Related
The open/closed principle states that a class should be open for extension but closed for modification.
I thought that the modification part referred strictly to altering the source code of the base class. But I had an argument with someone saying that this also involves overriding methods from the base class.
It this interpretation correct?
Virtual methods allow replacing behavior of a base class in a derived class, without having to alter the base class and this means you adhere to the Open/Closed principle since you can extend the system without having to modify existing code.
Base classes (that are not purely abstract) however, tend to violate the Dependency Inversion Principle, since the derived class takes a dependency on the base class, which is a concrete component instead of being an abstraction. Remember, the DIP states that:
High-level modules should [...] depend on abstractions.
Besides this, base classes tend to violate the Interface Segregation Principle as well in case they define multiple public (or protected) methods that are not all used by the derived type. This is a violation of the ISP because:
no client should be forced to depend on methods it does not use
"I thought that the modification part referred strictly to altering the source code of the base class."
You thought right.
There is a plethora of ways to make a class extensible and allowing one to inherit from it is one of them. The keyword extend is even used in a few languages to enable inheritance which makes it quite obvious that we aren't modifying, we are extending...
Whether inheritance is the right solution to extensibility or not is another concern, but usually it is not though. Composition should be the preferred way to make classes extensible (e.g. Strategy, Observer, Decorator, Pipes and Filters, etc...)
An override is a lot like a callback that anyone can register. It's like:
if (IsOverridden) CallCallback();
else DefaultImplementation(); //possibly empty
In that sense there is no modification. You are just reconfiguring the object to call the callback instead of doing the default behavior.
It's just like the click event of a button. You wouldn't consider subscribing to an event a modification. It's extension.
Form "Adaptive Code via C#" book, virtual methods is a instrument to achieve OCP.
In interviews I have been asked to explain the difference between abstraction and encapsulation. My answer has been along the lines of
Abstraction allows us to represent complex real world in simplest manner. It is the process of identifying the relevant qualities and behaviors an object should possess; in other words, to represent the necessary feature without representing the background details.
Encapsulation is a process of hiding all the internal details of an object from the outside real world. The word "encapsulation", is like "enclosing" into a "capsule". It restricts clients from seeing its internal view where the behavior of the abstraction is implemented.
I think with above answer the interviewer was convinced, but then I was asked, if the purpose of both is hiding, then why there is a need to use encapsulation. At that time I didn't have a good answer for this.
What should I have added to make my answer more complete?
Abstraction has to do with separating interface from implementation. (We don't care what it is, we care that it works a certain way.)
Encapsulation has to do with disallowing access to or knowledge of internal structures of an implementation. (We don't care or need to see how it works, only that it does.)
Some people do use encapsulation as a synonym for abstraction, which is (IMO) incorrect. It's possible that your interviewer thought this. If that is the case then you were each talking about two different things when you referred to "encapsulation."
It's worth noting that these concepts are represented differently in different programming languages. A few examples:
In Java and C#, interfaces (and, to some degree, abstract classes) provide abstraction, while access modifiers provide encapsulation.
It's mostly the same deal in C++, except that we don't have interfaces, we only have abstract classes.
In JavaScript, duck typing provides abstraction, and closure provides encapsulation. (Naming convention can also provide encapsulation, but this only works if all parties agree to follow it.)
Its Simple!
Take example of television - it is Encapsulation, because:
Television is loaded with different functionalies that i don't know because they are completely hidden.
Hidden things like music, video etc everything bundled in a capsule that what we call a TV
Now, Abstraction is When we know a little about something and which can help us to manipulate something for which we don't know how it works internally.
For eg:
A remote-control for TV is abstraction, because
With remote we know that pressing the number keys will change the channels. We are not aware as to what actually happens internally. We can manipulate the hidden thing but we don't know how it is being done internally.
Programmatically, when we can acess the hidden data somehow and know something.. is Abstraction .. And when we know nothing about the internals its Encapsulation.
Without remote we can't change anything on TV we have to see what it shows coz all controls are hidden.
Abstraction
Exposing the Entity instead of the details of the entity.
"Details are there, but we do not consider them. They are not required."
Example 1:
Various calculations:
Addition, Multiplication, Subtraction, Division, Square, Sin, Cos, Tan.
We do not show the details of how do we calculate the Sin, Cos or Tan. We just Show Calculator and it's various Methods which will be, and which needs to be used by the user.
Example 2:
Employee has:
First Name, Last Name, Middle Name. He can Login(), Logout(), DoWork().
Many processes might be happening for Logging employee In, such as connecting to database, sending Employee ID and Password, receiving reply from Database. Although above details are present, we will hide the details and expose only "Employee".
Encapsulation
Enclosing. Treating multiple characteristics/ functions as one unit instead of individuals.
So that outside world will refer to that unit instead of it's details directly.
"Details are there, we consider them, but do not show them, instead we show what you need to see."
Example 1:
Instead of calling it as Addition, Subtraction, Multiplication, Division, Now we will call it as a Calculator.
Example 2:
All characteristics and operations are now referred by the employee, such as "John". John Has name. John Can DoWork(). John can Login().
Hiding
Hiding the implemention from outside world.
So that outside world will not see what should not be seen.
"Details are there, we consider them, but we do not show them. You do not need to see them."
Example 1:
Your requirement: Addition, Substraction, Multiplication, Division. You will be able to see it and get the result.
You do not need to know where operands are getting stored. Its not your requirement.
Also, every instruction that I am executing, is also not your requirement.
Example 2:
John Would like to know his percentage of attendance. So GetAttendancePercentage() Will be called.
However, this method needs data saved in database. Hence it will call FetchDataFromDB(). FetchDataFromDB() is NOT required to be visible to outside world.
Hence we will hide it. However, John.GetAttendancePercentage() will be visible to outside world.
Abstraction, encapsulation and hiding complement each others.
Because we create level of abstraction over details, the details are encapsulated. And because they are enclosed, they are hidden.
Difference between Abstraction and Encapsulation :-
Abstraction
Abstraction solves the problem in the design level.
Abstraction is used for hiding the unwanted data and giving relevant data.
Abstraction lets you focus on what the object does instead of how it does it.
Abstraction- Outer layout, used in terms of design.
For Example:-
Outer Look of a Mobile Phone, like it has a display screen and keypad buttons to dial a number.
Encapsulation
Encapsulation solves the problem in the implementation level.
Encapsulation means hiding the code and data into a single unit to protect the data from outside world.
Encapsulation means hiding the internal details or mechanics of how an object does something.
Encapsulation- Inner layout, used in terms of implementation.
For Example:- Inner Implementation detail of a Mobile Phone, how keypad button and Display Screen are connect with each other using circuits.
Encapsulation
Encapsulation from what you have learnt googling around, is a concept of combining the related data and operations in a single capsule or what we could say a class in OOP, such that no other program can modify the data it holds or method implementation it has, at a particular instance of time. Only the getter and setter methods can provide access to the instance variables.
Our code might be used by others and future up-gradations or bug fixes are liable. Encapsulation is something that makes sure that whatever code changes we do in our code doesn't break the code of others who are using it.
Encapsulation adds up to the maintainability, flexibility and extensibility of the code.
Encapsulation helps hide the implementation behind an interface.
Abstraction
Abstraction is the process of actually hiding the implementation behind an interface. So we are just aware of the actual behavior but not how exactly the think works out internally. The most common example could the scenario where put a key inside the lock and easily unlock it. So the interface here is the keyhole, while we are not aware of how the levers inside the lock co-ordinate among themselves to get the lock unlocked.
To be more clear, abstraction can be explained as the capability to use the same interface for different objects. Different implementations of the same interface can exist, while the details of every implementation are hidden by encapsulation.
Finally, the statement to answer all the confusions until now -
The part that is hidden relates to encapsulation while the part that is exposed relates to abstraction.
Read more on this here
Abstraction : Abstraction is process in which you collect or gather relevant data and remove non-relevant data. (And if you have achieved abstraction, then encapsulation also achieved.)
Encapsulation: Encapsulation is a process in which you wrap of functions and members in a single unit. Means You are hiding the implementation detail. Means user can access by making object of class, he/she can't see detail.
Example:
public class Test
{
int t;
string s;
public void show()
{
s = "Testing";
Console.WriteLine(s);
Console.WriteLine(See()); // No error
}
int See()
{
t = 10;
return t;
}
public static void Main()
{
Test obj = new Test();
obj.Show(); // there is no error
obj.See(); // Error:- Inaccessible due to its protection level
}
}
In the above example, User can access only Show() method by using obj, that is Abstraction.
And See() method is calling internally in Show() method that is encapsulation, because user doesn't know what things are going on in Show() method.
I know there are lot's of answers before me with variety of examples.
Well here is my opinion abstraction is getting interested from reality .
In abstraction we hide something to reduce the complexity of it
and In encapsulation we hide something to protect the data.
So we define encapsulation as wrapping of data and methods in single entity referred as class.
In java we achieve encapsulation using getters and setters not just by wrapping data and methods in it. we also define a way to access that data.
and while accessing data we protect it also. Techinical e.g would be to define a private data variable call weight.Now we know that weight can't be zero or less than zero in real world scenario. Imagine if there are no getters and setters someone could have easily set it to a negative value being public member of class.
Now final difference using one real world example,
Consider a circuit board consisting of switches and buttons.
We wrap all the wires into a a circuit box, so that we can protect someone by not getting in contact directly(encapsulation).
We don't care how those wires are connected to each other we just want an interface to turn on and off switch. That interface is provided by buttons(abstraction)
Encapsulation : Suppose I have some confidential documents, now I hide these documents inside a locker so no one can gain access to them, this is encapsulation.
Abstraction : A huge incident took place which was summarised in the newspaper. Now the newspaper only listed the more important details of the actual incident, this is abstraction. Further the headline of the incident highlights on even more specific details in a single line, hence providing higher level of abstraction on the incident. Also highlights of a football/cricket match can be considered as abstraction of the entire match.
Hence encapsulation is hiding of data to protect its integrity and abstraction is highlighting more important details.
In programming terms we can see that a variable may be enclosed is the scope of a class as private hence preventing it from being accessed directly from outside, this is encapsulation. Whereas a a function may be written in a class to swap two numbers. Now the numbers may be swapped in either by either using a temporary variable or through bit manipulation or using arithmetic operation, but the goal of the user is to receive the numbers swapped irrespective of the method used for swapping, this is abstraction.
Abstraction: In case of an hardware abstraction layer, you have simple interfaces to trigger the hardware (e.g. turn enginge left/right) without knowing the hardware details behind. So hiding the complexity of the system. It's a simplified view of the real world.
Encapsulation: Hiding of object internals. The object is an abstraction of the real world. But the details of this object (like data structures...) can be hidden via encapsulation.
Abstraction refers to the act of representing essential features without including the background details or explanations.
Encapsulation is a technique used for hiding the properties and behaviors of an object and allowing outside access only as appropriate. It prevents other objects from directly altering or accessing the properties or methods of the encapsulated object.
Difference between abstraction and encapsulation
1.Abstraction focuses on the outside view of an object (i.e. the interface) Encapsulation (information hiding) prevents clients from seeing it’s inside view, where the behavior of the abstraction is implemented.
2.Abstraction solves the problem in the design side while Encapsulation is the Implementation.
3.Encapsulation is the deliverable of Abstraction. Encapsulation barely talks about grouping up your abstraction to suit the developer needs.
ABSTRACTION:"A view of a problem that extracts the essential information
relevant to a particular purpose and ignores the remainder of
the information."[IEEE, 1983]
ENCAPSULATION: "Encapsulation or equivalently information hiding refers to the
practice of including within an object everything it needs, and
furthermore doing this in such a way that no other object need ever
be aware of this internal structure."
Abstraction is one of the many benefits of Data Encapsulation. We can also say Data Encapsulation is one way to implement Abstraction.
My opinion of abstraction is not in the sense of hiding implementation or background details!
Abstraction gives us the benefit to deal with a representation of the real world which is easier to handle, has the ability to be reused, could be combined with other components of our more or less complex program package. So we have to find out how we pick a complete peace of the real world, which is complete enough to represent the sense of our algorithm and data. The implementation of the interface may hide the details but this is not part of the work we have to do for abstracting something.
For me most important thing for abstraction is:
reduction of complexity
reduction of size/quantity
splitting of non related domains to clear and independent components
All this has for me nothing to do with hiding background details!
If you think of sorting some data, abstraction can result in:
a sorting algorithm, which is independent of the data representation
a compare function, which is independent of data and sort algorithm
a generic data representation, which is independent of the used algorithms
All these has nothing to do with hiding information.
In my view encapsulation is a thought of programmer to hide the complexity of the program code by using access specifier.
Where as Abstraction is separation of method and object according to there function and behavior. For example Car has sheets, wheels, break, headlight.
Developer A, who is inherently utilising the concept of abstraction will use a module/library function/widget, concerned only with what it does (and what it will be used for) but not how it does it. The interface of that module/library function/widget (the 'levers' the Developer A is allowed to pull/push) is the personification of that abstraction.
Developer B, who is seeking to create such a module/function/widget will utilise the concept of encapsulation to ensure Developer A (and any other developer who uses the widget) can take advantage of the resulting abstraction. Developer B is most certainly concerned with how the widget does what it does.
TLDR;
Abstraction - I care about what something does, but not how it does it.
Encapsulation - I care about how something does what it does such that others only need to care about what it does.
(As a loose generalisation, to abstract something, you must encapsulate something else. And by encapsulating something, you have created an abstraction.)
Encapsulation is basically denying the access to the internal implementation or knowledge about internals to the external world, while Abstraction is giving a generalized view of any implementation that helps the external world to interact with it
The essential thing about abstraction is that client code operates in terms of a different logical/abstract model. That different model may be more or less complex than the implementation happens to be in any given client usage.
For example, "Iterator" abstracts (aka generalises) sequenced traversal of 0 or more values - in C++ it manifests as begin(), */-> (dereferencing), end(), pre/post ++ and possibly --, then there's +, +=, [], std::advance etc.. That's a lot of baggage if the client could say increment a size_t along an array anyway. The essential thing is that the abstraction allows client code that needs to perform such a traversal to be decoupled from the exact nature of the "container" or data source providing the elements. Iteration is a higher-level notion that sometimes restricts the way the traversal is performed (e.g. a forward iterator can only advance an element at a time), but the data can then be provided by a larger set of sources (e.g. from a keyboard where there's not even a "container" in the sense of concurrently stored values). The client code can generally switch to another data source abstracted through its own iterators with minimal or even no changes, and even polymorphically to other data types - either implicitly or explicitly using something like std::iterator_traits<Iterator>::value_type available.
This is quite a different thing from encapsulation, which is the practice of making some data or functions less accessible, such that you know they're only used indirectly as a result of operations on the public interface. Encapsulation is an essential tool for maintaining invariants on an object, which means things you want to keep true after every public operation - if client code could just reach in and modify your object then you can't enforce any invariants. For example, a class might wrap a string, ensuring that after any operation any lowercase letters were changed to upper case, but if the client code can reach in and put a lowercase letter into the string without the involvement of the class's member functions, then the invariant can't be enforced.
To further highlight the difference, consider say a private std::vector<Timing_Sample> data member that's incidentally populated by operations on the containing object, with a report dumped out on destruction. With the data and destructor side effect not interacting with the object's client code in any way, and the operations on the object not intentionally controlling the time-keeping behaviour, there's no abstraction of that time reporting functionality but there is encapsulation. An example of abstraction would be to move the timing code into a separate class that might encapsulate the vector (make it private) and just provide a interface like add(const Timing_Sample&) and report(std::ostream&) - the necessary logical/abstract operations involved with using such instrumentation, with the highly desirable side effect that the abstracted code will often be reusable for other client code with similar functional needs.
In my opinion, both terms are related in some sense and sort of mixed into each other. "Encapsulation" provides a way to grouping related fields, methods in a class (or module) to wrap the related things together. As of that time, it provides data hiding in two ways;
Through access modifiers.
Purely for hiding state of the class/object.
Abstracting some functionalities.
a. Through interfaces/abstract classes, complex logic inside the encapsulated class or module can be abstracted/generalized to be used by outside.
b. Through function signatures. Yes, even function signatures example of abstracting. Because callers only knows the signature and parameters (if any) and know nothing about how the function is carried out. It only cares of returned value.
Likewise, "Abstraction" might be think of a way of encapsulation in terms of grouping/wrapping the behaviour into an interface (or abstract class or might be even a normal class ).
As far as iOS is concerned, it can be said that Objective C files (i.e. .h and .m) use abstraction as well as encapsulation.
Abstraction
Header file (.h) only exposes the functions and public members to outside world. No one knows how they are used unless they have the implementation file with them. It is the .m file that holds all the usage and implementation logic with it self. "Implementation remains unexposed".
Encapsulation
The property (#property) encapsulates the memory management attribute (atomic, strong, retain, weak) of an iVar.
A program has mainly two parts : DATA and PROCESS. abstraction hides data in process so that no one can change. Encapsulation hides data everywhere so that it cannot be displayed.
I hope this clarifies your doubt.
Encapsulation is used for 2 main reasons:
1.) Data hiding & protecting (the user of your class can't modify the data except through your provided methods).
2.) Combining the data and methods used to manipulate the data together into one entity (capsule).
I think that the second reason is the answer your interviewer wanted to hear.
On the other hand, abstraction is needed to expose only the needed information to the user, and hiding unneeded details (for example, hiding the implementation of methods, so that the user is not affected if the implementation is changed).
Abstraction: Hiding the data.
Encapsulation: Binding the data.
Why Encapsulation? Why Abstraction?
lets start with the question below:
1)What happens if we allow code to directly access field ? (directly allowing means making field public)
lets understand this with an example,
following is our BankAccount class and following is its limitation
*Limitation/Policy* : Balance in BankAccount can not be more than 50000Rs. (This line
is very important to understand)
class BankAccount
{
**public** double balanceAmount;
}
Following is **AccountHolder**(user of BankAccount) class which is consumer of
**BankAccount** class.
class AccountHolder
{
BankAccount mybankAccount = new BankAccount();
DoAmountCreditInBankAccount()
{
mybankAccount.balanceAmount = 70000;
/*
this is invalid practice because this statement violates policy....Here
BankAccount class is not able to protect its field from direct access
Reason for direct access by acount holder is that balanceAmount directly
accessible due to its public access modifier. How to solve this issue and
successfully implement BankAccount Policy/Limitation.
*/
}
}
if some other part of code directly access balanceAmount field and set balance amount to 70000Rs which is not acceptable. Here in this case we can not prevent some other part of code from accessing balanceAmount field.
So what we can do?
=> Answer is we can make balanceAmount field private so that no other code can directly access it and allowing access to that field only via public method which operates on balanceAmount field. Main role of method is that we can write some prevention logic inside method so that field can not be initialized with more than 50000Rs. Here we are making binding between data field called balanceAmount and method which operates on that field. This process is called Encapsulation.(it is all about protecting fields using access modifier such as private)
Encapsulation is one way to achieve abstraction....but How?
=> User of this method will not know about implementation (How amount gets credited? logic and all that stuff) of method which he/she will invoke. Not knowing about implementation details by user is called Abstraction(Hiding details from user).
Following will be the implementation of class:
class BankAccount
{
**private** double balanceAmount;
**public** void UpdateBankBalance(double amount)
{
if(balanceAmount + amount > 50000)
{
Console.WriteLine("Bank balance can not be more than 50000, Transaction can
not be proceed");
}
else
{
balanceAmount = balanceAmount + amount;
Console.WriteLine("Amount has been credited to your bank account
successfully.....");
}
}
}
class AccountHolder
{
BankAccount mybankAccount = new BankAccount();
DoAmountCreditInBankAccount()
{
mybankAccount.UpdateBankBalance(some_amount);
/*
mybankAccount.balanceAmount will not be accessible due to its protection level
directly from AccountHolder so account holder will consume BankAccount public
method UpdateBankBalance(double amount) to update his/her balance.
*/
}
}
Simply put, abstraction is all about making necessary information for interaction with the object visible, while encapsulation enables a developer to implement the desired level of abstraction.
Encapsulation: Hiding the information at the implementation level. This deals with properties or methods which will be hidden from other objects.
Abstraction: Hiding the information at the idea level/design level. Here we decide that something will be abstract(hidden) from the user while thinking of an idea. Abstraction can be achieved using encapsulation at the implementation level.
If I understand correctly, the typical mechanism for Dependency Injection is to inject either through a class' constructor or through a public property (member) of the class.
This exposes the dependency being injected and violates the OOP principle of encapsulation.
Am I correct in identifying this tradeoff? How do you deal with this issue?
Please also see my answer to my own question below.
There is another way of looking at this issue that you might find interesting.
When we use IoC/dependency injection, we're not using OOP concepts. Admittedly we're using an OO language as the 'host', but the ideas behind IoC come from component-oriented software engineering, not OO.
Component software is all about managing dependencies - an example in common use is .NET's Assembly mechanism. Each assembly publishes the list of assemblies that it references, and this makes it much easier to pull together (and validate) the pieces needed for a running application.
By applying similar techniques in our OO programs via IoC, we aim to make programs easier to configure and maintain. Publishing dependencies (as constructor parameters or whatever) is a key part of this. Encapsulation doesn't really apply, as in the component/service oriented world, there is no 'implementation type' for details to leak from.
Unfortunately our languages don't currently segregate the fine-grained, object-oriented concepts from the coarser-grained component-oriented ones, so this is a distinction that you have to hold in your mind only :)
It's a good question - but at some point, encapsulation in its purest form needs to be violated if the object is ever to have its dependency fulfilled. Some provider of the dependency must know both that the object in question requires a Foo, and the provider has to have a way of providing the Foo to the object.
Classically this latter case is handled as you say, through constructor arguments or setter methods. However, this is not necessarily true - I know that the latest versions of the Spring DI framework in Java, for example, let you annotate private fields (e.g. with #Autowired) and the dependency will be set via reflection without you needing to expose the dependency through any of the classes public methods/constructors. This might be the kind of solution you were looking for.
That said, I don't think that constructor injection is much of a problem, either. I've always felt that objects should be fully valid after construction, such that anything they need in order to perform their role (i.e. be in a valid state) should be supplied through the constructor anyway. If you have an object that requires a collaborator to work, it seems fine to me that the constructor publically advertises this requirement and ensures it is fulfilled when a new instance of the class is created.
Ideally when dealing with objects, you interact with them through an interface anyway, and the more you do this (and have dependencies wired through DI), the less you actually have to deal with constructors yourself. In the ideal situation, your code doesn't deal with or even ever create concrete instances of classes; so it just gets given an IFoo through DI, without worrying about what the constructor of FooImpl indicates it needs to do its job, and in fact without even being aware of FooImpl's existance. From this point of view, the encapsulation is perfect.
This is an opinion of course, but to my mind DI doesn't necessarily violate encapsulation and in fact can help it by centralising all of the necessary knowledge of internals into one place. Not only is this a good thing in itself, but even better this place is outside your own codebase, so none of the code you write needs to know about classes' dependencies.
This exposes the dependency being injected and violates the OOP principle of encapsulation.
Well, frankly speaking, everything violates encapsulation. :) It's a kind of a tender principle that must be treated well.
So, what violates encapsulation?
Inheritance does.
"Because inheritance exposes a subclass to details of its parent's implementation, it's often said that 'inheritance breaks encapsulation'". (Gang of Four 1995:19)
Aspect-oriented programming does. For example, you register onMethodCall() callback and that gives you a great opportunity to inject code to the normal method evaluation, adding strange side-effects etc.
Friend declaration in C++ does.
Class extention in Ruby does. Just redefine a string method somewhere after a string class was fully defined.
Well, a lot of stuff does.
Encapsulation is a good and important principle. But not the only one.
switch (principle)
{
case encapsulation:
if (there_is_a_reason)
break!
}
Yes, DI violates encapsulation (also known as "information hiding").
But the real problem comes when developers use it as an excuse to violate the KISS (Keep It Short and Simple) and YAGNI (You Ain't Gonna Need It) principles.
Personally, I prefer simple and effective solutions. I mostly use the "new" operator to instantiate stateful dependencies whenever and wherever they are needed. It is simple, well encapsulated, easy to understand, and easy to test. So, why not?
A good depenancy injection container/system will allow for constructor injection. The dependant objects will be encapsulated, and need not be exposed publicly at all. Further, by using a DP system, none of your code even "knows" the details of how the object is constructed, possibly even including the object being constructed. There is more encapsulation in this case since nearly all of your code not only is shielded from knowledge of the encapsulated objects, but does not even participate in the objects construction.
Now, I am assuming you are comparing against the case where the created object creates its own encapsulated objects, most likely in its constructor. My understanding of DP is that we want to take this responsibility away from the object and give it to someone else. To that end, the "someone else", which is the DP container in this case, does have intimate knowledge which "violates" encapsulation; the benefit is that it pulls that knowledge out of the object, iteself. Someone has to have it. The rest of your application does not.
I would think of it this way: The dependancy injection container/system violates encapsulation, but your code does not. In fact, your code is more "encapsulated" then ever.
This is similar to the upvoted answer but I want to think out loud - perhaps others see things this way as well.
Classical OO uses constructors to define the public "initialization" contract for consumers of the class (hiding ALL implementation details; aka encapsulation). This contract can ensure that after instantiation you have a ready-to-use object (i.e. no additional initialization steps to be remembered (er, forgotten) by the user).
(constructor) DI undeniably breaks encapsulation by bleeding implemenation detail through this public constructor interface. As long as we still consider the public constructor responsible for defining the initialization contract for users, we have created a horrible violation of encapsulation.
Theoretical Example:
Class Foo has 4 methods and needs an integer for initialization, so its constructor looks like Foo(int size) and it's immediately clear to users of class Foo that they must provide a size at instantiation in order for Foo to work.
Say this particular implementation of Foo may also need a IWidget to do its job. Constructor injection of this dependency would have us create a constructor like Foo(int size, IWidget widget)
What irks me about this is now we have a constructor that's blending initialization data with dependencies - one input is of interest to the user of the class (size), the other is an internal dependency that only serves to confuse the user and is an implementation detail (widget).
The size parameter is NOT a dependency - it's simple a per-instance initialization value. IoC is dandy for external dependencies (like widget) but not for internal state initialization.
Even worse, what if the Widget is only necessary for 2 of the 4 methods on this class; I may be incurring instantiation overhead for Widget even though it may not be used!
How to compromise/reconcile this?
One approach is to switch exclusively to interfaces to define the operation contract; and abolish the use of constructors by users.
To be consistent, all objects would have to be accessed through interfaces only, and instantiated only through some form of resolver (like an IOC/DI container). Only the container gets to instantiate things.
That takes care of the Widget dependency, but how do we initialize "size" without resorting to a separate initialization method on the Foo interface? Using this solution, we lost the ability to ensure that an instance of Foo is fully initialized by the time you get the instance. Bummer, because I really like the idea and simplicity of constructor injection.
How do I achieve guaranteed initialization in this DI world, when initialization is MORE than ONLY external dependencies?
As Jeff Sternal pointed out in a comment to the question, the answer is entirely dependent on how you define encapsulation.
There seem to be two main camps of what encapsulation means:
Everything related to the object is a method on an object. So, a File object may have methods to Save, Print, Display, ModifyText, etc.
An object is its own little world, and does not depend on outside behavior.
These two definitions are in direct contradiction to each other. If a File object can print itself, it will depend heavily on the printer's behavior. On the other hand, if it merely knows about something that can print for it (an IFilePrinter or some such interface), then the File object doesn't have to know anything about printing, and so working with it will bring less dependencies into the object.
So, dependency injection will break encapsulation if you use the first definition. But, frankly I don't know if I like the first definition - it clearly doesn't scale (if it did, MS Word would be one big class).
On the other hand, dependency injection is nearly mandatory if you're using the second definition of encapsulation.
It doesn't violate encapsulation. You're providing a collaborator, but the class gets to decide how it is used. As long as you follow Tell don't ask things are fine. I find constructer injection preferable, but setters can be fine as well as long as they're smart. That is they contain logic to maintain the invariants the class represents.
Pure encapsulation is an ideal that can never be achieved. If all dependencies were hidden then you wouldn't have the need for DI at all. Think about it this way, if you truly have private values that can be internalized within the object, say for instance the integer value of the speed of a car object, then you have no external dependency and no need to invert or inject that dependency. These sorts of internal state values that are operated on purely by private functions are what you want to encapsulate always.
But if you're building a car that wants a certain kind of engine object then you have an external dependency. You can either instantiate that engine -- for instance new GMOverHeadCamEngine() -- internally within the car object's constructor, preserving encapsulation but creating a much more insidious coupling to a concrete class GMOverHeadCamEngine, or you can inject it, allowing your Car object to operate agnostically (and much more robustly) on for example an interface IEngine without the concrete dependency. Whether you use an IOC container or simple DI to achieve this is not the point -- the point is that you've got a Car that can use many kinds of engines without being coupled to any of them, thus making your codebase more flexible and less prone to side effects.
DI is not a violation of encapsulation, it is a way of minimizing the coupling when encapsulation is necessarily broken as a matter of course within virtually every OOP project. Injecting a dependency into an interface externally minimizes coupling side effects and allows your classes to remain agnostic about implementation.
It depends on whether the dependency is really an implementation detail or something that the client would want/need to know about in some way or another. One thing that is relevant is what level of abstraction the class is targeting. Here are some examples:
If you have a method that uses caching under the hood to speed up calls, then the cache object should be a Singleton or something and should not be injected. The fact that the cache is being used at all is an implementation detail that the clients of your class should not have to care about.
If your class needs to output streams of data, it probably makes sense to inject the output stream so that the class can easily output the results to an array, a file, or wherever else someone else might want to send the data.
For a gray area, let's say you have a class that does some monte carlo simulation. It needs a source of randomness. On the one hand, the fact that it needs this is an implementation detail in that the client really doesn't care exactly where the randomness comes from. On the other hand, since real-world random number generators make tradeoffs between degree of randomness, speed, etc. that the client may want to control, and the client may want to control seeding to get repeatable behavior, injection may make sense. In this case, I'd suggest offering a way of creating the class without specifying a random number generator, and use a thread-local Singleton as the default. If/when the need for finer control arises, provide another constructor that allows for a source of randomness to be injected.
Having struggled with the issue a little further, I am now in the opinion that Dependency Injection does (at this time) violate encapsulation to some degree. Don't get me wrong though - I think that using dependency injection is well worth the tradeoff in most cases.
The case for why DI violates encapsulation becomes clear when the component you are working on is to be delivered to an "external" party (think of writing a library for a customer).
When my component requires sub-components to be injected via the constructor (or public properties) there's no guarantee for
"preventing users from setting the internal data of the component into an invalid or inconsistent state".
At the same time it cannot be said that
"users of the component (other pieces of software) only need to know what the component does, and cannot make themselves dependent on the details of how it does it".
Both quotes are from wikipedia.
To give a specific example: I need to deliver a client-side DLL that simplifies and hides communication to a WCF service (essentially a remote facade). Because it depends on 3 different WCF proxy classes, if I take the DI approach I am forced to expose them via the constructor. With that I expose the internals of my communication layer which I am trying to hide.
Generally I am all for DI. In this particular (extreme) example, it strikes me as dangerous.
I struggled with this notion as well. At first, the 'requirement' to use the DI container (like Spring) to instantiate an object felt like jumping thru hoops. But in reality, it's really not a hoop - it's just another 'published' way to create objects I need. Sure, encapsulation is 'broken' becuase someone 'outside the class' knows what it needs, but it really isn't the rest of the system that knows that - it's the DI container. Nothing magical happens differently because DI 'knows' one object needs another.
In fact it gets even better - by focusing on Factories and Repositories I don't even have to know DI is involved at all! That to me puts the lid back on encapsulation. Whew!
I belive in simplicity. Applying IOC/Dependecy Injection in Domain classes does not make any improvement except making the code much more harder to main by having an external xml files describing the relation. Many technologies like EJB 1.0/2.0 & struts 1.1 are reversing back by reducing the stuff the put in XML and try put them in code as annoation etc. So applying IOC for all the classes you develope will make the code non-sense.
IOC has it benefits when the dependent object is not ready for creation at compile time. This can happend in most of the infrasture abstract level architecture components, trying establish a common base framework which may need to work for different scenarios. In those places usage IOC makes more sense. Still this does not make the code more simple / maintainable.
As all the other technologies, this too has PROs & CONs. My worry is, we implement latest technologies in all the places irrespective of their best context usage.
Encapsulation is only broken if a class has both the responsibility to create the object (which requires knowledge of implementation details) and then uses the class (which does not require knowledge of these details). I'll explain why, but first a quick car anaology:
When I was driving my old 1971 Kombi,
I could press the accelerator and it
went (slightly) quicker. I did not
need to know why, but the guys who
built the Kombi at the factory knew
exactly why.
But back to the coding. Encapsulation is "hiding an implementation detail from something using that implementation." Encapsulation is a good thing because the implementation details can change without the user of the class knowing.
When using dependency injection, constructor injection is used to construct service type objects (as opposed to entity/value objects which model state). Any member variables in service type object represent implementation details that should not leak out. e.g. socket port number, database credentials, another class to call to perform encryption, a cache, etc.
The constructor is relevant when the class is being initially created. This happens during the construction-phase while your DI container (or factory) wires together all the service objects. The DI container only knows about implementation details. It knows all about implementation details like the guys at the Kombi factory know about spark plugs.
At run-time, the service object that was created is called apon to do some real work. At this time, the caller of the object knows nothing of the implementation details.
That's me driving my Kombi to the beach.
Now, back to encapsulation. If implementation details change, then the class using that implementation at run-time does not need to change. Encapsulation is not broken.
I can drive my new car to the beach too. Encapsulation is not broken.
If implementation details change, the DI container (or factory) does need to change. You were never trying to hide implementation details from the factory in the first place.
DI violates Encapsulation for NON-Shared objects - period. Shared objects have a lifespan outside of the object being created, and thus must be AGGREGATED into the object being created. Objects that are private to the object being created should be COMPOSED into the created object - when the created object is destroyed, it takes the composed object with it.
Let's take the human body as an example. What's composed and what's aggregated. If we were to use DI, the human body constructor would have 100's of objects. Many of the organs, for example, are (potentially) replaceable. But, they are still composed into the body. Blood cells are created in the body (and destroyed) everyday, without the need for external influences (other than protein). Thus, blood cells are created internally by the body - new BloodCell().
Advocators of DI argue that an object should NEVER use the new operator.
That "purist" approach not only violates encapsulation but also the Liskov Substitution Principle for whoever is creating the object.
PS. By providing Dependency Injection you do not necessarily break Encapsulation. Example:
obj.inject_dependency( factory.get_instance_of_unknown_class(x) );
Client code does not know implementation details still.
Maybe this is a naive way of thinking about it, but what is the difference between a constructor that takes in an integer parameter and a constructor that takes in a service as a parameter? Does this mean that defining an integer outside the new object and feeding it into the object breaks encapsulation? If the service is only used within the new object, I don't see how that would break encapsulation.
Also, by using some sort of autowiring feature (Autofac for C#, for example), it makes the code extremely clean. By building extension methods for the Autofac builder, I was able to cut out a LOT of DI configuration code that I would have had to maintain over time as the list of dependencies grew.
I think it's self evident that at the very least DI significantly weakens encapsulation. In additional to that here are some other downsides of DI to consider.
It makes code harder to reuse. A module which a client can use without having to explicitly provide dependencies to, is obviously easier to use than one where the client has to somehow discover what that component's dependencies are and then somehow make them available. For example a component originally created to be used in an ASP application may expect to have its dependencies provided by a DI container that provides object instances with lifetimes related to client http requests. This may not be simple to reproduce in another client that does not come with the same built in DI container as the original ASP application.
It can make code more fragile. Dependencies provided by interface specification can be implemented in unexpected ways which gives rise to a whole class of runtime bugs that are not possible with a statically resolved concrete dependency.
It can make code less flexible in the sense that you may end up with fewer choices about how you want it to work. Not every class needs to have all its dependencies in existence for the entire lifetime of the owning instance, yet with many DI implementations you have no other option.
With that in mind I think the most important question then becomes, "does a particular dependency need to be externally specified at all?". In practise I have rarely found it necessary to make a dependency externally supplied just to support testing.
Where a dependency genuinely needs to be externally supplied, that normally suggests that the relation between the objects is a collaboration rather than an internal dependency, in which case the appropriate goal is then encapsulation of each class, rather than encapsulation of one class inside the other.
In my experience the main problem regarding the use of DI is that whether you start with an application framework with built in DI, or you add DI support to your codebase, for some reason people assume that since you have DI support that must be the correct way to instantiate everything. They just never even bother to ask the question "does this dependency need to be externally specified?". And worse, they also start trying to force everyone else to use the DI support for everything too.
The result of this is that inexorably your codebase starts to devolve into a state where creating any instance of anything in your codebase requires reams of obtuse DI container configuration, and debugging anything is twice as hard because you have the extra workload of trying to identify how and where anything was instantiated.
So my answer to the question is this. Use DI where you can identify an actual problem that it solves for you, which you can't solve more simply any other way.
I agree that taken to an extreme, DI can violate encapsulation. Usually DI exposes dependencies which were never truly encapsulated. Here's a simplified example borrowed from Miško Hevery's Singletons are Pathological Liars:
You start with a CreditCard test and write a simple unit test.
#Test
public void creditCard_Charge()
{
CreditCard c = new CreditCard("1234 5678 9012 3456", 5, 2008);
c.charge(100);
}
Next month you get a bill for $100. Why did you get charged? The unit test affected a production database. Internally, CreditCard calls Database.getInstance(). Refactoring CreditCard so that it takes a DatabaseInterface in its constructor exposes the fact that there's dependency. But I would argue that the dependency was never encapsulated to begin with since the CreditCard class causes externally visible side effects. If you want to test CreditCard without refactoring, you can certainly observe the dependency.
#Before
public void setUp()
{
Database.setInstance(new MockDatabase());
}
#After
public void tearDown()
{
Database.resetInstance();
}
I don't think it's worth worrying whether exposing the Database as a dependency reduces encapsulation, because it's a good design. Not all DI decisions will be so straight forward. However, none of the other answers show a counter example.
I think it's a matter of scope. When you define encapsulation (not letting know how) you must define what is the encapsuled functionality.
Class as is: what you are encapsulating is the only responsability of the class. What it knows how to do. By example, sorting. If you inject some comparator for ordering, let's say, clients, that's not part of the encapsuled thing: quicksort.
Configured functionality: if you want to provide a ready-to-use functionality then you are not providing QuickSort class, but an instance of QuickSort class configured with a Comparator. In that case the code responsible for creating and configuring that must be hidden from the user code. And that's the encapsulation.
When you are programming classes, it is, implementing single responsibilities into classes, you are using option 1.
When you are programming applications, it is, making something that undertakes some useful concrete work then you are repeteadily using option 2.
This is the implementation of the configured instance:
<bean id="clientSorter" class="QuickSort">
<property name="comparator">
<bean class="ClientComparator"/>
</property>
</bean>
This is how some other client code use it:
<bean id="clientService" class"...">
<property name="sorter" ref="clientSorter"/>
</bean>
It is encapsulated because if you change implementation (you change clientSorter bean definition) it doesn't break client use. Maybe, as you use xml files with all written together you are seeing all the details. But believe me, the client code (ClientService)
don't know nothing about its sorter.
It's probably worth mentioning that Encapsulation is somewhat perspective dependent.
public class A {
private B b;
public A() {
this.b = new B();
}
}
public class A {
private B b;
public A(B b) {
this.b = b;
}
}
From the perspective of someone working on the A class, in the second example A knows a lot less about the nature of this.b
Whereas without DI
new A()
vs
new A(new B())
The person looking at this code knows more about the nature of A in the second example.
With DI, at least all that leaked knowledge is in one place.
By putting functionality into a function, does that alone constitute an example of encapsulation or do you need to use objects to have encapsulation?
I'm trying to understand the concept of encapsulation. What I thought was if I go from something like this:
n = n + 1
which is executed out in the wild as part of a big body of code and then I take that, and put it in a function such as this one, then I have encapsulated that addition logic in a method:
addOne(n)
n = n + 1
return n
Or is it more the case that it is only encapsulation if I am hiding the details of addOne from the outside world - like if it is an object method and I use an access modifier of private/protected?
I will be the first to disagree with what seems to be the answer trend. Yes, a function encapsulates some amount of implementation. You don't need an object (which I think you use to mean a class).
See Meyers too.
Perhaps you are confusing abstraction with encapsulation, which is understood in the broader context of object orientation.
Encapsulation properly includes all three of the following:
Abstraction
Implementation Hiding
Division of Responsibility
Abstraction is only one component of encapsulation. In your example you have abstracted the adding functionality from the main body of code in which it once resided. You do this by identifying some commonality in the code - recognizing a concept (addition) over a specific case (adding the number one to the variable n). Because of this ability, abstraction makes an encapsulated component - a method or an object - reusable.
Equally important to the notion of encapsulation is the idea of implementation hiding. This is why encapsulation is discussed in the arena of object orientation. Implementation hiding protects an object from its users and vice versa. In OO, you do this by presenting an interface of public methods to the users of your object, while the implementation of the object takes place inside private methods.
This serves two benefits. First, by limiting access to your object, you avoid a situation where users of the object can leave the object in an invalid state. Second, from the user's perspective, when they use your object they are only loosely coupled to it - if you change your implementation later on, they are not impacted.
Finally, division of responsility - in the broader context of an OO design - is something that must be considered to address encapsulation properly. It's no use encapsulating a random collection of functions - responsibility needs to be cleanly and logically defined so that there is as little overlap or ambiguity as possible. For example, if we have a Toilet object we will want to wall off its domain of responsibilities from our Kitchen object.
In a limited sense, though, you are correct that a function, let's say, 'modularizes' some functionality by abstracting it. But, as I've said, 'encapsulation' as a term is understood in the broader context of object orientation to apply to a form of modularization that meets the three criteria listed above.
Sure it is.
For example, a method that operates only on its parameters would be considered "better encapsulated" than a method that operates on global static data.
Encapsulation has been around long before OOP :)
A method is no more an example of encapsulation than a car is an example of good driving. Encapsulation isn't about the synax, it is a logical design issue. Both objects and methods can exhibit good and bad encapsulation.
The simplest way to think about it is whether the code hides/abstracts the details from other parts of the code that don't have a need to know/care about the implementation.
Going back to the car example:
Automatic transmission offers good encapsulation: As a driver you care about forward/back and speed.
Manual Transmission is bad encapsulation: From the driver's perspective the specific gear required for low/high speeds is generally irrelevant to the intent of the driver.
No, objects aren't required for encapsulation. In the very broadest sense, "encapsulation" just means "hiding the details from view" and in that regard a method is encapsulating its implementation details.
That doesn't really mean you can go out and say your code is well-designed just because you divided it up into methods, though. A program consisting of 500 public methods isn't much better than that same program implemented in one 1000-line method.
In building a program, regardless of whether you're using object oriented techniques or not, you need to think about encapsulation at many different places: hiding the implementation details of a method, hiding data from code that doesn't need to know about it, simplifying interfaces to modules, etc.
Update: To answer your updated question, both "putting code in a method" and "using an access modifier" are different ways of encapsulating logic, but each one acts at a different level.
Putting code in a method hides the individual lines of code that make up that method so that callers don't need to care about what those lines are; they only worry about the signature of the method.
Flagging a method on a class as (say) "private" hides that method so that a consumer of the class doesn't need to worry about it; they only worry about the public methods (or properties) of your class.
The abstract concept of encapsulation means that you hide implementation details. Object-orientation is but one example of the use of ecnapsulation. Another example is the language called module-2 that uses (or used) implementation modules and definition modules. The definition modules hid the actual implementation and therefore provided encapsulation.
Encapsulation is used when you can consider something a black box. Objects are a black box. You know the methods they provide, but not how they are implemented.
[EDIT]
As for the example in the updated question: it depends on how narrow or broad you define encapsulation. Your AddOne example does not hide anything I believe. It would be information hiding/encapsulation if your variable would be an array index and you would call your method moveNext and maybe have another function setValue and getValue. This would allow people (together maybe with some other functions) to navigate your structure and setting and getting variables with them being aware of you using an array. If you programming language would support other or richer concepts you could change the implementation of moveNext, setValue and getValue with changing the meaning and the interface. To me that is encapsulation.
It's a component-level thing
Check this out:
In computer science, Encapsulation is the hiding of the internal mechanisms and data structures of a software component behind a defined interface, in such a way that users of the component (other pieces of software) only need to know what the component does, and cannot make themselves dependent on the details of how it does it. The purpose is to achieve potential for change: the internal mechanisms of the component can be improved without impact on other components, or the component can be replaced with a different one that supports the same public interface.
(I don't quite understand your question, let me know if that link doesn't cover your doubts)
Let's simplify this somewhat with an analogy: you turn the key of your car and it starts up. You know that there's more to it than just the key, but you don't have to know what is going on in there. To you, key turn = motor start. The interface of the key (that is, e.g., the function call) hides the implementation of the starter motor spinning the engine, etc... (the implementation). That's encapsulation. You're spared from having to know what's going on under the hood, and you're happy for it.
If you created an artificial hand, say, to turn the key for you, that's not encapsulation. You're turning the key with additional middleman cruft without hiding anything. That's what your example reminds me of - it's not encapsulating implementation details, even though both are accomplished through function calls. In this example, anyone picking up your code will not thank you for it. They will, in fact, be more likely to club you with your artificial hand.
Any method you can think of to hide information (classes, functions, dynamic libraries, macros) can be used for encapsulation.
Encapsulation is a process in which attributes(data member) and behavior(member function) of a objects in combined together as a single entity refer as class.
The Reference Model of Open Distributed Processing - written by the International Organisation for Standardization - defines the following concepts:
Entity: Any concrete or abstract thing of interest.
Object: A model of an entity. An object is characterised by its behaviour and, dually, by its state.
Behaviour (of an object): A collection of actions with a set of constraints on when they may occur.
Interface: An abstraction of the behaviour of an object that consists of a subset of the interactions of that object together with a set of constraints on when they may occur.
Encapsulation: the property that the information contained in an object is accessible only through interactions at the interfaces supported by the object.
These, you will appreciate, are quite broad. Let us see, however, whether putting functionality within a function can logically be considered to constitute towards encapsulation in these terms.
Firstly, a function is clearly a model of a, 'Thing of interest,' in that it represents an algorithm you (presumably) desire executed and that algorithm pertains to some problem you are trying to solve (and thus is a model of it).
Does a function have behaviour? It certainly does: it contains a collection of actions (which could be any number of executable statements) that are executed under the constraint that the function must be called from somewhere before it can execute. A function may not spontaneously be called at any time, without causal factor. Sounds like legalese? You betcha. But let's plough on, nonetheless.
Does a function have an interface? It certainly does: it has a name and a collection of formal parameters, which in turn map to the executable statements contained in the function in that, once a function is called, the name and parameter list are understood to uniquely identify the collection of executable statements to be run without the calling party's specifying those actual statements.
Does a function have the property that the information contained in the function is accessible only through interactions at the interfaces supported by the object? Hmm, well, it can.
As some information is accessible via its interface, some information must be hidden and inaccessible within the function. (The property such information exhibits is called information hiding, which Parnas defined by arguing that modules should be designed to hide both difficult decisions and decisions that are likely to change.) So what information is hidden within a function?
To see this, we should first consider scale. It's easy to claim that, for example, Java classes can be encapsulated within a package: some of the classes will be public (and hence be the package's interface) and some will be package-private (and hence information-hidden within the package). In encapsulation theory, the classes form nodes and the packages form encapsulated regions, with the entirety forming an encapsulated graph; the graph of classes and packages is called the third graph.
It's also easy to claim that functions (or methods) themselves are encapsulated within classes. Again, some functions will be public (and hence be part of the class's interface) and some will be private (and hence information-hidden within the class). The graph of functions and classes is called the second graph.
Now we come to functions. If functions are to be a means of encapsulation themselves they they should contain some information public to other functions and some information that's information-hidden within the function. What could this information be?
One candidate is given to us by McCabe. In his landmark paper on cyclomatic complexity, Thomas McCabe describes source code where, 'Each node in the graph corresponds to a block of code in the program where the flow is sequential and the arcs correspond to branches taken in the program.'
Let us take the McCabian block of sequential execution as the unit of information that may be encapsulated within a function. As the first block within the function is always the first and only guaranteed block to be executed, we can consider the first block to be public, in that it may be called by other functions. All the other blocks within the function, however, cannot be called by other functions (except in languages that allow jumping into functions mid-flow) and so these blocks may be considered information-hidden within the function.
Taking these (perhaps slightly tenuous) definitions, then we may say yes: putting functionality within a function does constitute to encapsulation. The encapsulation of blocks within functions is the first graph.
There is a caveate, however. Would you consider a package whose every class was public to be encapsulated? According to the definitions above, it does pass the test, as you can say that the interface to the package (i.e., all the public classes) do indeed offer a subset of the package's behaviour to other packages. But the subset in this case is the entire package's behaviour, as no classes are information-hidden. So despite regorously satisfying the above definitions, we feel that it does not satisfy the spirit of the definitions, as surely something must be information-hidden for true encapsulation to be claimed.
The same is true for the exampe you give. We can certainly consider n = n + 1 to be a single McCabian block, as it (and the return statement) are a single, sequential flow of executions. But the function into which you put this thus contains only one block, and that block is the only public block of the function, and therefore there are no information-hidden blocks within your proposed function. So it may satisfy the definition of encapsulation, but I would say that it does not satisfy the spirit.
All this, of course, is academic unless you can prove a benefit such encapsulation.
There are two forces that motivate encapsulation: the semantic and the logical.
Semantic encapsulation merely means encapsulation based on the meaning of the nodes (to use the general term) encapsulated. So if I tell you that I have two packages, one called, 'animal,' and one called 'mineral,' and then give you three classes Dog, Cat and Goat and ask into which packages these classes should be encapsulated, then, given no other information, you would be perfectly right to claim that the semantics of the system would suggest that the three classes be encapsulated within the, 'animal,' package, rather than the, 'mineral.'
The other motivation for encapsulation, however, is logic.
The configuration of a system is the precise and exhaustive identification of each node of the system and the encapsulated region in which it resides; a particular configuration of a Java system is - at the third graph - to identify all the classes of the system and specify the package in which each class resides.
To logically encapsulate a system means to identify some mathematical property of the system that depends on its configuration and then to configure that system so that the property is mathematically minimised.
Encapsulation theory proposes that all encapsulated graphs express a maximum potential number of edges (MPE). In a Java system of classes and packages, for example, the MPE is the maximum potential number of source code dependencies that can exist between all the classes of that system. Two classes within the same package cannot be information-hidden from one another and so both may potentially form depdencies on one another. Two package-private classes in separate packages, however, may not form dependencies on one another.
Encapsulation theory tells us how many packages we should have for a given number of classes so that the MPE is minimised. This can be useful because the weak form of the Principle of Burden states that the maximum potential burden of transforming a collection of entities is a function of the maximum potential number of entities transformed - in other words, the more potential source code dependencies you have between your classes, the greater the potential cost of doing any particular update. Minimising the MPE thus minimises the maximum potential cost of updates.
Given n classes and a requirement of p public classes per package, encapsulation theory shows that the number of packages, r, we should have to minimise the MPE is given by the equation: r = sqrt(n/p).
This also applies to the number of functions you should have, given the total number, n, of McCabian blocks in your system. Functions always have just one public block, as we mentioned above, and so the equation for the number of functions, r, to have in your system simplifies to: r = sqrt(n).
Admittedly, few considered the total number of blocks in their system when practicing encapsulation, but it's readily done at the class/package level. And besides, minimising MPE is almost entirely entuitive: it's done by minimising the number of public classes and trying to uniformly distribute classes over packages (or at least avoid have most packages with, say, 30 classes, and one monster pacakge with 500 classes, in which case the internal MPE of the latter can easily overwhelm the MPE of all the others).
Encapsulation thus involves striking a balance between the semantic and the logical.
All great fun.
in strict object-oriented terminology, one might be tempted to say no, a "mere" function is not sufficiently powerful to be called encapsulation...but in the real world the obvious answer is "yes, a function encapsulates some code".
for the OO purists who bristle at this blasphemy, consider a static anonymous class with no state and a single method; if the AddOne() function is not encapsulation, then neither is this class!
and just to be pedantic, encapsulation is a form of abstraction, not vice-versa. ;-)
It's not normally very meaningful to speak of encapsulation without reference to properties rather than solely methods -- you can put access controls on methods, certainly, but it's difficult to see how that's going to be other than nonsensical without any data scoped to the encapsulated method. Probably you could make some argument validating it, but I suspect it would be tortuous.
So no, you're most likely not using encapsulation just because you put a method in a class rather than having it as a global function.
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).