Manager class)? Most OO articles/books, etc. use examples of problems that are inherently easy to transform into object groups (e.g., Vehicle -> Car) and thus do not provide much guidance for breaking down more complex systems.
First of all, I'd stop acting like procedural code is wrong. It's the right tool for some jobs. OO is also the right tool for some jobs. So is functional. Each paradigm is just a different point of view of computation, and exists because it's convenient for certain problems, not because it's the only right way to program. In principle, all three paradigms are mathematically equivalent, so use whichever one best maps to the problem domain. IMHO, if using a multiparadigm language it's even ok to blend paradigms within a module if different subproblems are best modeled by different worldviews.
Secondly, I'd read up on design patterns. It's hard to understand OO without some examples of the real-world problems it's good for solving. Head First Design Patterns is a good read, as it answers a lot of the "why" of OO.
Becoming good at OO takes years of practice and study of good OO code, ideally with a mentor. Remember that OO is just one means to an end. That being said, here are some general guidelines that work for me:
Favor composition over inheritance. Read and re-read the first chapter of the GoF book.
Obey the Law of Demeter ("tell, don't ask")
Try to use inheritance only to achieve polymorphism. When you extend one class from another, do so with the idea that you'll be invoking the behavior of that class through a reference to the base class. ALL the public methods of the base class should make sense for the subclass.
Don't get hung up on modeling. Build a working prototype to inform your design.
Embrace refactoring. Read the first few chapters of Fowler's book.
The single responsibility principle helps me break objects into manageable classes that make sense.
Each object should do one thing, and do it well without exposing how it works internally to other objects that need to use it.
A 'manager' class will often:
Interogate something's state
Make a decision based on that state
As an antidote or contrast to that, Object-Oriented design would encourage you to design class APIs where you "tell don't ask" the class itself to do things itself (and to encapsulate its own state): for more about "tell don't ask" see e.g. here and here (and maybe someone else has a better explanation of "tell don't ask" but these are first two articles that Google found for me).
It seems like the main strategy the little OO code we produce is to break the problem down into classes that are easily identifiable as discrete units and then put the left over/generalized bits in a "Manager" class.
That may well be true even at the best of times. Coplien talked about this towards the end of his Advanced C++: Programming Styles and Idioms book: he said that in a system, you tend to have:
Self-contained objects
And, "transactions", which act on other objects
Take, for example, an airplane (and I'm sorry for giving you another vehicular example; I'm paraphrasing him):
The 'objects' might include the ailerons, the rudder, and the thrust
The 'manager' or autpilot would implement various commands or transactions
For example, the "turn right" transaction includes:
flaps.right.up()
flaps.left.down()
rudder.right()
thrust.increase()
So I think it's true that you have transactions, which cut across or use the various relatively-passive 'objects'; in an application, for example, the "whatever" user-command will end up being implemented by (and therefore, invoking) various objects from every layer (e.g. the UI, the middle layer, and the DB layer).
So I think it's true that to a certain extent you will have 'bits left over'; it's a matter of degree though: perhaps you ought to want as much of the code as possible to be self-contained, and encapsulating, and everything ... and the bits left over, which use (or depend on) everything else, should be given/using an API which hides as much as possible and which does as much as possible, and which therefore takes as much responsibility (implementation details) as possible away from the so-called manager.
Unfortunately I've only read of this concept in that one book (Advanced C++) and can't link you to something online for a clearer explanation than this paraphrase of mine.
Reading and then practicing OO principles is what works for me. Head First Object-Oriented Analysis & Design works you through examples to make a solution that is OO and then ways to make the solution better.
You can learn good object-oriented design principles by studying design patterns. Code Complete 2 is a good book to read on the topic. Naturally, the best way to ingrain good programming principles into your mind is to practice them constantly by applying them to your own coding projects.
How can I break my procedural habits (like the Manager class)?
Make a class for what the manager is managing (for example, if you have a ConnectionManager class, make a class for a Connection). Move everything into that class.
The reason "manager" is a poor name in OOP is that one of the core ideas in OOP is that objects should manage themselves.
Don't be afraid to make small classes. Coming from a procedural background, you may think it isn't worth the effort to make a class unless it's a thousand lines of code and is some core concept in your domain. Think smaller. A ten line class is totally valid. Make little classes where you see they make sense (a Date, a MailingAddress) and then work your way up by composing classes out of those.
As you start to partition little pieces of your codebase into classes, the remaining procedural code soup will shrink. In that shrinking pool, you'll start to see other things that can be classes. Continue until the pool is empty.
How many OOP programmers does it take to change a light bulb?
None, the light bulb changes itself.
;)
You can play around with an OO language that has very bad procedural support like Smalltalk. The message sending paradigm will force you into OO thinking.
i think you should start it with a good plan.
planning using CLASS Diagrams would be a good start.
you should identify the ENTITIES needed in the applicaiton,
then define each entitie's ATTRIBUTES, and METHODS.
if there are repeated ones, you could now re-define your entities
in a way that inheritance could be done, to avoid redundancy.
:D.
I have a three step process, this is one that I have gone through successfully myself. Later I met an ex-teacher turned programmer (now very experienced) who explained to me exactly why this method worked so well, there's some psychology involved but it's essentially all about maintaining control and confidence as you learn. Here it is:
Learn what test driven development (TDD) is. You can comfortably do this with procedural code so you don't need to start working with objects yet if you don't want to. The second step depends on this.
Pick up a copy of Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code by Martin Fowler. It's essentially a catalogue of little changes that you can make to existing code. You can't refactor properly without tests though. What this allows you to do is to mess with the code without worrying that everything will break. Tests and refactoring take away the paranoia and sense that you don't know what will happen, which is incredibly liberating. You left to basically play around. As you get more confident with that start exploring mocks for testing the interactions between objects.
Now comes the big that most people, mistakenly start with, it's good stuff but it should really come third. At this point you can should reading about design patterns, code smells (that's a good one to Google) and object oriented design principles. Also learn about user stories or use cases as these give you good initial candidate classes when writing new applications, which is a good solution to the "where do I start?" problem when writing apps.
And that's it! Proven goodness! Let me know how it goes.
My eureka moment for understanding object-oriented design was when I read Eric Evans' book "Domain-Driven Design: Tackling Complexity in the Heart of Software". Or the "Domain Driven Design Quickly" mini-book (which is available online as a free PDF) if you are cheap or impatient. :)
Any time you have a "Manager" class or any static singleton instances, you are probably building a procedural design.