I'm in a project that takes the Single Responsibility Principle pretty seriously. We have a lot of small classes and things are quite simple. However, we have an anemic domain model - there is no behaviour in any of our model classes, they are just property bags. This isn't a complaint about our design - it actually seems to work quite well
During design reviews, SRP is brought out whenever new behaviour is added to the system, and so new behaviour typically ends up in a new class. This keeps things very easily unit testable, but I am perplexed sometimes because it feels like pulling behaviour out of the place where it's relevant.
I'm trying to improve my understanding of how to apply SRP properly. It seems to me that SRP is in opposition to adding business modelling behaviour that shares the same context to one object, because the object inevitably ends up either doing more than one related thing, or doing one thing but knowing multiple business rules that change the shape of its outputs.
If that is so, then it feels like the end result is an Anemic Domain Model, which is certainly the case in our project. Yet the Anemic Domain Model is an anti-pattern.
Can these two ideas coexist?
EDIT: A couple of context related links:
SRP - http://www.objectmentor.com/resources/articles/srp.pdf
Anemic Domain Model - http://martinfowler.com/bliki/AnemicDomainModel.html
I'm not the kind of developer who just likes to find a prophet and follow what they say as gospel. So I don't provide links to these as a way of stating "these are the rules", just as a source of definition of the two concepts.
Rich Domain Model (RDM) and Single Responsibility Principle (SRP) are not necessarily at odds. RDM is more at odds with a very specialised subclassof SRP - the model advocating "data beans + all business logic in controller classes" (DBABLICC).
If you read Martin's SRP chapter, you'll see his modem example is entirely in the domain layer, but abstracting the DataChannel and Connection concepts as separate classes. He keeps the Modem itself as a wrapper, since that is useful abstraction for client code. It's much more about proper (re)factoring than mere layering. Cohesion and coupling are still the base principles of design.
Finally, three issues:
As Martin notes himself, it's not always easy to see the different 'reasons for change'. The very concepts of YAGNI, Agile, etc. discourage the anticipation of future reasons for change, so we shouldn't invent ones where they aren't immediately obvious. I see 'premature, anticipated reasons for change' as a real risk in applying SRP and should be managed by the developer.
Further to the previous, even correct (but unnecessary anal) application of SRP may result in unwanted complexity. Always think about the next poor sod who has to maintain your class: will the diligent abstraction of trivial behaviour into its own interfaces, base classes and one-line implementations really aid his understanding of what should simply have been a single class?
Software design is often about getting the best compromise between competing forces. For example, a layered architecture is mostly a good application of SRP, but what about the fact that, for example, the change of a property of a business class from, say, a boolean to an enum has a ripple effect across all the layers - from db through domain, facades, web service, to GUI? Does this point to bad design? Not necessarily: it points to the fact that your design favours one aspect of change to another.
I'd have to say "yes", but you have to do your SRP properly. If the same operation applies to only one class, it belongs in that class, wouldn't you say? How about if the same operation applies to multiple classes? In that case, if you want to follow the OO model of combining data and behavior, you'd put the operation into a base class, no?
I suspect that from your description, you're ending up with classes which are basically bags of operations, so you've essentially recreated the C-style of coding: structs and modules.
From the linked SRP paper:
"The SRP is one of the simplest of the principle, and one of the hardest to get right."
The quote from the SRP paper is very correct; SRP is hard to get right. This one and OCP are the two elements of SOLID that simply must be relaxed to at least some degree in order to actually get a project done. Overzealous application of either will very quickly produce ravioli code.
SRP can indeed be taken to ridiculous lengths, if the "reasons for change" are too specific. Even a POCO/POJO "data bag" can be thought of as violating SRP, if you consider the type of a field changing as a "change". You'd think common sense would tell you that a field's type changing is a necessary allowance for "change", but I've seen domain layers with wrappers for built-in value types; a hell that makes ADM look like Utopia.
It's often good to ground yourself with some realistic goal, based on readability or a desired cohesion level. When you say, "I want this class to do one thing", it should have no more or less than what is necessary to do it. You can maintain at least procedural cohesion with this basic philosophy. "I want this class to maintain all the data for an invoice" will generally allow SOME business logic, even summing subtotals or calculating sales tax, based on the object's responsibility to know how to give you an accurate, internally-consistent value for any field it contains.
I personally do not have a big problem with a "lightweight" domain. Just having the one role of being the "data expert" makes the domain object the keeper of every field/property pertinent to the class, as well as all calculated field logic, any explicit/implicit data type conversions, and possibly the simpler validation rules (i.e. required fields, value limits, things that would break the instance internally if allowed). If a calculation algorithm, perhaps for a weighted or rolling average, is likely to change, encapsulate the algorithm and refer to it in the calculated field (that's just good OCP/PV).
I don't consider such a domain object to be "anemic". My perception of that term is a "data bag", a collection of fields that has no concept whatsoever of the outside world or even the relation between its fields other than that it contains them. I've seen that too, and it's not fun tracking down inconsistencies in object state that the object never knew was a problem. Overzealous SRP will lead to this by stating that a data object is not responsible for any business logic, but common sense would generally intervene first and say that the object, as the data expert, must be responsible for maintaining a consistent internal state.
Again, personal opinion, I prefer the Repository pattern to Active Record. One object, with one responsibility, and very little if anything else in the system above that layer has to know anything about how it works. Active Record requires the domain layer to know at least some specific details about the persistence method or framework (whether that be the names of stored procedures used to read/write each class, framework-specific object references, or attributes decorating the fields with ORM information), and thus injects a second reason to change into every domain class by default.
My $0.02.
I've found following the solid principles did in fact lead me away from DDD's rich domain model, in the end, I found I didn't care. More to the point, I found that the logical concept of a domain model, and a class in whatever language weren't mapped 1:1, unless we were talking about a facade of some sort.
I wouldn't say this is exactly a c-style of programming where you have structs and modules, but rather you'll probably end up with something more functional, I realise the styles are similar, but the details make a big difference. I found my class instances end up behaving like higher order functions, partial functions application, lazily evaluated functions, or some combination of the above. It's somewhat ineffable for me, but that's the feeling I get from writing code following TDD + SOLID, it ended up behaving like a hybrid OO/Functional style.
As for inheritance being a bad word, i think that's more due to the fact that the inheritance isn't sufficiently fine grained enough in languages like Java/C#. In other languages, it's less of an issue, and more useful.
I like the definition of SRP as:
"A class has only one business reason to change"
So, as long as behaviours can be grouped into single "business reasons" then there is no reason for them not to co-exist in the same class. Of course, what defines a "business reason" is open to debate (and should be debated by all stakeholders).
Before I get into my rant, here's my opinion in a nutshell: somewhere everything has got to come together... and then a river runs through it.
I am haunted by coding.
=======
Anemic data model and me... well, we pal around a lot. Maybe it's just the nature of small to medium sized applications with very little business logic built into them. Maybe I am just a bit 'tarded.
However, here's my 2 cents:
Couldn't you just factor out the code in the entities and tie it up to an interface?
public class Object1
{
public string Property1 { get; set; }
public string Property2 { get; set; }
private IAction1 action1;
public Object1(IAction1 action1)
{
this.action1 = action1;
}
public void DoAction1()
{
action1.Do(Property1);
}
}
public interface IAction1
{
void Do(string input1);
}
Does this somehow violate the principles of SRP?
Furthermore, isn't having a bunch of classes sitting around not tied to each other by anything but the consuming code actually a larger violation of SRP, but pushed up a layer?
Imagine the guy writing the client code sitting there trying to figure out how to do something related to Object1. If he has to work with your model he will be working with Object1, the data bag, and a bunch of 'services' each with a single responsibility. It'll be his job to make sure all those things interact properly. So now his code becomes a transaction script, and that script will itself contain every responsibility necessary to properly complete that particular transaction (or unit of work).
Furthermore, you could say, "no brah, all he needs to do is access the service layer. It's like Object1Service.DoActionX(Object1). Piece of cake." Well then, where's the logic now? All in that one method? Your still just pushing code around, and no matter what, you'll end up with data and the logic being separated.
So in this scenario, why not expose to the client code that particular Object1Service and have it's DoActionX() basically just be another hook for your domain model? By this I mean:
public class Object1Service
{
private Object1Repository repository;
public Object1Service(Object1Repository repository)
{
this.repository = repository;
}
// Tie in your Unit of Work Aspect'ing stuff or whatever if need be
public void DoAction1(Object1DTO object1DTO)
{
Object1 object1 = repository.GetById(object1DTO.Id);
object1.DoAction1();
repository.Save(object1);
}
}
You still have factored out the actual code for Action1 from Object1 but for all intensive purposes, have a non-anemic Object1.
Say you need Action1 to represent 2 (or more) different operations that you would like to make atomic and separated into their own classes. Just create an interface for each atomic operation and hook it up inside of DoAction1.
That's how I might approach this situation. But then again, I don't really know what SRP is all about.
Convert your plain domain objects to ActiveRecord pattern with a common base class to all domain objects. Put common behaviour in the base class and override the behaviour in derived classes wherever necessary or define the new behaviour wherever required.
Related
Well from the book POEAA, Martin Fowler introduced this idea of Unit of Work. It works very well if you want to have auto-commit system, in which your domain model uses Unit of work to label itself as new, dirty, removed or clean. Then you only need to call UnitofWork.commit() and all changes of models will be saved. Below is a domain model class with such methods:
public abstract class DomainModel{
protected void markNew(){
UnitOfWork.getCurrent().registerNew(this);
}
protected void markDirty(){
UnitOfWork.getCurrent().registerDirty(this);
}
protected void markRemoved(){
UnitOfWork.getCurrent().registerRemoved(this);
}
protected void markClean(){
UnitOfWork.getCurrent().registerClean(this);
}
}
With this implementation, you can mark a domain model as any save state through business logic method:
public class Message extends DomainModel{
public void updateContent(User user, string content){
// This method update message content if the the message posted time is not longer than 24 hrs, and the user has permission to update messate content.
if(!canUpdateContent(user) && timeExpired()) throw new IllegalOperationException("An error occurred, cannot update content.");
this.content = content;
markDirty();
}
}
At first glance, it looks marvelous, since you dont have to manually call insert, save and delete method on your repository/data mapper. However, I see two problems with this approach:
Tight coupling of domain model with Unit of work: This implementation of Unit of Work will make domain models dependent on UnitOfWork class. UnitOfWork has to come from somewhere, the implementation of static class/method is bad. To improve this, we need to switch to dependency injection, and pass an instance of UnitOfWork to the constructor of Domain Model. But this still couples domain model with Unit of work. Also ideally a domain model should only accept parameters for its data fields(ie. Message domain model's constructor should only accept whats relevant to message, such as title, content, dateposted, etc). If it will need to accept a parameter of UnitOfWork, it will pollute the constructor.
The domain model now becomes persistent-aware: In modern application design, especially DDD, we strive for persistent-ignorant model. The domain model shouldnt care about whether it is being persisted or not, it should not even care about whether there's persistence layer at all. By having those markNew(), markDirty(), etc methods on domain model, our domain models now have the responsibility of informing the rest of our application that it needs to be persisted. Although it does not handle the persistence logic, the model still is aware of the existence of persistence layer. I am not sure if this is a good idea, to me it seems to have violate the single responsibility principle. There's also an article talking about this:
http://blog.sapiensworks.com/post/2014/06/04/Unit-Of-Work-is-the-new-Singleton.aspx/
So what do you think? Does the original Unit of Work pattern described in Martin Fowler violate good OO design principles? If so, do you consider it an antipattern?
To be entirely accurate, there is no one "Martin Fowler's implementation of Unit of Work". In the book he distinguishes between two types of registration of a modified object into a UoW.
Caller registration where only the calling object knows about the UoW and has to mark the (callee) domain object as dirty with it. No anti pattern or bad practice here as far as I can tell.
Object registration where the domain object registers itself with the UoW. Here again there are two options :
For this scheme to work the Unit of Work needs either to be passed to
the object or to be in a well-known place. Passing the Unit of Work
around is tedious but usually no problem to have it present in some
kind of session object.
The code sample is using UnitOfWork.GetCurrent() which is closer to the latter option and admittedly widely considered an anti-pattern today because of the tightly coupled, implicit dependency (Service Locator style).
However, if the first option was chosen, i.e. passing the UoW over to the domain object, and let's assume a Unit of Work abstraction, would it be bad practice ? From a dependency management perspective, clearly not.
Now remains the persistence ignorance aspect. Can we say about an object which can signal another object it's just been edited/created/removed that it is persistence-aware ? Highly debatable.
In comparison, if we look at more recent domain object implementations out there, for instance ones in Event Sourcing, we can see that aggregates can be responsible for keeping a list of their own uncommitted changes which is more or less the same idea. Does this violate persistence ignorance ? I don't think so.
Bottom line : the specific code Fowler chose to illustrate one of many UoW possibilities would clearly be considered bad practice now, but much more so with regard to problem #1 you pointed out and not really problem #2. And this doesn't disqualify other implementations he writes about, nor the whole UoW pattern whose change-tracking mechanics are anyway most of the time hidden away in third party library magic (read: ORM) nowadays and not hardcoded as in the book's example.
From a DDD perspective, this is something you shouldn't do.
DDD contains the following rule:
An application service should only modify one aggregate per transaction.
If you follow this rule, it's clear which aggregate changed during an app service operation. This aggregate then in turn needs to be passed to a repository for saving to the DB:
repository.update(theAggregate);
No other call is required. This defeats the gain from the pattern in the form you describe it.
On the other hand, the pattern you describe introduces a dependency from the domain to the persistence mechanism (depending on the design either a real dependency or just a conceptual dependency). Now this is something you should avoid, because it increases the complexity of your model a lot (not only internally, also for clients).
As a result, you shouldn't use the pattern in this form together with DDD.
Outside of DDD
Having that said, I think the pattern is one of many solutions to a certain problem. That solution has pros and cons, some of which you describe in the question. In some situations, the pattern may be the best trade-off, so
No, this is not an anti-pattern.
I don't think the model should not have a dependency on the UoW. It would be more like a repository that would depend on the UoW and, in turn, the repository would depend on the model.
If your repositories only depend on an abstract UoW, then the only piece of the puzzle that knows about the persistence technology is the concrete UoW.
The only classes I tend to allow the model to depend on are other pieces of the model: domain services, factories, etc.
In the SRP, a 'responsibility' is usually described as 'a reason to change', so that each class (or object?) should have only one reason someone should have to go in there and change it.
But if you take this to the extreme fine-grain you could say that an object adding two numbers together is a responsibility and a possible reason to change. Therefore the object should contain no other logic, because it would produce another reason for change.
I'm curious if there is anyone out there that has any strategies for 'scoping', the single-responsibility principle that's slightly less objective?
it comes down to the context of what you are modeling. I've done some extensive writing and presenting on the SOLID principles and I specifically address your question in my discussions of Single Responsibility.
The following first appeared in the Jan/Feb 2010 issue of Code Magazine, and is available online at "S.O.L.I.D. Software Development, One Step at a Time"
The Single Responsibility Principle
says that a class should have one, and
only one, reason to change.
This may seem counter-intuitive at
first. Wouldn’t it be easier to say
that a class should only have one
reason to exist? Actually, no-one
reason to exist could very easily be
taken to an extreme that would cause
more harm than good. If you take it to
that extreme and build classes that
have one reason to exist, you may end
up with only one method per class.
This would cause a large sprawl of
classes for even the most simple of
processes, causing the system to be
difficult to understand and difficult
to change.
The reason that a class should have
one reason to change, instead of one
reason to exist, is the business
context in which you are building the
system. Even if two concepts are
logically different, the business
context in which they are needed may
necessitate them becoming one and the
same. The key point of deciding when a
class should change is not based on a
purely logical separation of concepts,
but rather the business’s perception
of the concept. When the business
perception and context has changed,
then you have a reason to change the
class. To understand what
responsibilities a single class should
have, you need to first understand
what concept should be encapsulated by
that class and where you expect the
implementation details of that concept
to change.
Consider an engine in a car, for
example. Do you care about the inner
working of the engine? Do you care
that you have a specific size of
piston, camshaft, fuel injector, etc?
Or, do you only care that the engine
operates as expected when you get in
the car? The answer, of course,
depends entirely on the context in
which you need to use the engine.
If you are a mechanic working in an
auto shop, you probably care about the
inner workings of the engine. You need
to know the specific model, the
various part sizes, and other
specifications of the engine. If you
don’t have this information available,
you likely cannot service the engine
appropriately. However, if you are an
average everyday person that only
needs transportation from point A to
point B, you will likely not need that
level of information. The notion of
the individual pistons, spark plugs,
pulleys, belts, etc., is almost
meaningless to you. You only care that
the car you are driving has an engine
and that it performs correctly.
The engine example drives straight to
the heart of the Single Responsibility
Principle. The contexts of driving the
car vs. servicing the engine provide
two different notions of what should
and should not be a single concept-a
reason for change. In the context of
servicing the engine, every individual
part needs to be separate. You need to
code them as single classes and ensure
they are all up to their individual
specifications. In the context of
driving a car, though, the engine is a
single concept that does not need to
be broken down any further. You would
likely have a single class called
Engine, in this case. In either case,
the context has determined what the
appropriate separation of
responsibilities is.
I tend to think in term of "velocity of change" of the business requirements rather than "reason to change" .
The question is indeed how likely stuffs will change together, not whether they could change or not.
The difference is subtle, but helps me. Let's consider the example on wikipedia about the reporting engine:
if the likelihood that the content and the template of the report change at the same time is high, it can be one component because they are apparently related. (It can also be two)
but if the likelihood that the content change without the template is important, then it must be two components, because they are not related. (Would be dangerous to have one)
But I know that's a personal interpretation of the SRP.
Also, a second technique that I like is: "Describe your class in one sentence". It usually helps me to identify if there is a clear responsibility or not.
I don't see performing a task like adding two numbers together as a responsibility. Responsibilities come in different shapes and sizes but they certainly should be seen as something larger than performing a single function.
To understand this better, it is probably helpful to clearly differentiate between what a class is responsible for and what a method does. A method should "do only one thing" (e.g. add two numbers, though for most purposes '+' is a method that does that already) while a class should present a single clear "responsibility" to it's consumers. It's responsibility is at a much higher level than a method.
A class like Repository has a clear and singular responsibility. It has multiple methods like Save and Load, but a clear responsibility to provide persistence support for Person entities. A class may also co-ordinate and/or abstract the responsibilities of dependent classes, again presenting this as a single responsibility to other consuming classes.
The bottom line is if the application of SRP is leading to single-method classes who's whole purpose seems to be just to wrap the functionality of that method in a class then SRP is not being applied correctly.
A simple rule of thumb I use is that: the level or grainularity of responsibility should match the level or grainularity of the "entity" in question. Obviously the purpose of a method will always be more precise than that of a class, or service, or component.
A good strategiy for evaluating the level of responsibility can be to use an appropriate metaphor. If you can relate what you are doing to something that exists in the real world it can help give you another view of the problem you're trying to solve - including being able to identify appropriate levels of abstraction and responsibility.
#Derick bailey: nice explanation
Some additions: It is totally acceptable that application of SRP is contextual base.
The question still remains: are there any objective ways to define if a given class violates SRP ?
Some design contexts are quite obvious ( like the car example by Derick ) but otherwise contexts in which a class's behaviour has to defined remains fuzzy many-a-times.
For such cases, it might well be helpful if the fuzzy class behaviour is analysed by splitting it's responsibilities into different classes and then measuring the impact of new behavioural and structural relations that has emanated because of the split.
As soon the split is done, the reasons to keep the splitted responsibilities or to back-merge them into single responsibility becomes obvious at once.
I have applied this approach and which has lead good results for me.
But my search to look for 'objective ways of defining a class responsibility' still continues.
I respectful don't agree when Chris Nicola's above says that "a class should presents a single clear "responsibility" to it's consumers
I think SRP is about having a good design inside the class, not class' customers.
To me it's not very clear what a responsability is, and the prove is the number of questions that this concept arises.
"single reason to change"
or
"if the description contains the word
"and" then it needs to be split"
leads to the question: where is the limit? At the end, any class with 2 public methods has 2 reasons to change, isn't it?
For me, the true SRP leads to the Facade pattern, where you have a class that simply delegades the calls to other classes
For example:
class Modem
send()
receive()
Refactors to ==>
class ModemSender
class ModelReceiver
+
class Modem
send() -> ModemSender.send()
receive() -> ModemReceiver.receive()
Opinions are wellcome
I must confess I'm somewhat of an OOP skeptic. Bad pedagogical and laboral experiences with object orientation didn't help. So I converted into a fervent believer in Visual Basic (the classic one!).
Then one day I found out C++ had changed and now had the STL and templates. I really liked that! Made the language useful. Then another day MS decided to apply facial surgery to VB, and I really hated the end result for the gratuitous changes (using "end while" instead of "wend" will make me into a better developer? Why not drop "next" for "end for", too? Why force the getter alongside the setter? Etc.) plus so much Java features which I found useless (inheritance, for instance, and the concept of a hierarchical framework).
And now, several years afterwards, I find myself asking this philosophical question: Is inheritance really needed?
The gang-of-four say we should favor object composition over inheritance. And after thinking of it, I cannot find something you can do with inheritance you cannot do with object aggregation plus interfaces. So I'm wondering, why do we even have it in the first place?
Any ideas? I'd love to see an example of where inheritance would be definitely needed, or where using inheritance instead of composition+interfaces can lead to a simpler and easier to modify design. In former jobs I've found if you need to change the base class, you need to modify also almost all the derived classes for they depended on the behaviour of parent. And if you make the base class' methods virtual... then not much code sharing takes place :(
Else, when I finally create my own programming language (a long unfulfilled desire I've found most developers share), I'd see no point in adding inheritance to it...
Really really short answer: No. Inheritance is not needed because only byte code is truly needed. But obviously, byte code or assemble is not a practically way to write your program. OOP is not the only paradigm for programming. But, I digress.
I went to college for computer science in the early 2000s when inheritance (is a), compositions (has a), and interfaces (does a) were taught on an equal footing. Because of this, I use very little inheritance because it is often suited better by composition. This was stressed because many of the professors had seen bad code (along with what you have described) because of abuse of inheritance.
Regardless of creating a language with or without inheritances, can you create a programming language which prevents bad habits and bad design decisions?
I think asking for situations where inheritance is really needed is missing the point a bit. You can fake inheritance by using an interface and some composition. This doesnt mean inheritance is useless. You can do anything you did in VB6 in assembly code with some extra typing, that doesn't mean VB6 was useless.
I usually just start using an interface. Sometimes I notice I actually want to inherit behaviour. That usually means I need a base class. It's that simple.
Inheritance defines an "Is-A" relationship.
class Point( object ):
# some set of features: attributes, methods, etc.
class PointWithMass( Point ):
# An additional feature: mass.
Above, I've used inheritance to formally declare that PointWithMass is a Point.
There are several ways to handle object P1 being a PointWithMass as well as Point. Here are two.
Have a reference from PointWithMass object p1 to some Point object p1-friend. The p1-friend has the Point attributes. When p1 needs to engage in Point-like behavior, it needs to delegate the work to its friend.
Rely on language inheritance to assure that all features of Point are also applicable to my PointWithMass object, p1. When p1 needs to engage in Point-like behavior, it already is a Point object and can just do what needs to be done.
I'd rather not manage the extra objects floating around to assure that all superclass features are part of a subclass object. I'd rather have inheritance to be sure that each subclass is an instance of it's own class, plus is an instance of all superclasses, too.
Edit.
For statically-typed languages, there's a bonus. When I rely on the language to handle this, a PointWithMass can be used anywhere a Point was expected.
For really obscure abuse of inheritance, read about C++'s strange "composition through private inheritance" quagmire. See Any sensible examples of creating inheritance without creating subtyping relations? for some further discussion on this. It conflates inheritance and composition; it doesn't seem to add clarity or precision to the resulting code; it only applies to C++.
The GoF (and many others) recommend that you only favor composition over inheritance. If you have a class with a very large API, and you only want to add a very small number of methods to it, leaving the base implementation alone, I would find it inappropriate to use composition. You'd have to re-implement all of the public methods of the encapsulated class to just return their value. This is a waste of time (programmer and CPU) when you can just inherit all of this behavior, and spend your time concentrating on new methods.
So, to answer your question, no you don't absolutely need inheritance. There are, however, many situations where it's the right design choice.
The problem with inheritance is that it conflates the issue of sub-typing (asserting an is-a relationship) and code reuse (e.g., private inheritance is for reuse only).
So, no it's an overloaded word that we don't need. I'd prefer sub-typing (using the 'implements' keyword) and import (kinda like Ruby does it in class definitions)
Inheritance lets me push off a whole bunch of bookkeeping onto the compiler because it gives me polymorphic behavior for object hierarchies that I would otherwise have to create and maintain myself. Regardless of how good a silver bullet OOP is, there will always be instances where you want to employ a certain type of behavior because it just makes sense to do. And ultimately, that's the point of OOP: it makes a certain class of problems much easier to solve.
The downsides of composition is that it may disguise the relatedness of elements and it may be harder for others to understand. With,say, a 2D Point class and the desire to extend it to higher dimensions, you would presumably have to add (at least) Z getter/setter, modify getDistance(), and maybe add a getVolume() method. So you have the Objects 101 elements: related state and behavior.
A developer with a compositional mindset would presumably have defined a getDistance(x, y) -> double method and would now define a getDistance(x, y, z) -> double method. Or, thinking generally, they might define a getDistance(lambdaGeneratingACoordinateForEveryAxis()) -> double method. Then they would probably write createTwoDimensionalPoint() and createThreeDimensionalPoint() factory methods (or perhaps createNDimensionalPoint(n) ) that would stitch together the various state and behavior.
A developer with an OO mindset would use inheritance. Same amount of complexity in the implementation of domain characteristics, less complexity in terms of initializing the object (constructor takes care of it vs. a Factory method), but not as flexible in terms of what can be initialized.
Now think about it from a comprehensibility / readability standpoint. To understand the composition, one has a large number of functions that are composed programmatically inside another function. So there's little in terms of static code 'structure' (files and keywords and so forth) that makes the relatedness of Z and distance() jump out. In the OO world, you have a great big flashing red light telling you the hierarchy. Additionally, you have an essentially universal vocabulary to discuss structure, widely known graphical notations, a natural hierarchy (at least for single inheritance), etc.
Now, on the other hand, a well-named and constructed Factory method will often make explicit more of the sometimes-obscure relationships between state and behavior, since a compositional mindset facilitates functional code (that is, code that passes state via parameters, not via this ).
In a professional environment with experienced developers, the flexibility of composition generally trumps its more abstract nature. However, one should never discount the importance of comprehensibility, especially in teams that have varying degrees of experience and/or high levels of turnover.
Inheritance is an implementation decision. Interfaces almost always represent a better design, and should usually be used in an external API.
Why write a lot of boilerplate code forwarding method calls to a composed member object when the compiler will do it for you with inheritance?
This answer to another question summarises my thinking pretty well.
Does anyone else remember all of the OO-purists going ballistic over the COM implementation of "containment" instead of "inheritance?" It achieved essentially the same thing, but with a different kind of implementation. This reminds me of your question.
I strictly try to avoid religious wars in software development. ("vi" OR "emacs" ... when everybody knows its "vi"!) I think they are a sign of small minds. Comp Sci Professors can afford to sit around and debate these things. I'm working in the real world and could care less. All of this stuff are simply attempts at giving useful solutions to real problems. If they work, people will use them. The fact that OO languages and tools have been commercially available on a wide scale for going on 20 years is a pretty good bet that they are useful to a lot of people.
There are a lot of features in a programming language that are not really needed. But they are there for a variety of reasons that all basically boil down to reusability and maintainability.
All a business cares about is producing (quality of course) cheaply and quickly.
As a developer you help do this is by becoming more efficient and productive. So you need to make sure the code you write is easily reusable and maintainable.
And, among other things, this is what inheritance gives you - the ability to reuse without reinventing the wheel, as well as the ability to easily maintain your base object without having to perform maintenance on all similar objects.
There's lots of useful usages of inheritance, and probably just as many which are less useful. One of the useful ones is the stream class.
You have a method that should be able stream data. By using the stream base class as input to the method you ensure that your method can be used to write to many kinds of streams without change. To the file system, over the network, with compression, etc.
No.
for me, OOP is mostly about encapsulation of state and behavior and polymorphism.
and that is. but if you want static type checking, you'll need some way to group different types, so the compiler can check while still allowing you to use new types in place of another, related type. creating a hierarchy of types lets you use the same concept (classes) for types and for groups of types, so it's the most widely used form.
but there are other ways, i think the most general would be duck typing, and closely related, prototype-based OOP (which isn't inheritance in fact, but it's usually called prototype-based inheritance).
Depends on your definition of "needed". No, there is nothing that is impossible to do without inheritance, although the alternative may require more verbose code, or a major rewrite of your application.
But there are definitely cases where inheritance is useful. As you say, composition plus interfaces together cover almost all cases, but what if I want to supply a default behavior? An interface can't do that. A base class can. Sometimes, what you want to do is really just override individual methods. Not reimplement the class from scratch (as with an interface), but just change one aspect of it. or you may not want all members of the class to be overridable. Perhaps you have only one or two member methods you want the user to override, and the rest, which calls these (and performs validation and other important tasks before and after the user-overridden methods) are specified once and for all in the base class, and can not be overridden.
Inheritance is often used as a crutch by people who are too obsessed with Java's narrow definition of (and obsession with) OOP though, and in most cases I agree, it's the wrong solution, as if the deeper your class hierarchy, the better your software.
Inheritance is a good thing when the subclass really is the same kind of object as the superclass. E.g. if you're implementing the Active Record pattern, you're attempting to map a class to a table in the database, and instances of the class to a row in the database. Consequently, it is highly likely that your Active Record classes will share a common interface and implementation of methods like: what is the primary key, whether the current instance is persisted, saving the current instance, validating the current instance, executing callbacks upon validation and/or saving, deleting the current instance, running a SQL query, returning the name of the table that the class maps to, etc.
It also seems from how you phrase your question that you're assuming that inheritance is single but not multiple. If we need multiple inheritance, then we have to use interfaces plus composition to pull off the job. To put a fine point about it, Java assumes that implementation inheritance is singular and interface inheritance can be multiple. One need not go this route. E.g. C++ and Ruby permit multiple inheritance for your implementation and your interface. That said, one should use multiple inheritance with caution (i.e. keep your abstract classes virtual and/or stateless).
That said, as you note, there are too many real-life class hierarchies where the subclasses inherit from the superclass out of convenience rather than bearing a true is-a relationship. So it's unsurprising that a change in the superclass will have side-effects on the subclasses.
Not needed, but usefull.
Each language has got its own methods to write less code. OOP sometimes gets convoluted, but I think that is the responsability of the developers, the OOP platform is usefull and sharp when it is well used.
I agree with everyone else about the necessary/useful distinction.
The reason I like OOP is because it lets me write code that's cleaner and more logically organized. One of the biggest benefits comes from the ability to "factor-up" logic that's common to a number of classes. I could give you concrete examples where OOP has seriously reduced the complexity of my code, but that would be boring for you.
Suffice it to say, I heart OOP.
Absolutely needed? no,
But think of lamps. You can create a new lamp from scratch each time you make one, or you can take properties from the original lamp and make all sorts of new styles of lamp that have the same properties as the original, each with their own style.
Or you can make a new lamp from scratch or tell people to look at it a certain way to see the light, or , or, or
Not required, but nice :)
Thanks to all for your answers. I maintain my position that, strictly speaking, inheritance isn't needed, though I believe I found a new appreciation for this feature.
Something else: In my job experience, I have found inheritance leads to simpler, clearer designs when it's brought in late in the project, after it's noticed a lot of the classes have much commonality and you create a base class. In projects where a grand-schema was created from the very beginning, with a lot of classes in an inheritance hierarchy, refactoring is usually painful and dificult.
Seeing some answers mentioning something similar makes me wonder if this might not be exactly how inheritance's supposed to be used: ex post facto. Reminds me of Stepanov's quote: "you don't start with axioms, you end up with axioms after you have a bunch of related proofs". He's a mathematician, so he ought to know something.
The biggest problem with interfaces is that they cannot be changed. Make an interface public, then change it (add a new method to it) and break million applications all around the world, because they have implemented your interface, but not the new method. The app may not even start, a VM may refuse to load it.
Use a base class (not abstract) other programmers can inherit from (and override methods as needed); then add a method to it. Every app using your class will still work, this method just won't be overridden by anyone, but since you provide a base implementation, this one will be used and it may work just fine for all subclasses of your class... it may also cause strange behavior because sometimes overriding it would have been necessary, okay, might be the case, but at least all those million apps in the world will still start up!
I rather have my Java application still running after updating the JDK from 1.6 to 1.7 with some minor bugs (that can be fixed over time) than not having it running it at all (forcing an immediate fix or it will be useless to people).
//I found this QA very useful. Many have answered this right. But i wanted to add...
1: Ability to define abstract interface - E.g., for plugin developers. Of course, you can use function pointers, but this is better and simpler.
2: Inheritance helps model types very close to their actual relationships. Sometimes a lot of errors get caught at compile time, because you have the right type hierarchy. For instance, shape <-- triangle (lets say there is a lot of code to be reused). You might want to compose triangle with a shape object, but shape is an incomplete type. Inserting dummy implementations like double getArea() {return -1;} will do, but you are opening up room for error. That return -1 can get executed some day!
3: void func(B* b); ... func(new D()); Implicit type conversion gives a great notational convenience since Derived is Base. I remember having read Straustrup saying that he wanted to make classes first class citizens just like fundamental data types (hence overloading operators etc). Implicit conversion from Derived to Base, behaves just like an implicit conversion from a data type to broader compatible one (short to int).
Inheritance and Composition have their own pros and cons.
Refer to this related SE question on pros of inheritance and cons of composition.
Prefer composition over inheritance?
Have a look at the example in this documentation link:
The example shows different use cases of overriding by using inheritance as a mean to achieve polymorphism.
In the following, inheritance is used to present a particular property for all of several specific incarnations of the same type thing. In this case, the GeneralPresenation has a properties that are relevant to all "presentation" (the data passed to an MVC view). The Master Page is the only thing using it and expects a GeneralPresentation, though the specific views expect more info, tailored to their needs.
public abstract class GeneralPresentation
{
public GeneralPresentation()
{
MenuPages = new List<Page>();
}
public IEnumerable<Page> MenuPages { get; set; }
public string Title { get; set; }
}
public class IndexPresentation : GeneralPresentation
{
public IndexPresentation() { IndexPage = new Page(); }
public Page IndexPage { get; set; }
}
public class InsertPresentation : GeneralPresentation
{
public InsertPresentation() {
InsertPage = new Page();
ValidationInfo = new PageValidationInfo();
}
public PageValidationInfo ValidationInfo { get; set; }
public Page InsertPage { get; set; }
}
I know about "class having a single reason to change". Now, what is that exactly? Are there some smells/signs that could tell that class does not have a single responsibility? Or could the real answer hide in YAGNI and only refactor to a single responsibility the first time your class changes?
The Single Responsibility Principle
There are many obvious cases, e.g. CoffeeAndSoupFactory. Coffee and soup in the same appliance can lead to quite distasteful results. In this example, the appliance might be broken into a HotWaterGenerator and some kind of Stirrer. Then a new CoffeeFactory and SoupFactory can be built from those components and any accidental mixing can be avoided.
Among the more subtle cases, the tension between data access objects (DAOs) and data transfer objects (DTOs) is very common. DAOs talk to the database, DTOs are serializable for transfer between processes and machines. Usually DAOs need a reference to your database framework, therefore they are unusable on your rich clients which neither have the database drivers installed nor have the necessary privileges to access the DB.
Code Smells
The methods in a class start to be grouped by areas of functionality ("these are the Coffee methods and these are the Soup methods").
Implementing many interfaces.
Write a brief, but accurate description of what the class does.
If the description contains the word "and" then it needs to be split.
Well, this principle is to be used with some salt... to avoid class explosion.
A single responsibility does not translate to single method classes. It means a single reason for existence... a service that the object provides for its clients.
A nice way to stay on the road... Use the object as person metaphor... If the object were a person, who would I ask to do this? Assign that responsibility to the corresponding class. However you wouldn't ask the same person to do your manage files, compute salaries, issue paychecks, and verify financial records... Why would you want a single object to do all these? (it's okay if a class takes on multiple responsibilities as long as they are all related and coherent.)
If you employ a CRC card, it's a nice subtle guideline. If you're having trouble getting all the responsibilities of that object on a CRC card, it's probably doing too much... a max of 7 would do as a good marker.
Another code smell from the refactoring book would be HUGE classes. Shotgun surgery would be another... making a change to one area in a class causes bugs in unrelated areas of the same class...
Finding that you are making changes to the same class for unrelated bug-fixes again and again is another indication that the class is doing too much.
A simple and practical method to check single responsibility (not only classes but also method of classes) is the name choice. When you design a class, if you easily find a name for the class that specify exactly what it defines, you're in the right way.
A difficulty to choose a name is near always a symptom of bad design.
the methods in your class should be cohesive...they should work together and make use of the same data structures internally. If you find you have too many methods that don't seem entirely well related, or seem to operate on different things, then quite likely you don't have a good single responsibility.
Often it's hard to initially find responsibilities, and sometimes you need to use the class in several different contexts and then refactor the class into two classes as you start to see the distinctions. Sometimes you find that it's because you are mixing an abstract and concrete concept together. They tend to be harder to see, and, again, use in different contexts will help clarify.
The obvious sign is when your class ends up looking like a Big Ball of Mud, which is really the opposite of SRP (single responsibility principle).
Basically, all the object's services should be focused on carrying out a single responsibility, meaning every time your class changes and adds a service which does not respect that, you know you're "deviating" from the "right" path ;)
The cause is usually due to some quick fixes hastily added to the class to repair some defects. So the reason why you are changing the class is usually the best criteria to detect if you are about to break the SRP.
Martin's Agile Principles, Patterns, and Practices in C# helped me a lot to grasp SRP. He defines SRP as:
A class should have only one reason to change.
So what is driving change?
Martin's answer is:
[...] each responsibility is an axis of change. (p. 116)
and further:
In the context of the SRP, we define a responsibility to be a reason for change. If you can think of more than one motive for changing a class, that class has more than one responsibility (p. 117)
In fact SRP is encapsulating change. If change happens, it should just have a local impact.
Where is YAGNI?
YAGNI can be nicely combined with SRP: When you apply YAGNI, you wait until some change is actually happening. If this happens you should be able to clearly see the responsibilities which are inferred from the reason(s) for change.
This also means that responsibilities can evolve with each new requirement and change. Thinking further SRP and YAGNI will provide you the means to think in flexible designs and architectures.
Perhaps a little more technical than other smells:
If you find you need several "friend" classes or functions, that's usually a good smell of bad SRP - because the required functionality is not actually exposed publically by your class.
If you end up with an excessively "deep" hierarchy (a long list of derived classes until you get to leaf classes) or "broad" hierarchy (many, many classes derived shallowly from a single parent class). It's usually a sign that the parent class does either too much or too little. Doing nothing is the limit of that, and yes, I have seen that in practice, with an "empty" parent class definition just to group together a bunch of unrelated classes in a single hierarchy.
I also find that refactoring to single responsibility is hard. By the time you finally get around to it, the different responsibilities of the class will have become entwined in the client code making it hard to factor one thing out without breaking the other thing. I'd rather err on the side of "too little" than "too much" myself.
Here are some things that help me figure out if my class is violating SRP:
Fill out the XML doc comments on a class. If you use words like if, and, but, except, when, etc., your classes probably is doing too much.
If your class is a domain service, it should have a verb in the name. Many times you have classes like "OrderService", which should probably be broken up into "GetOrderService", "SaveOrderService", "SubmitOrderService", etc.
If you end up with MethodA that uses MemberA and MethodB that uses MemberB and it is not part of some concurrency or versioning scheme, you might be violating SRP.
If you notice that you have a class that just delegates calls to a lot of other classes, you might be stuck in proxy class hell. This is especially true if you end up instantiating the proxy class everywhere when you could just use the specific classes directly. I have seen a lot of this. Think ProgramNameBL and ProgramNameDAL classes as a substitute for using a Repository pattern.
I've also been trying to get my head around the SOLID principles of OOD, specifically the single responsibility principle, aka SRP (as a side note the podcast with Jeff Atwood, Joel Spolsky and "Uncle Bob" is worth a listen). The big question for me is: What problems is SOLID trying to address?
OOP is all about modeling. The main purpose of modeling is to present a problem in a way that allows us to understand it and solve it. Modeling forces us to focus on the important details. At the same time we can use encapsulation to hide the "unimportant" details so that we only have to deal with them when absolutely necessary.
I guess you should ask yourself: What problem is your class trying to solve? Has the important information you need to solve this problem risen to the surface? Are the unimportant details tucked away so that you only have to think about them when absolutely necessary?
Thinking about these things results in programs that are easier to understand, maintain and extend. I think this is at the heart of OOD and the SOLID principles, including SRP.
Another rule of thumb I'd like to throw in is the following:
If you feel the need to either write some sort of cartesian product of cases in your test cases, or if you want to mock certain private methods of the class, Single Responsibility is violated.
I recently had this in the following way:
I had a cetain abstract syntax tree of a coroutine which will be generated into C later. For now, think of the nodes as Sequence, Iteration and Action. Sequence chains two coroutines, Iteration repeats a coroutine until a userdefined condition is true and Action performs a certain userdefined action. Furthermore, it is possible to annotate Actions and Iterations with codeblocks, which define the actions and conditions to evaluate as the coroutine walks ahead.
It was necessary to apply a certain transformation to all of these code blocks (for those interested: I needed to replace the conceptual user variables with actual implementation variables in order to prevent variable clashes. Those who know lisp macros can think of gensym in action :) ). Thus, the simplest thing that would work was a visitor which knows the operation internally and just calls them on the annotated code block of the Action and Iteration on visit and traverses all the syntax tree nodes. However, in this case, I'd have had to duplicate the assertion "transformation is applied" in my testcode for the visitAction-Method and the visitIteration-Method. In other words, I had to check the product test cases of the responsibilities Traversion (== {traverse iteration, traverse action, traverse sequence}) x Transformation (well, codeblock transformed, which blew up into iteration transformed and action transformed). Thus, I was tempted to use powermock to remove the transformation-Method and replace it with some 'return "I was transformed!";'-Stub.
However, according to the rule of thumb, I split the class into a class TreeModifier which contains a NodeModifier-instance, which provides methods modifyIteration, modifySequence, modifyCodeblock and so on. Thus, I could easily test the responsibility of traversing, calling the NodeModifier and reconstructing the tree and test the actual modification of the code blocks separately, thus removing the need for the product tests, because the responsibilities were separated now (into traversing and reconstructing and the concrete modification).
It also is interesting to notice that later on, I could heavily reuse the TreeModifier in various other transformations. :)
If you're finding troubles extending the functionality of the class without being afraid that you might end up breaking something else, or you cannot use class without modifying tons of its options which modify its behavior smells like your class doing too much.
Once I was working with the legacy class which had method "ZipAndClean", which was obviously zipping and cleaning specified folder...
Information-Expert, Tell-Don't-Ask, and SRP are often mentioned together as best practices. But I think they are at odds. Here is what I'm talking about.
Code that favors SRP but violates Tell-Don't-Ask & Info-Expert:
Customer bob = ...;
// TransferObjectFactory has to use Customer's accessors to do its work,
// violates Tell Don't Ask
CustomerDTO dto = TransferObjectFactory.createFrom(bob);
Code that favors Tell-Don't-Ask & Info-Expert but violates SRP:
Customer bob = ...;
// Now Customer is doing more than just representing the domain concept of Customer,
// violates SRP
CustomerDTO dto = bob.toDTO();
Please fill me in on how these practices can co-exist peacefully.
Definitions of the terms,
Information Expert: objects that have the data needed for an operation should host the operation.
Tell Don't Ask: don't ask objects for data in order to do work; tell the objects to do the work.
Single Responsibility Principle: each object should have a narrowly defined responsibility.
I don't think that they are so much at odds as they are emphasizing different things that will cause you pain. One is about structuring code to make it clear where particular responsibilities are and reducing coupling, the other is about reducing the reasons to modify a class.
We all have to make decisions each and every day about how to structure code and what dependencies we are willing to introduce into designs.
We have built up a lot of useful guidelines, maxims and patterns that can help us to make the decisions.
Each of these is useful to detect different kinds of problems that could be present in our designs. For any specific problem that you may be looking at there will be a sweet spot somewhere.
The different guidelines do contradict each other. Just applying every piece of guidance you have heard or read will not make your design better.
For the specific problem you are looking at today you need to decide what the most important factors that are likely to cause you pain are.
You can talk about "Tell Don't Ask" when you ask for object's state in order to tell object to do something.
In your first example TransferObjectFactory.createFrom just a converter. It doesn't tell Customer object to do something after inspecting it's state.
I think first example is correct.
Those classes are not at odds. The DTO is simply serving as a conduit of data from storage that is intended to be used as a dumb container. It certainly doesn't violate the SRP.
On the other hand the .toDTO method is questionable -- why should Customer have this responsibility? For "purity's" sake I would have another class who's job it was to create DTOs from business objects like Customer.
Don't forget these principles are principles, and when you can et away with simpler solutions until changing requirements force the issue, then do so. Needless complexity is definitely something to avoid.
I highly recommend, BTW, Robert C. Martin's Agile Patterns, Practices and principles for much more in depth treatments of this subject.
DTOs with a sister class (like you have) violate all three principles you stated, and encapsulation, which is why you're having problems here.
What are you using this CustomerDTO for, and why can't you simply use Customer, and have the DTOs data inside the customer? If you're not careful, the CustomerDTO will need a Customer, and a Customer will need a CustomerDTO.
TellDontAsk says that if you are basing a decision on the state of one object (e.g. a customer), then that decision should be performed inside the customer class itself.
An example is if you want to remind the Customer to pay any outstanding bills, so you call
List<Bill> bills = Customer.GetOutstandingBills();
PaymentReminder.RemindCustomer(customer, bills);
this is a violation. Instead you want to do
Customer.RemindAboutOutstandingBills()
(and of course you will need to pass in the PaymentReminder as a dependency upon construction of the customer).
Information Expert says the same thing pretty much.
Single Responsibility Principle can be easily misunderstood - it says that the customer class should have one responsibility, but also that the responsibility of grouping data, methods, and other classes aligned with the 'Customer' concept should be encapsulated by only one class. What constitutes a single responsibility is extremely hard to define exactly and I would recommend more reading on the matter.
Craig Larman discussed this when he introduced GRASP in Applying UML and Patterns to Object-Oriented Analysis and Design and Iterative Development (2004):
In some situations, a solution suggested by Expert is undesirable, usually because of problems in coupling and cohesion (these principles are discussed later in this chapter).
For example, who should be responsible for saving a Sale in a database? Certainly, much of the information to be saved is in the Sale object, and thus Expert could argue that the responsibility lies in the Sale class. And, by logical extension of this decision, each class would have its own services to save itself in a database. But acting on that reasoning leads to problems in cohesion, coupling, and duplication. For example, the Sale class must now contain logic related to database handling, such as that related to SQL and JDBC (Java Database Connectivity). The class no longer focuses on just the pure application logic of “being a sale.” Now other kinds of responsibilities lower its cohesion. The class must be coupled to the technical database services of another subsystem, such as JDBC services, rather than just being coupled to other objects in the domain layer of software objects, so its coupling increases. And it is likely that similar database logic would be duplicated in many persistent classes.
All these problems indicate violation of a basic architectural principle: design for a separation of major system concerns. Keep application logic in one place (such as the domain software objects), keep database logic in another place (such as a separate persistence services subsystem), and so forth, rather than intermingling different system concerns in the same component.[11]
Supporting a separation of major concerns improves coupling and cohesion in a design. Thus, even though by Expert we could find some justification for putting the responsibility for database services in the Sale class, for other reasons (usually cohesion and coupling), we'd end up with a poor design.
Thus the SRP generally trumps Information Expert.
However, the Dependency Inversion Principle can combine well with Expert. The argument here would be that Customer should not have a dependency of CustomerDTO (general to detail), but the other way around. This would mean that CustomerDTO is the Expert and should know how to build itself given a Customer:
CustomerDTO dto = new CustomerDTO(bob);
If you're allergic to new, you could go static:
CustomerDTO dto = CustomerDTO.buildFor(bob);
Or, if you hate both, we come back around to an AbstractFactory:
public abstract class DTOFactory<D, E> {
public abstract D createDTO(E entity);
}
public class CustomerDTOFactory extends DTOFactory<CustomerDTO, Customer> {
#Override
public CustomerDTO createDTO(Customer entity) {
return new CustomerDTO(entity);
}
}
I don't 100% agree w/ your two examples as being representative, but from a general perspective you seem to be reasoning from the assumption of two objects and only two objects.
If you separate the problem out further and create one (or more) specialized objects to take on the individual responsibilities you have, and then have the controlling object pass instances of the other objects it is using to the specialized objects you have carved off, you should be able to observe a happy compromise between SRP (each responsibility has handled by a specialized object), and Tell Don't Ask (the controlling object is telling the specialized objects it is composing together to do whatever it is that they do, to each other).
It's a composition solution that relies on a controller of some sort to coordinate and delegate between other objects without getting mired in their internal details.