I have a class that has to take product information from one system's database and save it to another system's product database.
I'll call a product from the first system Product A and the other Product B. Product B's data depends on settings selected from a user.
So Product B may have a GetDescriptions method that looks at a user setting that says use Description1 variable from Product A or they could select Description 2 or they could use the Description already in Product B.
This is fine, but there are a lot of settings and ways to get description. This is the problem, I have a lot of methods that all seem to pertain to Product B. Methods like GetDescription, GetName, GetSku, that are all set according to user settings and all depend on Product A.
Although they all seem to relate to Product B, the class is growing very large and I want to move some of the methods out of the class into another class. I was thinking about using the Factory pattern. Something like below (code just a quick idea)
public class ProductBuilder
{
public ProductB BuildProduct()
{
SkuBuilder.BuildSku(ProductB,ProductA);
ProductDescriptionBuilder.BuildDescription(ProductB,ProductA);
}
}
My questions are: What is a good design for this? Is the method I've proposed above acceptable? Do you see any potential problems with this design?
This is a variation on the factory pattern, and it's a very useful form of design. What you've written suggests a neat three-class design: ProductA containing methods and properties only pertaining to A, ProductB with methods and properties pertaining to B, and ProductBuilder which builds you a B based on an A.
The only pitfalls of this are general OOP design issues. Make sure that ProductConverter doesn't depend on internal knowledge of A or B--in other words, make sure that the public interface to A and B is rich enough for the ProductConverter to do its job. Only A should connect to A's product database and only B should connect to B's product database. Avoid singletons and global state. These are things that you'd do in almost any application, but they'll be special traps in this kind of system.
I would make the suggestion to work with abstraction in your ProductBuilder instead directly with ProductA and ProductB ... This way you can change implementation painless later. Use Interface or abstract class ...
Also it will be easier for testing and mocking.
Related
Recently I have fallen in a situation like this. I'm generalizing the problem because I think it relates more to the structural design than the specific problem.
General problem
There is a hierarchy of classes: an abstract base class Base and some concretions D1, D2, D3 that inherit from it. The class A contains an object's collection of type Base. A requires a computation from some service-class B but B.process() method accepts only a collection of type D1. Let's say that is important because if the input collection contains any other type the value returned is just wrong.
A have an interface that allows clients to add elements to the internal collection, which is not exposed in any other way. The classes in the hierarchy can be constructed for the same clients and pass the new values to A; A have not enough context to construct them itself.
Attempts, questions and thoughts
The major concern for me was the need to determine at runtime the type of each element in the A collection, so can filter the right ones and pass to B.process(). Even if it is possible (it is in my particular problem, more later on) it just seems wrong! I think the object who contains references to the abstract base class shouldn't have to know the concrete instances it holds.
I try to:
Change the parameter type to B.process(c: Base[]) so A doesn't have to downcast the type, but it doesn't solve anything: A still needs to filter the elements or the computation will be wrong.
Pass the complete collection Base[] to B.process() but just defer the problem of selection/downcasting to B.
Put a process() method in Base so D1 can override the behavior (well known polymorphism). The problem here is that a process() returning a SomeValue type just have sense for D1.
Separate the interface that add elements so a more specific A.addD1Element(e: D1) method could allow put D1 objects in a different collection and pass that to B. It should work but also looks... don't know, weird. If method overload based on parameter type is possible at least the process won't be so cumbersome for clients of the class.
Just separate the D1 class of the hierarchy. This is a more aggressive variation of the previous one. The issue is that D1 seems related to the whole hierarchy except for the specific requirements of B.
Those were some of my thoughts on the problem.
For instance, the language used have support to check the type of an object at runtime (instanceof) and it is easy to filter the collection based on that check. But as I say my question is more related to the paradigm. What about a language, say for instance C++, where is less handy to make a check like that?
So what could be a solution to this kind of problem? What kind of refactoring or design pattern could be applied so the problem is easy to treat with or simply fades away?
This question looks related, but I believe this is more general (although I provide a more specific context). The most upvoted answer suggest to split in different collections. This is also a think i'm considering, but that forces to change A implementation every time a new type is added.
Context (problem in action)
I'm asking in a general way because it really intrigues me on that way, but I know most of the time a design can be analyzed only with the context of the particular problem it tries to solve.
The problem at hand is similar to this:
A is a class (some kind of entity, like a DDD entity) that models a sort of agreement or debt a customer incurs for a service. It has different costs including a monthly pay. Base and related classes are Payments of different types. They share a lot in common, although most of it is data (date, amount, interests, etc); but there is at least one type of payment that have different, additional information: the monthly payment (D1). Those payments need to be analyzed carefully so a different class (B) is responsible for that, using more contextual information and all the payments of that type at once. The service needs the additional data that is specific to those payments so cannot receive an abstract Payment type (at least not in that design). Other payments doesn't have the specific information MonthlyPayment does and so they cannot generates the values that business requires and B is generating (doesn't have sense in other payment types).
All payments are stored in the same collection so other methods of the class can process all payments in a generic way.
This is mostly the context. I think the design is not the best, but I fail to see a better one.
Maybe separating only MonthlyPayment (D1) in a different collection as described earlier? But it is not the only payment that requires additional processing (it is the most complex, though), so I could end with different collections for every payment type and no hierarchy at all. Right now there are four payments types and two of them requires additional, specific analysis, but more types can be added later and the issue of need to modify the implementation every time a new type is added persists.
Is this, more discrete approach of different collections by type, a better one here? The abstract base class Payment can still be used for payments that can be manipulated trough the common interface. Also I can use a layer super type or something like that to allow reutilization of common functionality (the language allows a kind of mixing as well) and stop using the base class as root from a hierarchy.
Uf. I am sorry for the length of the text. I hope it is at least readable and clear. Thank you very much in advance.
I'm working on a website with a few colleagues and we are having some differences in how we see the class architecture so I'm posting this too see how the larger community feels about this issue because I presume a lot of people were in a similar situation.
We are using an MVC approach with model implemented through active record pattern. One of the models is the "Product" model related to the product table in our database.
The thing is, we have two main types of products - tangible ( type = 1 ) and non-tangible ( type = 2 ). Throughout the code, we'll have tons of logic related to just this - type of product. ( if tangible do this, if non tangible do that...)
So one approach is - create classes TangibleProduct and NonTangibleProduct and through a factory fetch one or the other. Of course, these classes would have duplicate methods i.e. isTangible() or isNonTangible() would exist in both classes but in one case would return true an in other would return false. (this is just an example ).
I'm expecting to see at least about 30 different methods in classes which will return different values based on product type.
The other approach is to have just one Product class and in each method implement IF blocks and do the logic if product is tangible or non tangible and return results.
I know this is a vague question but I do think that most of the people who are working in an OO environment had a similar situation at some point...
Do you see any long term consequences in choosing one approach over the other, do you see any approach better or worse than the other?
Editing:
Sorry, I might have not been too clear. These two classes would extend the Product class. (i.e. "class TangibleProduct extends Product" and "class NonTangibleProduct extends Product" )
Thanx
Architecturally speaking, since the difference between tangible and intangible products is so fundamental in your domain the best approach is to have separate classes TangibleProduct and IntangibleProduct and handle both as instances implementing IProduct (a variation on the first approach). If your ORM tool allows you to do this then it's all good.
The second approach should be avoided very very hard.
It's generally advisable in OO to have this sort of distinction made in a class hierarchy.
If you use a factory method to create the right subclass, you only do the conditional logic once at creation time instead of in each method where the behavior varies.
You can also more easily add a new type. If the decision logic is repeated in many methods, you have to change them all. If it's consolidated in a factory, you only have to add a branch there and implement the new subclass and all the existing subclasses can frequently be untouched.
It's hard to tell without having access to your full requirements.
It mostly depends on whether there will be any non-trivial methods which
behave very differently for tangible and non-tangible products.
only make sense in the context of tangible or non-tangible products.
When you end up creating a lot of methods which look like this:
public void doSomething()
if (isTangible) {
[...loads of code...]
}
else {
[...loads of different code...]
}
}
you would be better off with separate classes.
I often have the same trouble when I have to design my class for a web application. The requirements are :
- maintainable (no copy-paste for instance)
- layers fully separated (the business layer doesn't have to know which method of the data layer is used)
- high performance : don't load useless data.
First I have a table with all my customers and their addresses :
Code :
Customer
--Id
--Name
--Address
----City
----ZC
----Street
Now I want a table (in another page) with all my customers and the books that they bought, I have a few possibilities :
1/ I create a new class :
Code :
CustomerWithBooks
--Id
--Name
--Books[]
----ID
----name
PRO : I load only the useful data
CONS : I build my class after my UI , and there is copy-paste.
2/ I add Books[] to the first class.
PRO : Everything is in the same class, it's maintainable
CONS : I load the address for nothing. If I don't load the address I can : lazy loading, but I really don't like it, or when I use my class I have to know which method of my DAL i called, and I don't like it.
3/ I use inheritance :
Code :
ClientBase
--ID
--Name
ClientWithBooks : ClientBase
--Books[]
ClientWithAdress : ClientBase
--Address
PRO: really maintenable, and I don't load data for nothing
CONS : What do I do if in one UI I want to show the Books AND the Address ?
4/ ?? I hope there is a perfect solution
You option 1 is close to good, assuming I understand it correctly. A customer and a book are two completely different things. You want that data/functionality separate, and should not inherit from any common base class (that you have made).
As the "Con" you say: I build my class after my UI , and there is copy-paste.
A. If you mock up some UI to help clarify requirements before you settle on your design and code up classes, that's good, not bad.
B. Good arrangement of your domain objects helps eliminate copy/paste, not cause it. If you have some seemingly repetitive code within your well-arranged classes (often data access code) that's typical, don't worry. You can address with with a good data-access layer/tool, good shared logging resources, etc. Repetitive code within your classes just means you have more design improvement to do, not that having separate classes for all your domain realities is bad.
On the page where you need to deal with both customers and books, you will use customer objects and book objects, and probably a books collection object. And depending on how your db/object-model are set up, you might be dealing with other objects to get form customer to the books they bought. For example, the customers probably buy 1 or more books at the same time, and these are tied to an Order object, which has a reference to a customer. So, you'll probably go from a
Customer to an
Orders collection containing all of that customers orders to the individual
Order objects and from there to a corresponding
Books collection containing all the
Book objects that relate to that Order object.
None of these need to inherit from each other. Now, let's say getting all the books bought by a customer is something you do a lot, and you want to streamline that. You then want to have a Books collection directly off of Customer that gives you that, though the sql queries you use to get those books still goes through Orders in the db. You must start with your object model (and tables behind the scenes) reflecting reality accurately. Even if this give you seemingly many classes, it is more simple in the end. You might end up with some inheritance, you might not.
I would to avoid 2 and 3, because it locks you into a restrictive hierarchy that doesn't really meet your needs. As you point out, there could be any combination of things that you want, such as customers and their books, and maybe their address, and maybe their ordering history. Or maybe you'll want a book with it's list of customers. Since your underlying business information is not really hierarchical, you should try to avoid making your object model unnecessarily hierarchical. Otherwise, you will build in restrictions that will cause you a lot of headaches later, because you can't think of all the scenerios now.
I think you're on the right track with 1. I would say to create some basic classes for Customers and Books, and then create a CustomerBook association class that contains an instance both the customer and the book. Then you can have you methods worry about how to load the data into that list for a given scenerio.
I would stick the address into Customer, and have a separate collection of books.
Bookshelf
--Books[]
This way, a Customer doesn't have, but can have, one or more books associated to him. PHP-code example following:
class BookshelfFactory {
public static function getBookshelf(Customer $customer) {
// perform some fetching here
return $bookshelf;
}
}
You're sort of designing backwards from an OOA&D standpoint. It's normal to use data-driven design at the persistence (usually a relational database) layer. But in OOA&D it's more normal to think of the messages an object will send and receive (you model an object's methods not its members). I would think about it this way:
Customer
+getBooks():List<Book>
+getAddress():Address
I think your problem is an issue for the implementation of your data mapping layer.
You can have highly performant queries with JOINS that return you the Customers as well as their Books.
Your mapping layer maps this into the appropriate unique objects and is responsible for creating the right 1-many aggregation for your objects.
In addition you could cater for shallow loading, for display properties to save unnecessary amounts of data to be transferred where you only need a few attributes per object.
I am developing a class library which will include the object Car.
The dilemma is, Car itself will be a class with fields such as Registration Number, and other general information on the car.
But a car has an engine, chassis, etc. These objects need to be modelled too. Should they be classes embedded within Car? If not, what is the usage scenario of an embedded class?
I've learnt that composition is "part of", so you can model seperate classes and use the engine type, for example, at the field level of the car to achieve this. However, "aggregation", which is a "has a" relationship with the type being passed in the ctor, also applies (a car "has an" engine).
Which way do I go?
EDIT: I am currently on homework hence the lack of a reply from me. The class library is for a web app based around cars. I am a professional developer (I develop in .NET for a living but as a junior) so this is not a homework question.
Thanks
It really depends on your application.
For example, you could implement the wheels as separate classes, containing information about what tyre is on it, how worn it is, etc. but if your app doesn't even care about the wheels then the entire class is a waste of code.
I can see three use cases for composition:
The owning class has gotten overly complicated and should be broken down.
The owning class has multiple copies of a set of properties that could be mapped into a class. This allows you to bind all those properties together.
The contained object may need to be inspected or considered separately from the object that owns it (eg. you might want to move the Engine object to another car) or may be replaced as a single unit.
In summary: Use composition as a tool for encapsulating complexity or eliminating repetition. If it doesn't serve one of those purposes it probably isn't worth making a new class for.
A class should have as few responsibilities as possible and encapsulate and delegate other functionality to other classes. Lots of a small, simple classes that do one thing is a sign of a readable, stable codebase.
Yes, a car will "have" an engine, but I'd suggest using an interface for this and similar "has a" relationships. Again, depending on the professor, you might get bonus points for having a factory create different cars (appropriate, no?):
public class Car
{
private Engine engine;
public Car(Engine engine)
{
this.engine = engine;
}
public void accelerate()
{
this.engine.goFaster();
}
public void decelerate()
{
this.engine.goSlower();
}
}
public interface Engine
{
public void goFaster();
public void goSlower();
}
public class ReallyFastEngine implements Engine
{
public void goFaster()
{
// some code that goes really fast
}
public void goSlower()
{
// some code that goes slower
}
}
public class NotAsFastEngine implements Engine
{
public void goFaster()
{
// some code that goes not as fast
}
public void goSlower()
{
// some code that goes slower
}
}
public class CarFactory()
{
public static Car createFastCar()
{
return new Car(new ReallyFastEngine());
}
public static Car createNotAsFastCar()
{
return new Car(new NotAsFastEngine());
}
}
Seeing as it is homework, and depending on the inclinations of your tutor/professor/teacher, you are probably better to go down the route of writing a separate classes for the engine, wheels and so on. Even though it may be completely over-engineered, and your application may not care about them, it is possible that your homework will be marked by standards such as:
"Did they identify an engine class"
"Does it have sensible methods like Start()"
"Mark them down for lumping everything in one big class that is actually simpler, because they clearly don't understand composition"
Or whatever, and not the kinds of standards that the more pragmatic people in this thread apply to their own designs.
Only break down the model of the car into pieces that will be exposed as separate entities outside the scope of the car. Another way to think about it is do you really understand how your car gets started when you turn the key? As far as the typical driver is concerned, everything under the hood is one big (and noisy) black box. The auto-engineers know the common parts that need maintenance by the car owner and have explicitly designed them for a different level of user interaction, things like the oil dipstick or coolant reservoir refill cap.
Can you model each piece of the car? Sure. Is it helpful to model the individual spark plugs? Probably not.
Do you need cars with different attributes like color or size? Do you need cars with different capabilities like passenger or towing capacity? The one place that is different is if you need cars with different behaviors. This is where you really need to think about modeling a Driver object which has attributes, from simple ones like reaction-time to complex ones like aggressiveness.
Modeling vehicles as examples of object orientation or inheritance is problematic because the examples don't really explain the true distinctions between essential attributes that define a class. It's not new to StackOverflow but this question isn't a duplicate either, see this SO thread. I had this same discussion with a friend of mine and posted a log of it on my blog. Read up on the different aircraft types the FAA recognizes and how the regulations for each type are subdivided. There are lots of different types of aircraft, the biggest separation is between powered and unpowered.
Check out the definitions used by the FAA:
Aircraft means a device that is used
or intended to be used for flight in
the air.
Airplane means an engine-driven
fixed-wing aircraft heavier than air,
that is supported in flight by the
dynamic reaction of the air against
its wings.
Airship means an engine-driven
lighter-than-air aircraft that can be
steered.
There is also lighter-than-air and heavier-than-air. A hot-air balloon is unpowered and lighter-than-air. A blimp is powered and lighter-than-air. A glider is unpowered and heavier-than-air. A Boeing 757 is powered and heavier-than air but adds another category of 'fixed-wing' which is unlike a helicopter which is also powered and heavier-than-air but is 'rotary-wing'.
Here is the first four in the form of a table:
| Powered | Unpowered
---------------------------------------------------
Lighter-than-air | Blimp | Hot-air balloon
Heavier-than-air | 737 | Glider
You get the picture.
You can't just say you'll model the engine separately from the car because a car without an engine might be a whole different animal. A car without an engine is nothing like a trailer, which also doesn't have an engine but never will either. In these cases neither 'is-a' nor 'has-a' fits in the concrete way we build objects. You don't declare a blimp as being a aircraft that 'is-a' lighter-than-air, so is a hot-air balloon. The fact that they are both lighter-than-air doesn't make them related in any way except the physics they exploit. The distinction is important because the rules and regulations that apply are different. From the other angle, we don't describe a blimp as a hot-air balloon that 'has-a' engine. The aircraft aren't physically related, the relationship is how they should be handled.
If you don't need to define your objects to that level of detail, you may not need to model them to that level of detail either.
Car will be an top hierarchy object. Including simple fields like Number, ID or description.
And will have complicated fields like Engine, which is an object by itself.
So the Car will look something like:
class Car{
String ID;
Engine engine;
}
That a has-a relation.
One criteria you can have to decide whether the classes for Engine, Chasis etc.
needs to be present as an inner class (embedded class) is whether instance of
these classes can be used elsewhere in your application. In such cases the
decision is simple and it is to make these classes exist separately
(not as inner classes).
Even if these classes are not used elsewhere in your application then other
criteria can be testability. With these classes embedded inside and with your
design is it possible to have unit tests that can appropriately test your
code providing a good coverage.
For example say, if you have made an instance variable which references an
Engine object and this variable is being initialized in the Constructor of Car.And
your Engine class has some methods which needs to be tested. Then how can
you add unit tests to check the code in Engine class ? Probably you would
have some methods in Car class which expose the behavior or Engine class allowing
you to write unit tests. Then the question is if there is a need to expose
the behavior of Engine class wouldn't it be better that the Engine class
stands on it own?
Alternatively there might not be a need to explicitly test the methods in
Engine class and unit testing the methods in Car covers the Engine class code
as well. Then it reflects tight integration of Engine class with the Car class
and would mean it can remain as an inner class.
It depends on what it is you're trying to do. Trying to design a 'Car' class (or any other class for that matter) without an idea of the use cases is an exercise in futility.
You will design the classes and their relationships and interactions very differently depending on the use cases you're trying to enable.
I asked a similar question yesterday that was specific to a technology, but now I find myself wondering about the topic in the broad sense.
For simplicity's sake, we have two classes, A and B, where B is derived from A. B truly "is a" A, and all of the routines defined in A have the same meaning in B.
Let's say we want to display a list of As, some of which are actually Bs. As we traverse our list of As, if the current object is actually a B, we want to display some of Bs additional properties....or maybe we just want to color the Bs differently, but neither A nor B have any notion of "color" or "display stuff".
Solutions:
Make the A class semi-aware of B by basically including a method called isB() in A that returns false. B will override the method and return true. Display code would have a check like: if (currentA.isB()) B b = currentA;
Provide a display() method in A that B can override.... but then we start merging the UI and the model. I won't consider this unless there is some cool trick I'm not seeing.
Use instanceof to check if the current A object to be displayed is really a B.
Just add all the junk from B to A, even though it doesn't apply to A. Basically just contain a B (that does not inherit from A) in A and set it to null until it applies. This is somewhat attractive. This is similar to #1 I guess w/ composition over inheritance.
It seems like this particular problem should come up from time to time and have an obvious solution.
So I guess the question maybe really boils down to:
If I have a subclass that extends a base class by adding additional functionality (not just changing the existing behavior of the base class), am I doing something tragically wrong? It all seems to instantly fall apart as soon as we try to act on a collection of objects that may be A or B.
A variant of option 2 (or hybrid of 1 and 2) may make sense: after all, polymorphism is the standard solution to "Bs are As but need to behave differently in situation X." Agreed, a display() method would probably tie the model to the UI too closely, but presumably the different renderings you want at the UI level reflect semantic or behavioural differences at the model level. Could those be captured in a method? For example, instead of an outright getDisplayColour() method, could it be a getPriority() (for example) method, to which A and B return different values but it is still up to the UI to decide how to translate that into a colour?
Given your more general question, however, of "how can we handle additional behaviour that we can't or won't allow to be accessed polymorphically via the base class," for example if the base class isn't under our control, your options are probably option 3, the Visitor pattern or a helper class. In both cases you are effectively farming out the polymorphism to an external entity -- in option 3, the UI (e.g. the presenter or controller), which performs an instanceOf check and does different things depending on whether it's a B or not; in Visitor or the helper case, the new class. Given your example, Visitor is probably overkill (also, if you were not able/willing to change the base class to accommodate it, it wouldn't be possible to implement it I think), so I'd suggest a simple class called something like "renderer":
public abstract class Renderer {
public static Renderer Create(A obj) {
if (obj instanceOf B)
return new BRenderer();
else
return new ARenderer();
}
public abstract Color getColor();
}
// implementations of ARenderer and BRenderer per your UI logic
This encapsulates the run-time type checking and bundles the code up into reasonably well-defined classes with clear responsibilities, without the conceptual overhead of Visitor. (Per GrizzlyNyo's answer, though, if your hierarchy or function set is more complex than what you've shown here, Visitor could well be more appropriate, but many people find Visitor hard to get their heads around and I would tend to avoid it for simple situations -- but your mileage may vary.)
The answer given by itowlson covers pretty well most part of the question. I will now deal with the very last paragraph as simply as I can.
Inheritance should be implemented for reuse, for your derived class to be reused in old code, not for your class reusing parts of the base class (you can use aggregation for that).
From that standpoint, if you have a class that is to be used on new code with some new functionality, but should be used transparently as a former class, then inheritance is your solution. New code can use the new functionality and old code will seamlessly use your new objects.
While this is the general intention, there are some common pitfals, the line here is subtle and your question is about precisely that line. If you have a collection of objects of type base, that should be because those objects are meant to be used only with base's methods. They are 'bases', behave like bases.
Using techniques as 'instanceof' or downcasts (dynamic_cast<>() in C++) to detect the real runtime type is something that I would flag in a code review and only accept after having the programmer explain to great detail why any other option is worse than that solution. I would accept it, for example, in itowlson's answer under the premises that the information is not available with the given operations in base. That is, the base type does not have any method that would offer enough information for the caller to determine the color. And if it does not make sense to include such operation: besides the prepresentation color, are you going to perform any operation on the objects based on that same information? If logic depends on the real type, then the operation should be in base class to be overriden in derived classes. If that is not possible (the operation is new and only for some given subtypes) there should at least be an operation in the base to allow the caller to determine that a downcast will not fail. And then again, I would really require a sound reason for the caller code to require knowledge of the real type. Why does the user want to see it in different colors? Will the user perform different operations on each one of the types?
If you endup requiring to use code to bypass the type system, your design has a strange smell to it. Of course, never say never, but you can surely say: avoid depending on instanceof or downcasts for logic.
This looks like text book case for the Visitor design pattern (also known as "Double Dispatch").
See this answer for link to a thorough explanation on the Visitor and Composite patterns.