Related
I have a Component which has API exposed with some 10 functionality in all. I can think of two ways to achieve it:
Give out all these functionality as separate functions.
Expose only one function which takes an XML as input. Based on request_Type specified and the parameters passed in the XML, I internally call one of the respective functions.
Q1. Will the second design be more loosely coupled than the first ?
I always read about how I should try my components to be loosely coupled, should I really go to this extent to achieve lose coupling ?
Q2. Which one of these would be a better design in terms of OOP and why?
Edit:
If I am exposing this API over D-Bus for others to use, will type checking still be a consideration to compare the two approaches? From what I understand type checking is done at compile time, but in case when this function is exposed over some IPC, issue of type checking comes into picture ?
The two alternatives you propose do not differ in the (obviously quite large) number of "functions" you want to offer from your API. However, the second seems to have many disadvantages because you are loosing any strong type checking, it will become much harder to document the functionality etc. (The only advantage I see is that you don't need to change your API if you add functionality. But at the disadvantage that users will not be able to figure out API changes like deleted functions until run-time.)
What is more related with this question is the Single Responsiblity Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_responsibility_principle). As you are talking about OOP, you should not expose your tens of functions within one class but split them among different classes, each with a single responsibility. Defining good "responsibilities" and roles requires some practice, but following some basic guidelines will help you to get started quickly. See Are there any rules for OOP? for a good starting point.
Reply to the question edit
I haven't used D-Bus, so this might be totally wrong. But from a quick look at the tutorial I read
Each object supports one or more interfaces. Think of an interface as
a named group of methods and signals, just as it is in GLib or Qt or
Java. Interfaces define the type of an object instance.
DBus identifies interfaces with a simple namespaced string, something
like org.freedesktop.Introspectable. Most bindings will map these
interface names directly to the appropriate programming language
construct, for example to Java interfaces or C++ pure virtual classes.
As far as I understand, D-Bus has the concept of differnt objects which provide interfaces consisting of several methods. This means (to me) that my answer above still applies. The "D-Bus native" way of specifying your API would mean to exhibit interfaces and I don't see any reason why good OOP design guidelines shouldn't be valid, here. As D-Bus seems to map these even to native language constructs, this is even more likely.
Of course, nobody keeps you from just building your own API description language in XML. However, things like are some kind of abuse of underlying techniques. You should have good reasons for doing such things.
From what I have read best practice is to have classes based on an interface and loosely couple the objects, in order to help code re-use and unit test.
Is this correct and is it a rule that should always be followed?
The reason I ask is I have recently worked on a system with 100’s of very different objects. A few shared common interfaces but most do not and wonder if it should have had an interface mirroring every property and function in those classes?
I am using C# and dot net 2.0 however I believe this question would fit many languages.
It's useful for objects which really provide a service - authentication, storage etc. For simple types which don't have any further dependencies, and where there are never going to be any alternative implementations, I think it's okay to use the concrete types.
If you go overboard with this kind of thing, you end up spending a lot of time mocking/stubbing everything in the world - which can often end up creating brittle tests.
Not really. Service components (class that do things for your application) are a good fit for interfaces, but as a rule I wouldn't bother having interfaces for, say, basic entity classes.
For example:
If you're working on a domain model, then that model shouldn't be interfaces. However if that domain model wants to call service classes (like data access, operating system functions etc) then you should be looking at interfaces for those components. This reduces coupling between the classes and means it's the interface, or "contract" that is coupled.
In this situation you then start to find it much easier to write unit tests (because you can have stubs/mocks/fakes for database access etc) and can use IoC to swap components without recompiling your applications.
I'd only use interfaces where that level of abstraction was required - i.e. you need to use polymorphic behaviour. Common examples would be dependency injection or where you have a factory-type scenario going on somewhere, or you need to establish a "multiple inheritance" type behaviour.
In my case, with my development style, this is quite often (I favour aggregation over deep inheritance hierarchies for most things other than UI controls), but I have seen perfectly fine apps that use very little. It all depends...
Oh yes, and if you do go heavily into interfaces - beware web services. If you need to expose your object methods via a web service they can't really return or take interface types, only concrete types (unless you are going to hand-write all your own serialization/deserialization). Yes, that has bitten me big time...
A downside to interface is that they can't be versioned. Once you shipped the interface you won't be making changes to it. If you use abstract classes then you can easily extend the contract over time by adding new methods and flagging them as virtual.
As an example, all stream objects in .NET derive from System.IO.Stream which is an abstract class. This makes it easy for Microsoft to add new features. In version 2 of the frameworkj they added the ReadTimeout and WriteTimeout properties without breaking any code. If they used an interface(say IStream) then they wouldn't have been able to do this. Instead they'd have had to create a new interface to define the timeout methods and we'd have to write code to conditionally cast to this interface if we wanted to use the functionality.
Interfaces should be used when you want to clearly define the interaction between two different sections of your software. Especially when it is possible that you want to rip out either end of the connection and replace it with something else.
For example in my CAM application I have a CuttingPath connected to a Collection of Points. It makes no sense to have a IPointList interface as CuttingPaths are always going to be comprised of Points in my application.
However I uses the interface IMotionController to communicate with the machine because we support many different types of cutting machine each with their own commend set and method of communications. So in that case it makes sense to put it behind a interface as one installation may be using a different machine than another.
Our applications has been maintain since the mid 80s and went to a object oriented design in late 90s. I have found that what could change greatly exceeded what I originally thought and the use of interfaces has grown. For example it used to be that our DrawingPath was comprised of points. But now it is comprised of entities (splines, arcs, ec) So it is pointed to a EntityList that is a collection of Object implementing IEntity interface.
But that change was propelled by the realization that a DrawingPath could be drawn using many different methods. Once that it was realized that a variety of drawing methods was needed then the need for a interface as opposed to a fixed relationship to a Entity Object was indicated.
Note that in our system DrawingPaths are rendered down to a low level cutting path which are always series of point segments.
I tried to take the advice of 'code to an interface' literally on a recent project. The end result was essentially duplication of the public interface (small i) of each class precisely once in an Interface (big I) implementation. This is pretty pointless in practice.
A better strategy I feel is to confine your interface implementations to verbs:
Print()
Draw()
Save()
Serialize()
Update()
...etc etc. This means that classes whose primary role is to store data - and if your code is well-designed they would usually only do that - don't want or need interface implementations. Anywhere you might want runtime-configurable behaviour, for example a variety of different graph styles representing the same data.
It's better still when the thing asking for the work really doesn't want to know how the work is done. This means you can give it a macguffin that it can simply trust will do whatever its public interface says it does, and let the component in question simply choose when to do the work.
I agree with kpollock. Interfaces are used to get a common ground for objects. The fact that they can be used in IOC containers and other purposes is an added feature.
Let's say you have several types of customer classes that vary slightly but have common properties. In this case it is great to have a ICustomer interface to bound them together, logicaly. By doing that you could create a CustomerHander class/method that handels ICustomer objects the same way instead of creating a handerl method for each variation of customers.
This is the strength of interfaces.
If you only have a single class that implements an interface, then the interface isn't to much help, it just sits there and does nothing.
I must confess I'm somewhat of an OOP skeptic. Bad pedagogical and laboral experiences with object orientation didn't help. So I converted into a fervent believer in Visual Basic (the classic one!).
Then one day I found out C++ had changed and now had the STL and templates. I really liked that! Made the language useful. Then another day MS decided to apply facial surgery to VB, and I really hated the end result for the gratuitous changes (using "end while" instead of "wend" will make me into a better developer? Why not drop "next" for "end for", too? Why force the getter alongside the setter? Etc.) plus so much Java features which I found useless (inheritance, for instance, and the concept of a hierarchical framework).
And now, several years afterwards, I find myself asking this philosophical question: Is inheritance really needed?
The gang-of-four say we should favor object composition over inheritance. And after thinking of it, I cannot find something you can do with inheritance you cannot do with object aggregation plus interfaces. So I'm wondering, why do we even have it in the first place?
Any ideas? I'd love to see an example of where inheritance would be definitely needed, or where using inheritance instead of composition+interfaces can lead to a simpler and easier to modify design. In former jobs I've found if you need to change the base class, you need to modify also almost all the derived classes for they depended on the behaviour of parent. And if you make the base class' methods virtual... then not much code sharing takes place :(
Else, when I finally create my own programming language (a long unfulfilled desire I've found most developers share), I'd see no point in adding inheritance to it...
Really really short answer: No. Inheritance is not needed because only byte code is truly needed. But obviously, byte code or assemble is not a practically way to write your program. OOP is not the only paradigm for programming. But, I digress.
I went to college for computer science in the early 2000s when inheritance (is a), compositions (has a), and interfaces (does a) were taught on an equal footing. Because of this, I use very little inheritance because it is often suited better by composition. This was stressed because many of the professors had seen bad code (along with what you have described) because of abuse of inheritance.
Regardless of creating a language with or without inheritances, can you create a programming language which prevents bad habits and bad design decisions?
I think asking for situations where inheritance is really needed is missing the point a bit. You can fake inheritance by using an interface and some composition. This doesnt mean inheritance is useless. You can do anything you did in VB6 in assembly code with some extra typing, that doesn't mean VB6 was useless.
I usually just start using an interface. Sometimes I notice I actually want to inherit behaviour. That usually means I need a base class. It's that simple.
Inheritance defines an "Is-A" relationship.
class Point( object ):
# some set of features: attributes, methods, etc.
class PointWithMass( Point ):
# An additional feature: mass.
Above, I've used inheritance to formally declare that PointWithMass is a Point.
There are several ways to handle object P1 being a PointWithMass as well as Point. Here are two.
Have a reference from PointWithMass object p1 to some Point object p1-friend. The p1-friend has the Point attributes. When p1 needs to engage in Point-like behavior, it needs to delegate the work to its friend.
Rely on language inheritance to assure that all features of Point are also applicable to my PointWithMass object, p1. When p1 needs to engage in Point-like behavior, it already is a Point object and can just do what needs to be done.
I'd rather not manage the extra objects floating around to assure that all superclass features are part of a subclass object. I'd rather have inheritance to be sure that each subclass is an instance of it's own class, plus is an instance of all superclasses, too.
Edit.
For statically-typed languages, there's a bonus. When I rely on the language to handle this, a PointWithMass can be used anywhere a Point was expected.
For really obscure abuse of inheritance, read about C++'s strange "composition through private inheritance" quagmire. See Any sensible examples of creating inheritance without creating subtyping relations? for some further discussion on this. It conflates inheritance and composition; it doesn't seem to add clarity or precision to the resulting code; it only applies to C++.
The GoF (and many others) recommend that you only favor composition over inheritance. If you have a class with a very large API, and you only want to add a very small number of methods to it, leaving the base implementation alone, I would find it inappropriate to use composition. You'd have to re-implement all of the public methods of the encapsulated class to just return their value. This is a waste of time (programmer and CPU) when you can just inherit all of this behavior, and spend your time concentrating on new methods.
So, to answer your question, no you don't absolutely need inheritance. There are, however, many situations where it's the right design choice.
The problem with inheritance is that it conflates the issue of sub-typing (asserting an is-a relationship) and code reuse (e.g., private inheritance is for reuse only).
So, no it's an overloaded word that we don't need. I'd prefer sub-typing (using the 'implements' keyword) and import (kinda like Ruby does it in class definitions)
Inheritance lets me push off a whole bunch of bookkeeping onto the compiler because it gives me polymorphic behavior for object hierarchies that I would otherwise have to create and maintain myself. Regardless of how good a silver bullet OOP is, there will always be instances where you want to employ a certain type of behavior because it just makes sense to do. And ultimately, that's the point of OOP: it makes a certain class of problems much easier to solve.
The downsides of composition is that it may disguise the relatedness of elements and it may be harder for others to understand. With,say, a 2D Point class and the desire to extend it to higher dimensions, you would presumably have to add (at least) Z getter/setter, modify getDistance(), and maybe add a getVolume() method. So you have the Objects 101 elements: related state and behavior.
A developer with a compositional mindset would presumably have defined a getDistance(x, y) -> double method and would now define a getDistance(x, y, z) -> double method. Or, thinking generally, they might define a getDistance(lambdaGeneratingACoordinateForEveryAxis()) -> double method. Then they would probably write createTwoDimensionalPoint() and createThreeDimensionalPoint() factory methods (or perhaps createNDimensionalPoint(n) ) that would stitch together the various state and behavior.
A developer with an OO mindset would use inheritance. Same amount of complexity in the implementation of domain characteristics, less complexity in terms of initializing the object (constructor takes care of it vs. a Factory method), but not as flexible in terms of what can be initialized.
Now think about it from a comprehensibility / readability standpoint. To understand the composition, one has a large number of functions that are composed programmatically inside another function. So there's little in terms of static code 'structure' (files and keywords and so forth) that makes the relatedness of Z and distance() jump out. In the OO world, you have a great big flashing red light telling you the hierarchy. Additionally, you have an essentially universal vocabulary to discuss structure, widely known graphical notations, a natural hierarchy (at least for single inheritance), etc.
Now, on the other hand, a well-named and constructed Factory method will often make explicit more of the sometimes-obscure relationships between state and behavior, since a compositional mindset facilitates functional code (that is, code that passes state via parameters, not via this ).
In a professional environment with experienced developers, the flexibility of composition generally trumps its more abstract nature. However, one should never discount the importance of comprehensibility, especially in teams that have varying degrees of experience and/or high levels of turnover.
Inheritance is an implementation decision. Interfaces almost always represent a better design, and should usually be used in an external API.
Why write a lot of boilerplate code forwarding method calls to a composed member object when the compiler will do it for you with inheritance?
This answer to another question summarises my thinking pretty well.
Does anyone else remember all of the OO-purists going ballistic over the COM implementation of "containment" instead of "inheritance?" It achieved essentially the same thing, but with a different kind of implementation. This reminds me of your question.
I strictly try to avoid religious wars in software development. ("vi" OR "emacs" ... when everybody knows its "vi"!) I think they are a sign of small minds. Comp Sci Professors can afford to sit around and debate these things. I'm working in the real world and could care less. All of this stuff are simply attempts at giving useful solutions to real problems. If they work, people will use them. The fact that OO languages and tools have been commercially available on a wide scale for going on 20 years is a pretty good bet that they are useful to a lot of people.
There are a lot of features in a programming language that are not really needed. But they are there for a variety of reasons that all basically boil down to reusability and maintainability.
All a business cares about is producing (quality of course) cheaply and quickly.
As a developer you help do this is by becoming more efficient and productive. So you need to make sure the code you write is easily reusable and maintainable.
And, among other things, this is what inheritance gives you - the ability to reuse without reinventing the wheel, as well as the ability to easily maintain your base object without having to perform maintenance on all similar objects.
There's lots of useful usages of inheritance, and probably just as many which are less useful. One of the useful ones is the stream class.
You have a method that should be able stream data. By using the stream base class as input to the method you ensure that your method can be used to write to many kinds of streams without change. To the file system, over the network, with compression, etc.
No.
for me, OOP is mostly about encapsulation of state and behavior and polymorphism.
and that is. but if you want static type checking, you'll need some way to group different types, so the compiler can check while still allowing you to use new types in place of another, related type. creating a hierarchy of types lets you use the same concept (classes) for types and for groups of types, so it's the most widely used form.
but there are other ways, i think the most general would be duck typing, and closely related, prototype-based OOP (which isn't inheritance in fact, but it's usually called prototype-based inheritance).
Depends on your definition of "needed". No, there is nothing that is impossible to do without inheritance, although the alternative may require more verbose code, or a major rewrite of your application.
But there are definitely cases where inheritance is useful. As you say, composition plus interfaces together cover almost all cases, but what if I want to supply a default behavior? An interface can't do that. A base class can. Sometimes, what you want to do is really just override individual methods. Not reimplement the class from scratch (as with an interface), but just change one aspect of it. or you may not want all members of the class to be overridable. Perhaps you have only one or two member methods you want the user to override, and the rest, which calls these (and performs validation and other important tasks before and after the user-overridden methods) are specified once and for all in the base class, and can not be overridden.
Inheritance is often used as a crutch by people who are too obsessed with Java's narrow definition of (and obsession with) OOP though, and in most cases I agree, it's the wrong solution, as if the deeper your class hierarchy, the better your software.
Inheritance is a good thing when the subclass really is the same kind of object as the superclass. E.g. if you're implementing the Active Record pattern, you're attempting to map a class to a table in the database, and instances of the class to a row in the database. Consequently, it is highly likely that your Active Record classes will share a common interface and implementation of methods like: what is the primary key, whether the current instance is persisted, saving the current instance, validating the current instance, executing callbacks upon validation and/or saving, deleting the current instance, running a SQL query, returning the name of the table that the class maps to, etc.
It also seems from how you phrase your question that you're assuming that inheritance is single but not multiple. If we need multiple inheritance, then we have to use interfaces plus composition to pull off the job. To put a fine point about it, Java assumes that implementation inheritance is singular and interface inheritance can be multiple. One need not go this route. E.g. C++ and Ruby permit multiple inheritance for your implementation and your interface. That said, one should use multiple inheritance with caution (i.e. keep your abstract classes virtual and/or stateless).
That said, as you note, there are too many real-life class hierarchies where the subclasses inherit from the superclass out of convenience rather than bearing a true is-a relationship. So it's unsurprising that a change in the superclass will have side-effects on the subclasses.
Not needed, but usefull.
Each language has got its own methods to write less code. OOP sometimes gets convoluted, but I think that is the responsability of the developers, the OOP platform is usefull and sharp when it is well used.
I agree with everyone else about the necessary/useful distinction.
The reason I like OOP is because it lets me write code that's cleaner and more logically organized. One of the biggest benefits comes from the ability to "factor-up" logic that's common to a number of classes. I could give you concrete examples where OOP has seriously reduced the complexity of my code, but that would be boring for you.
Suffice it to say, I heart OOP.
Absolutely needed? no,
But think of lamps. You can create a new lamp from scratch each time you make one, or you can take properties from the original lamp and make all sorts of new styles of lamp that have the same properties as the original, each with their own style.
Or you can make a new lamp from scratch or tell people to look at it a certain way to see the light, or , or, or
Not required, but nice :)
Thanks to all for your answers. I maintain my position that, strictly speaking, inheritance isn't needed, though I believe I found a new appreciation for this feature.
Something else: In my job experience, I have found inheritance leads to simpler, clearer designs when it's brought in late in the project, after it's noticed a lot of the classes have much commonality and you create a base class. In projects where a grand-schema was created from the very beginning, with a lot of classes in an inheritance hierarchy, refactoring is usually painful and dificult.
Seeing some answers mentioning something similar makes me wonder if this might not be exactly how inheritance's supposed to be used: ex post facto. Reminds me of Stepanov's quote: "you don't start with axioms, you end up with axioms after you have a bunch of related proofs". He's a mathematician, so he ought to know something.
The biggest problem with interfaces is that they cannot be changed. Make an interface public, then change it (add a new method to it) and break million applications all around the world, because they have implemented your interface, but not the new method. The app may not even start, a VM may refuse to load it.
Use a base class (not abstract) other programmers can inherit from (and override methods as needed); then add a method to it. Every app using your class will still work, this method just won't be overridden by anyone, but since you provide a base implementation, this one will be used and it may work just fine for all subclasses of your class... it may also cause strange behavior because sometimes overriding it would have been necessary, okay, might be the case, but at least all those million apps in the world will still start up!
I rather have my Java application still running after updating the JDK from 1.6 to 1.7 with some minor bugs (that can be fixed over time) than not having it running it at all (forcing an immediate fix or it will be useless to people).
//I found this QA very useful. Many have answered this right. But i wanted to add...
1: Ability to define abstract interface - E.g., for plugin developers. Of course, you can use function pointers, but this is better and simpler.
2: Inheritance helps model types very close to their actual relationships. Sometimes a lot of errors get caught at compile time, because you have the right type hierarchy. For instance, shape <-- triangle (lets say there is a lot of code to be reused). You might want to compose triangle with a shape object, but shape is an incomplete type. Inserting dummy implementations like double getArea() {return -1;} will do, but you are opening up room for error. That return -1 can get executed some day!
3: void func(B* b); ... func(new D()); Implicit type conversion gives a great notational convenience since Derived is Base. I remember having read Straustrup saying that he wanted to make classes first class citizens just like fundamental data types (hence overloading operators etc). Implicit conversion from Derived to Base, behaves just like an implicit conversion from a data type to broader compatible one (short to int).
Inheritance and Composition have their own pros and cons.
Refer to this related SE question on pros of inheritance and cons of composition.
Prefer composition over inheritance?
Have a look at the example in this documentation link:
The example shows different use cases of overriding by using inheritance as a mean to achieve polymorphism.
In the following, inheritance is used to present a particular property for all of several specific incarnations of the same type thing. In this case, the GeneralPresenation has a properties that are relevant to all "presentation" (the data passed to an MVC view). The Master Page is the only thing using it and expects a GeneralPresentation, though the specific views expect more info, tailored to their needs.
public abstract class GeneralPresentation
{
public GeneralPresentation()
{
MenuPages = new List<Page>();
}
public IEnumerable<Page> MenuPages { get; set; }
public string Title { get; set; }
}
public class IndexPresentation : GeneralPresentation
{
public IndexPresentation() { IndexPage = new Page(); }
public Page IndexPage { get; set; }
}
public class InsertPresentation : GeneralPresentation
{
public InsertPresentation() {
InsertPage = new Page();
ValidationInfo = new PageValidationInfo();
}
public PageValidationInfo ValidationInfo { get; set; }
public Page InsertPage { get; set; }
}
This is a question with many answers - I am interested in knowing what others consider to be "best practice".
Consider the following situation: you have an object-oriented program that contains one or more data structures that are needed by many different classes. How do you make these data structures accessible?
You can explicitly pass references around, for example, in the constructors. This is the "proper" solution, but it means duplicating parameters and instance variables all over the program. This makes changes or additions to the global data difficult.
You can put all of the data structures inside of a single object, and pass around references to this object. This can either be an object created just for this purpose, or it could be the "main" object of your program. This simplifies the problems of (1), but the data structures may or may not have anything to do with one another, and collecting them together in a single object is pretty arbitrary.
You can make the data structures "static". This lets you reference them directly from other classes, without having to pass around references. This entirely avoids the disadvantages of (1), but is clearly not OO. This also means that there can only ever be a single instance of the program.
When there are a lot of data structures, all required by a lot of classes, I tend to use (2). This is a compromise between OO-purity and practicality. What do other folks do? (For what it's worth, I mostly come from the Java world, but this discussion is applicable to any OO language.)
Global data isn't as bad as many OO purists claim!
After all, when implementing OO classes you've usually using an API to your OS. What the heck is this if it isn't a huge pile of global data and services!
If you use some global stuff in your program, you're merely extending this huge environment your class implementation can already see of the OS with a bit of data that is domain specific to your app.
Passing pointers/references everywhere is often taught in OO courses and books, academically it sounds nice. Pragmatically, it is often the thing to do, but it is misguided to follow this rule blindly and absolutely. For a decent sized program, you can end up with a pile of references being passed all over the place and it can result in completely unnecessary drudgery work.
Globally accessible services/data providers (abstracted away behind a nice interface obviously) are pretty much a must in a decent sized app.
I must really really discourage you from using option 3 - making the data static. I've worked on several projects where the early developers made some core data static, only to later realise they did need to run two copies of the program - and incurred a huge amount of work making the data non-static and carefully putting in references into everything.
So in my experience, if you do 3), you will eventually end up doing 1) at twice the cost.
Go for 1, and be fine-grained about what data structures you reference from each object. Don't use "context objects", just pass in precisely the data needed. Yes, it makes the code more complicated, but on the plus side, it makes it clearer - the fact that a FwurzleDigestionListener is holding a reference to both a Fwurzle and a DigestionTract immediately gives the reader an idea about its purpose.
And by definition, if the data format changes, so will the classes that operate on it, so you have to change them anyway.
You might want to think about altering the requirement that lots of objects need to know about the same data structures. One reason there does not seem to be a clean OO way of sharing data is that sharing data is not very object-oriented.
You will need to look at the specifics of your application but the general idea is to have one object responsible for the shared data which provides services to the other objects based on the data encapsulated in it. However these services should not involve giving other objects the data structures - merely giving other objects the pieces of information they need to meet their responsibilites and performing mutations on the data structures internally.
I tend to use 3) and be very careful about the synchronisation and locking across threads. I agree it is less OO, but then you confess to having global data, which is very un-OO in the first place.
Don't get too hung up on whether you are sticking purely to one programming methodology or another, find a solution which fits your problem. I think there are perfectly valid contexts for singletons (Logging for instance).
I use a combination of having one global object and passing interfaces in via constructors.
From the one main global object (usually named after what your program is called or does) you can start up other globals (maybe that have their own threads). This lets you control the setting up of program objects in the main objects constructor and tearing them down again in the right order when the application stops in this main objects destructor. Using static classes directly makes it tricky to initialize/uninitialize any resources these classes use in a controlled manner. This main global object also has properties for getting at the interfaces of different sub-systems of your application that various objects may want to get hold of to do their work.
I also pass references to relevant data-structures into constructors of some objects where I feel it is useful to isolate those objects from the rest of the world within the program when they only need to be concerned with a small part of it.
Whether an object grabs the global object and navigates its properties to get the interfaces it wants or gets passed the interfaces it uses via its constructor is a matter of taste and intuition. Any object you're implementing that you think might be reused in some other project should definately be passed data structures it should use via its constructor. Objects that grab the global object should be more to do with the infrastructure of your application.
Objects that receive interfaces they use via the constructor are probably easier to unit-test because you can feed them a mock interface, and tickle their methods to make sure they return the right arguments or interact with mock interfaces correctly. To test objects that access the main global object, you have to mock up the main global object so that when they request interfaces (I often call these services) from it they get appropriate mock objects and can be tested against them.
I prefer using the singleton pattern as described in the GoF book for these situations. A singleton is not the same as either of the three options described in the question. The constructor is private (or protected) so that it cannot be used just anywhere. You use a get() function (or whatever you prefer to call it) to obtain an instance. However, the architecture of the singleton class guarantees that each call to get() returns the same instance.
We should take care not to confuse Object Oriented Design with Object Oriented Implementation. Al too often, the term OO Design is used to judge an implementation, just as, imho, it is here.
Design
If in your design you see a lot of objects having a reference to exactly the same object, that means a lot of arrows. The designer should feel an itch here. He should verify whether this object is just commonly used, or if it is really a utility (e.g. a COM factory, a registry of some kind, ...).
From the project's requirements, he can see if it really needs to be a singleton (e.g. 'The Internet'), or if the object is shared because it's too general or too expensive or whatsoever.
Implementation
When you are asked to implement an OO Design in an OO language, you face a lot of decisions, like the one you mentioned: how should I implement all the arrows to the oft used object in the design?
That's the point where questions are addressed about 'static member', 'global variable' , 'god class' and 'a-lot-of-function-arguments'.
The Design phase should have clarified if the object needs to be a singleton or not. The implementation phase will decide on how this singleness will be represented in the program.
Option 3) while not purist OO, tends to be the most reasonable solution. But I would not make your class a singleton; and use some other object as a static 'dictionary' to manage those shared resources.
I don't like any of your proposed solutions:
You are passing around a bunch of "context" objects - the things that use them don't specify what fields or pieces of data they are really interested in
See here for a description of the God Object pattern. This is the worst of all worlds
Simply do not ever use Singleton objects for anything. You seem to have identified a few of the potential problems yourself
What can be reasons to prevent a class from being inherited? (e.g. using sealed on a c# class)
Right now I can't think of any.
Because writing classes to be substitutably extended is damn hard and requires you to make accurate predictions of how future users will want to extend what you've written.
Sealing your class forces them to use composition, which is much more robust.
How about if you are not sure about the interface yet and don't want any other code depending on the present interface? [That's off the top of my head, but I'd be interested in other reasons as well!]
Edit:
A bit of googling gave the following:
http://codebetter.com/blogs/patricksmacchia/archive/2008/01/05/rambling-on-the-sealed-keyword.aspx
Quoting:
There are three reasons why a sealed class is better than an unsealed class:
Versioning: When a class is originally sealed, it can change to unsealed in the future without breaking compatibility. (…)
Performance: (…) if the JIT compiler sees a call to a virtual method using a sealed types, the JIT compiler can produce more efficient code by calling the method non-virtually.(…)
Security and Predictability: A class must protect its own state and not allow itself to ever become corrupted. When a class is unsealed, a derived class can access and manipulate the base class’s state if any data fields or methods that internally manipulate fields are accessible and not private.(…)
I want to give you this message from "Code Complete":
Inheritance - subclasses - tends to
work against the primary technical
imperative you have as a programmer,
which is to manage complexity.For the sake of controlling complexity, you should maintain a heavy bias against inheritance.
The only legitimate use of inheritance is to define a particular case of a base class like, for example, when inherit from Shape to derive Circle. To check this look at the relation in opposite direction: is a Shape a generalization of Circle? If the answer is yes then it is ok to use inheritance.
So if you have a class for which there can not be any particular cases that specialize its behavior it should be sealed.
Also due to LSP (Liskov Substitution Principle) one can use derived class where base class is expected and this is actually imposes the greatest impact from use of inheritance: code using base class may be given an inherited class and it still has to work as expected. In order to protect external code when there is no obvious need for subclasses you seal the class and its clients can rely that its behavior will not be changed. Otherwise external code needs to be explicitly designed to expect possible changes in behavior in subclasses.
A more concrete example would be Singleton pattern. You need to seal singleton to ensure one can not break the "singletonness".
This may not apply to your code, but a lot of classes within the .NET framework are sealed purposely so that no one tries to create a sub-class.
There are certain situations where the internals are complex and require certain things to be controlled very specifically so the designer decided no one should inherit the class so that no one accidentally breaks functionality by using something in the wrong way.
#jjnguy
Another user may want to re-use your code by sub-classing your class. I don't see a reason to stop this.
If they want to use the functionality of my class they can achieve that with containment, and they will have much less brittle code as a result.
Composition seems to be often overlooked; all too often people want to jump on the inheritance bandwagon. They should not! Substitutability is difficult. Default to composition; you'll thank me in the long run.
I am in agreement with jjnguy... I think the reasons to seal a class are few and far between. Quite the contrary, I have been in the situation more than once where I want to extend a class, but couldn't because it was sealed.
As a perfect example, I was recently creating a small package (Java, not C#, but same principles) to wrap functionality around the memcached tool. I wanted an interface so in tests I could mock away the memcached client API I was using, and also so we could switch clients if the need arose (there are 2 clients listed on the memcached homepage). Additionally, I wanted to have the opportunity to replace the functionality altogether if the need or desire arose (such as if the memcached servers are down for some reason, we could potentially hot swap with a local cache implementation instead).
I exposed a minimal interface to interact with the client API, and it would have been awesome to extend the client API class and then just add an implements clause with my new interface. The methods that I had in the interface that matched the actual interface would then need no further details and so I wouldn't have to explicitly implement them. However, the class was sealed, so I had to instead proxy calls to an internal reference to this class. The result: more work and a lot more code for no real good reason.
That said, I think there are potential times when you might want to make a class sealed... and the best thing I can think of is an API that you will invoke directly, but allow clients to implement. For example, a game where you can program against the game... if your classes were not sealed, then the players who are adding features could potentially exploit the API to their advantage. This is a very narrow case though, and I think any time you have full control over the codebase, there really is little if any reason to make a class sealed.
This is one reason I really like the Ruby programming language... even the core classes are open, not just to extend but to ADD AND CHANGE functionality dynamically, TO THE CLASS ITSELF! It's called monkeypatching and can be a nightmare if abused, but it's damn fun to play with!
From an object-oriented perspective, sealing a class clearly documents the author's intent without the need for comments. When I seal a class I am trying to say that this class was designed to encapsulate some specific piece of knowledge or some specific service. It was not meant to be enhanced or subclassed further.
This goes well with the Template Method design pattern. I have an interface that says "I perform this service." I then have a class that implements that interface. But, what if performing that service relies on context that the base class doesn't know about (and shouldn't know about)? What happens is that the base class provides virtual methods, which are either protected or private, and these virtual methods are the hooks for subclasses to provide the piece of information or action that the base class does not know and cannot know. Meanwhile, the base class can contain code that is common for all the child classes. These subclasses would be sealed because they are meant to accomplish that one and only one concrete implementation of the service.
Can you make the argument that these subclasses should be further subclassed to enhance them? I would say no because if that subclass couldn't get the job done in the first place then it should never have derived from the base class. If you don't like it then you have the original interface, go write your own implementation class.
Sealing these subclasses also discourages deep levels of inheritence, which works well for GUI frameworks but works poorly for business logic layers.
Because you always want to be handed a reference to the class and not to a derived one for various reasons:
i. invariants that you have in some other part of your code
ii. security
etc
Also, because it's a safe bet with regards to backward compatibility - you'll never be able to close that class for inheritance if it's release unsealed.
Or maybe you didn't have enough time to test the interface that the class exposes to be sure that you can allow others to inherit from it.
Or maybe there's no point (that you see now) in having a subclass.
Or you don't want bug reports when people try to subclass and don't manage to get all the nitty-gritty details - cut support costs.
Sometimes your class interface just isn't meant to be inheirited. The public interface just isn't virtual and while someone could override the functionality that's in place it would just be wrong. Yes in general they shouldn't override the public interface, but you can insure that they don't by making the class non-inheritable.
The example I can think of right now are customized contained classes with deep clones in .Net. If you inherit from them you lose the deep clone ability.[I'm kind of fuzzy on this example, it's been a while since I worked with IClonable] If you have a true singelton class, you probably don't want inherited forms of it around, and a data persistence layer is not normally place you want a lot of inheritance.
Not everything that's important in a class is asserted easily in code. There can be semantics and relationships present that are easily broken by inheriting and overriding methods. Overriding one method at a time is an easy way to do this. You design a class/object as a single meaningful entity and then someone comes along and thinks if a method or two were 'better' it would do no harm. That may or may not be true. Maybe you can correctly separate all methods between private and not private or virtual and not virtual but that still may not be enough. Demanding inheritance of all classes also puts a huge additional burden on the original developer to foresee all the ways an inheriting class could screw things up.
I don't know of a perfect solution. I'm sympathetic to preventing inheritance but that's also a problem because it hinders unit testing.
I exposed a minimal interface to interact with the client API, and it would have been awesome to extend the client API class and then just add an implements clause with my new interface. The methods that I had in the interface that matched the actual interface would then need no further details and so I wouldn't have to explicitly implement them. However, the class was sealed, so I had to instead proxy calls to an internal reference to this class. The result: more work and a lot more code for no real good reason.
Well, there is a reason: your code is now somewhat insulated from changes to the memcached interface.
Performance: (…) if the JIT compiler sees a call to a virtual method using a sealed types, the JIT compiler can produce more efficient code by calling the method non-virtually.(…)
That's a great reason indeed. Thus, for performance-critical classes, sealed and friends make sense.
All the other reasons I've seen mentioned so far boil down to "nobody touches my class!". If you're worried someone might misunderstand its internals, you did a poor job documenting it. You can't possibly know that there's nothing useful to add to your class, or that you already know every imaginable use case for it. Even if you're right and the other developer shouldn't have used your class to solve their problem, using a keyword isn't a great way of preventing such a mistake. Documentation is. If they ignore the documentation, their loss.
Most of answers (when abstracted) state that sealed/finalized classes are tool to protect other programmers against potential mistakes. There is a blurry line between meaningful protection and pointless restriction. But as long as programmer is the one who is expected to understand the program, I see no hardly any reasons to restrict him from reusing parts of a class. Most of you talk about classes. But it's all about objects!
In his first post, DrPizza claims that designing inheritable class means anticipating possible extensions. Do I get it right that you think that class should be inheritable only if it's likely to be extended well? Looks as if you were used to design software from the most abstract classes. Allow me a brief explanation of how do I think when designing:
Starting from the very concrete objects, I find characteristics and [thus] functionality that they have in common and I abstract it to superclass of those particular objects. This is a way to reduce code duplicity.
Unless developing some specific product such as a framework, I should care about my code, not others (virtual) code. The fact that others might find it useful to reuse my code is a nice bonus, not my primary goal. If they decide to do so, it's their responsibility to ensure validity of extensions. This applies team-wide. Up-front design is crucial to productivity.
Getting back to my idea: Your objects should primarily serve your purposes, not some possible shoulda/woulda/coulda functionality of their subtypes. Your goal is to solve given problem. Object oriented languages uses fact that many problems (or more likely their subproblems) are similar and therefore existing code can be used to accelerate further development.
Sealing a class forces people who could possibly take advantage of existing code WITHOUT ACTUALLY MODIFYING YOUR PRODUCT to reinvent the wheel. (This is a crucial idea of my thesis: Inheriting a class doesn't modify it! Which seems quite pedestrian and obvious, but it's being commonly ignored).
People are often scared that their "open" classes will be twisted to something that can not substitute its ascendants. So what? Why should you care? No tool can prevent bad programmer from creating bad software!
I'm not trying to denote inheritable classes as the ultimately correct way of designing, consider this more like an explanation of my inclination to inheritable classes. That's the beauty of programming - virtually infinite set of correct solutions, each with its own cons and pros. Your comments and arguments are welcome.
And finally, my answer to the original question: I'd finalize a class to let others know that I consider the class a leaf of the hierarchical class tree and I see absolutely no possibility that it could become a parent node. (And if anyone thinks that it actually could, then either I was wrong or they don't get me).