Related
I have a class which represents a set of numbers. The constructor takes three arguments: startValue, endValue and stepSize.
The class is responsible for holding a list containing all values between start and end value taking the stepSize into consideration.
Example: startValue: 3, endValue: 1, stepSize = -1, Collection = { 3,2,1 }
I am currently creating the collection and some info strings about the object in the constructor. The public members are read only info strings and the collection.
My constructor does three things at the moment:
Checks the arguments; this could throw an exception from the constructor
Fills values into the collection
Generates the information strings
I can see that my constructor does real work but how can I fix this, or, should I fix this? If I move the "methods" out of the constructor it is like having init function and leaving me with an not fully initialized object. Is the existence of my object doubtful? Or is it not that bad to have some work done in the constructor because it is still possible to test the constructor because no object references are created.
For me it looks wrong but it seems that I just can't find a solution. I also have taken a builder into account but I am not sure if that's right because you can't choose between different types of creations. However single unit tests would have less responsibility.
I am writing my code in C# but I would prefer a general solution, that's why the text contains no code.
EDIT: Thanks for editing my poor text (: I changed the title back because it represents my opinion and the edited title did not. I am not asking if real work is a flaw or not. For me, it is. Take a look at this reference.
http://misko.hevery.com/code-reviewers-guide/flaw-constructor-does-real-work/
The blog states the problems quite well. Still I can't find a solution.
Concepts that urge you to keep your constructors light weight:
Inversion of control (Dependency Injection)
Single responsibility principle (as applied to the constructor rather than a class)
Lazy initialization
Testing
K.I.S.S.
D.R.Y.
Links to arguments of why:
How much work should be done in a constructor?
What (not) to do in a constructor
Should a C++ constructor do real work?
http://misko.hevery.com/code-reviewers-guide/flaw-constructor-does-real-work/
If you check the arguments in the constructor that validation code can't be shared if those arguments come in from any other source (setter, constructor, parameter object)
If you fill values into the collection or generate the information strings in the constructor that code can't be shared with other constructors you may need to add later.
In addition to not being able to be shared there is also being delayed until really needed (lazy init). There is also overriding thru inheritance that offers more options with many methods that just do one thing rather then one do everything constructor.
Your constructor only needs to put your class into a usable state. It does NOT have to be fully initialized. But it is perfectly free to use other methods to do the real work. That just doesn't take advantage of the "lazy init" idea. Sometimes you need it, sometimes you don't.
Just keep in mind anything that the constructor does or calls is being shoved down the users / testers throat.
EDIT:
You still haven't accepted an answer and I've had some sleep so I'll take a stab at a design. A good design is flexible so I'm going to assume it's OK that I'm not sure what the information strings are, or whether our object is required to represent a set of numbers by being a collection (and so provides iterators, size(), add(), remove(), etc) or is merely backed by a collection and provides some narrow specialized access to those numbers (such as being immutable).
This little guy is the Parameter Object pattern
/** Throws exception if sign of endValue - startValue != stepSize */
ListDefinition(T startValue, T endValue, T stepSize);
T can be int or long or short or char. Have fun but be consistent.
/** An interface, independent from any one collection implementation */
ListFactory(ListDefinition ld){
/** Make as many as you like */
List<T> build();
}
If we don't need to narrow access to the collection, we're done. If we do, wrap it in a facade before exposing it.
/** Provides read access only. Immutable if List l kept private. */
ImmutableFacade(List l);
Oh wait, requirements change, forgot about 'information strings'. :)
/** Build list of info strings */
InformationStrings(String infoFilePath) {
List<String> read();
}
Have no idea if this is what you had in mind but if you want the power to count line numbers by twos you now have it. :)
/** Assuming information strings have a 1 to 1 relationship with our numbers */
MapFactory(List l, List infoStrings){
/** Make as many as you like */
Map<T, String> build();
}
So, yes I'd use the builder pattern to wire all that together. Or you could try to use one object to do all that. Up to you. But I think you'll find few of these constructors doing much of anything.
EDIT2
I know this answer's already been accepted but I've realized there's room for improvement and I can't resist. The ListDefinition above works by exposing it's contents with getters, ick. There is a "Tell, don't ask" design principle that is being violated here for no good reason.
ListDefinition(T startValue, T endValue, T stepSize) {
List<T> buildList(List<T> l);
}
This let's us build any kind of list implementation and have it initialized according to the definition. Now we don't need ListFactory. buildList is something I call a shunt. It returns the same reference it accepted after having done something with it. It simply allows you to skip giving the new ArrayList a name. Making a list now looks like this:
ListDefinition<int> ld = new ListDefinition<int>(3, 1, -1);
List<int> l = new ImmutableFacade<int>( ld.buildList( new ArrayList<int>() ) );
Which works fine. Bit hard to read. So why not add a static factory method:
List<int> l = ImmutableRangeOfNumbers.over(3, 1, -1);
This doesn't accept dependency injections but it's built on classes that do. It's effectively a dependency injection container. This makes it a nice shorthand for popular combinations and configurations of the underlying classes. You don't have to make one for every combination. The point of doing this with many classes is now you can put together whatever combination you need.
Well, that's my 2 cents. I'm gonna find something else to obsess on. Feedback welcome.
As far as cohesion is concerned, there's no "real work", only work that's in line (or not) with the class/method's responsibility.
A constructor's responsibility is to create an instance of a class. And a valid instance for that matter. I'm a big fan of keeping the validation part as intrinsic as possible, so that you can see the invariants every time you look at the class. In other words, that the class "contains its own definition".
However, there are cases when an object is a complex assemblage of multiple other objects, with conditional logic, non-trivial validation or other creation sub-tasks involved. This is when I'd delegate the object creation to another class (Factory or Builder pattern) and restrain the accessibility scope of the constructor, but I think twice before doing it.
In your case, I see no conditionals (except argument checking), no composition or inspection of complex objects. The work done by your constructor is cohesive with the class because it essentially only populates its internals. While you may (and should) of course extract atomic, well identified construction steps into private methods inside the same class, I don't see the need for a separate builder class.
The constructor is a special member function, in a way that it constructor, but after all - it is a member function. As such, it is allowed to do things.
Consider for example c++ std::fstream. It opens a file in the constructor. Can throw an exception, but doesn't have to.
As long as you can test the class, it is all good.
It's true, a constructur should do minimum of work oriented to a single aim - successful creaation of the valid object. Whatever it takes is ok. But not more.
In your example, creating this collection in the constructor is perfectly valid, as object of your class represent a set of numbers (your words). If an object is set of numbers, you should clearly create it in the constructor! On the contrary - the constructur does not perform what it is made for - a fresh, valid object construction.
These info strings call my attention. What is their purpose? What exactly do you do? This sounds like something periferic, something that can be left for later and exposed through a method, like
String getInfo()
or similar.
If you want to use Microsoft's .NET Framework was an example here, it is perfectly valid both semantically and in terms of common practice, for a constructor to do some real work.
An example of where Microsoft does this is in their implementation of System.IO.FileStream. This class performs string processing on path names, opens new file handles, opens threads, binds all sorts of things, and invokes many system functions. The constructor is actually, in effect, about 1,200 lines of code.
I believe your example, where you are creating a list, is absolutely fine and valid. I would just make sure that you fail as often as possible. Say if you the minimum size higher than the maximum size, you could get stuck in an infinite loop with a poorly written loop condition, thus exhausting all available memory.
The takeaway is "it depends" and you should use your best judgement. If all you wanted was a second opinion, then I say you're fine.
It's not a good practice to do "real work" in the constructor: you can initialize class members, but you shouldn't call other methods or do more "heavy lifting" in the constructor.
If you need to do some initialization which requires a big amount of code running, a good practice will be to do it in an init() method which will be called after the object was constructed.
The reasoning for not doing heavy lifting inside the constructor is: in case something bad happens, and fails silently, you'll end up having a messed up object and it'll be a nightmare to debug and realize where the issues are coming from.
In the case you describe above I would only do the assignments in the constructor and then, in two separate methods, I would implement the validations and generate the string-information.
Implementing it this way also conforms with SRP: "Single Responsibility Principle" which suggests that any method/function should do one thing, and one thing only.
I have a data class which encapsulates relevant data items in it. Those data items are set and get by users one by one when needed.
My confusion about the design has to do with which object should be responsible for handling the update of multiple properties of that data object. Sometimes an update operation will be performed which affects many properties at once.
So, which class should have the update() method?. Is it the data class itself or another manager class ? The update() method requires data exchange with many different objects, so I don't want to make it a member of the data class because I believe it should know nothing about the other objects required for update. I want the data class to be only a data-structure. Am I thinking wrong? What would be the right approach?
My code:
class RefData
{
Matrix mX;
Vector mV;
int mA;
bool mB;
getX();
setB();
update(); // which affects almost any member attributes in the class, but requires many relations with many different classes, which makes this class dependant on them.
}
or,
class RefDataUpdater
{
update(RefData*); // something like this ?
}
There is this really great section in the book Clean Code, by Robert C. Martin, that speaks directly to this issue.
And the answer is it depends. It depends on what you are trying to accomplish in your design--and
if you might have more than one data-object that exhibit similar behaviors.
First, your data class could be considered a Data Transfer Object (DTO). As such, its ideal form is simply a class without any public methods--only public properties -- basically a data structure. It will not encapsulate any behavior, it simply groups together related data. Since other objects manipulate these data objects, if you were to add a property to the data object, you'd need to change all the other objects that have functions that now need to access that new property. However, on the flip side, if you added a new function to a manager class, you need to make zero changes to the data object class.
So, I think often you want to think about how many data objects might have an update function that relates directly to the properties of that class. If you have 5 classes that contain 3-4 properties but all have an update function, then I'd lean toward having the update function be part of the "data-class" (which is more of an OO-design). But, if you have one data-class in which it is likely to have properties added to it in the future, then I'd lean toward the DTO design (object as a data structure)--which is more procedural (requiring other functions to manipulate it) but still can be part of an otherwise Object Oriented architecture.
All this being said, as Robert Martin points out in the book:
There are ways around this that are well known to experienced
object-oriented designers: VISITOR, or dual-dispatch, for example.
But these techniques carry costs of their own and generally return the
structure to that of a procedural program.
Now, in the code you show, you have properties with types of Vector, and Matrix, which are probably more complex types than a simple DTO would contain, so you may want to think about what those represent and whether they could be moved to separate classes--with different functions to manipulate--as you typically would not expose a Matrix or a Vector directly as a property, but encapsulate them.
As already written, it depends, but I'd probably go with an external support class that handles the update.
For once, I'd like to know why you'd use such a method? I believe it's safe to assume that the class doesn't only call setter methods for a list of parameters it receives, but I'll consider this case as well
1) the trivial updater method
In this case I mean something like this:
public update(a, b, c)
{
setA(a);
setB(b);
setC(c);
}
In this case I'd probably not use such a method at all, I'd either define a macro for it or I'd call the setter themselves. But if it must be a method, then I'd place it inside the data class.
2) the complex updater method
The method in this case doesn't only contain calls to setters, but it also contains logic. If the logic is some sort of simple property update logic I'd try to put that logic inside the setters (that's what they are for in the first place), but if the logic involves multiple properties I'd put this logic inside an external supporting class (or a business logic class if any appropriate already there) since it's not a great idea having logic reside inside data classes.
Developing clear code that can be easily understood is very important and it's my belief that by putting logic of any kind (except for say setter logic) inside data classes won't help you achieving that.
Edit
I just though I'd add something else. Where to put such methods also depend upon your class and what purpose it fulfills. If we're talking for instance about Business/Domain Object classes, and we're not using an Anemic Domain Model these classes are allowed (and should contain) behavior/logic.
On the other hand, if this data class is say an Entity (persistence objects) which is not used in the Domain Model as well (complex Domain Model) I would strongly advice against placing logic inside them. The same goes for data classes which "feel" like pure data objects (more like structs), don't pollute them, keep the logic outside.
I guess like everywhere in software, there's no silver bullet and the right answer is: it depends (upon the classes, what this update method is doing, what's the architecture behind the application and other application specific considerations).
I'm a little unclear as to how far to take the idea in making all members within a class private and make public methods to handle mutations. Primitive types are not the issue, it's encapsulated object that I am unclear about. The benefit of making object members private is the ability to hide methods that do not apply to the context of class being built. The downside is that you have to provide public methods to pass parameters to the underlying object (more methods, more work). On the otherside, if you want to have all methods and properties exposed for the underlying object, couldn't you just make the object public? What are the dangers in having objects exposed this way?
For example, I would find it useful to have everything from a vector, or Array List, exposed. The only downside I can think of is that public members could potentially assigned a type that its not via implicit casting (or something to that affect). Would a volitile designation reduce the potential for problems?
Just a side note: I understand that true enapsulation implies that members are private.
What are the dangers in having objects exposed this way?
Changing the type of those objects would require changing the interface to the class. With private objects + public getters/setters, you'd only have to modify the code in the getters and setters, assuming you want to keep the things being returned the same.
Note that this is why properties are useful in languages such as Python, which technically doesn't have private class members, only obscured ones at most.
The problem with making instance variables public is that you can never change your mind later, and make them private, without breaking existing code that relies on directly public access to those instance vars. Some examples:
You decide to later make your class thread-safe by synchronizing all access to instance vars, or maybe by using a ThreadLocal to create a new copy of the value for each thread. Can't do it if any thread can directly access the variables.
Using your example of a vector or array list - at some point, you realize that there is a security flaw in your code because those classes are mutable, so somebody else can replace the contents of the list. If this were only available via an accessor method, you could easily solve the problem by making an immutable copy of the list upon request, but you can't do that with a public variable.
You realize later that one of your instance vars is redundant and can be derived based on other variables. Once again, easy if you're using accessors, impossible with public variables.
I think that it boils down to a practical point - if you know that you're the only one who will be using this code, and it pains you to write accessors (every IDE will do it for you automatically), and you don't mind changing your own code later if you decide to break the API, then go for it. But if other people will be using your class, or if you would like to make it easier to refactor later for your own use, stick with accessors.
Object oriented design is just a guideline. Think about it from the perspective of the person who will be using your class. Balance OOD with making it intuitive and easy to use.
You could run into issues depending on the language you are using and how it treats return statements or assignment operators. In some cases it may give you a reference, or values in other cases.
For example, say you have a PrimeCalculator class that figures out prime numbers, then you have another class that does something with those prime numbers.
public PrimeCalculator calculatorObject = new PrimeCalculator();
Vector<int> primeNumbers = calculatorObject.PrimeNumbersVector;
/* do something complicated here */
primeNumbers.clear(); // free up some memory
When you use this stuff later, possibly in another class, you don't want the overhead of calculating the numbers again so you use the same calculatorObject.
Vector<int> primes = calculatorObject.PrimeNumbersVector;
int tenthPrime = primes.elementAt(9);
It may not exactly be clear at this point whether primes and primeNumbers reference the same Vector. If they do, trying to get the tenth prime from primes would throw an error.
You can do it this way if you're careful and understand what exactly is happening in your situation, but you have a smaller margin of error using functions to return a value rather than assigning the variable directly.
Well you can check the post :
first this
then this
This should solve your confusion . It solved mine ! Thanks to Nicol Bolas.
Also read the comments below the accepted answer (also notice the link given in the second last comment by me ( in the first post) )
Also visit the wikipedia post
I've had trouble finding a clear, concise laymans definition of a class. Usually, they give general ideas without specifically spelling it out, and I'm wondering if I'm understanding this correctly. As I understand it, a class is the set of code that controls an object. For example, in an app that has a button for 'Yes' and a button for 'No', and a text box for output, the code that tells the computer what to do when the user uses the Yes button is one class, the code for hitting No is another class, and an object is the two buttons and what they do together to influence the output box. Am I right, or am I confusing terms here?
Thanks
A class is a kind of thing, an object is an actual thing. So, in the real world, "person" is a class, you and I are objects (or instances) of that class. "Car" is a class, my 1996 beater Volvo station wagon is an object.
Objects all have certain similarities in form and function because of the class they belong to. When I say my station wagon is a "car", you have a pretty good idea of what it looks like, what it's used for, and what it can do. But objects of a class can also differ from each other. Just because something's a car doesn't tell you exactly what shape it is or how many seats it has or what color it is.
In the example you gave, it's likely that the yes and no buttons are both objects of the class "button" (or some similar name) and that the differences in their behavior are due to changes added by the programmer without his or her bothering to create a new class. However, it is possible that the programmer made the decision to make each type of button a subclass of the original class "button".
What's a subclass? Well, if you think of "car" as a class, it is obvious that there are several intermediate "kinds" of things between "car" and "Larry's 1996 beater Volvo station wagon". These could be "station wagon" and "Volvo station wagon". So my car would be an instance of "Volvo station wagon" which itself would be subclass of "station wagon" which would be a subclass of "car". From the "car" part, we know a good deal about my object, from the "station wagon" part we learn a little more, and from the "Volvo station wagon" a little more still.
The way in which classes and subclasses are arranged is a decision made by the programmer. In my example above, another programmer might have made the classes "car", "Volvos", "pre-Ford", and "Wagons". It depends on the problem you're trying to solve.
This is going to be a very simplified explanation. A class is a set of functions and variables and is used to create objects. I think it's good to use real examples instead of dog / bark / talk etc.
Class Email
Subject (string)
Message (string)
ToAddress (string)
FromAddress (string)
Send (function)
When you call 'new Email()' it creates a new object with those variables and functions. Then you can populate the variables and send it.
In object-oriented programming, a class is a type for objects. An object is a bundle of data together with functionality that can operate in the context of that data; the definition of what the object is and does when it is first created is determined by its class.
Like a type for data, the class of an object specifies what is common to all instances of that class. Instances, which are the objects themselves, then get to override that common baseline (otherwise there's not much point having distinct instances). In many OO systems, instances may or may not have new members that are not part of the class definition.
What that means in the context of a specific object-oriented language is going to differ from language to language. But if you think of classes as types, and build on that, you won't go far wrong.
A class is basically a way to organize your code.
It allows you to put all of the code related to one abstraction (think "concept" or "idea") in one place.
As an example - in your example of an app, the Window with the two buttons, a text box, and some code for handling what happens when the user types in the information may be organized into a single class: something like "PromptWindow". This class would be made up of multiple classes internally (two buttons, a textbox, etc) This would probably be used by some separate class, which would create an instance of the PromptWindow class, call a method on the class to show the window, then use the results.
At the very basis, there's procedural code:
var a = 4
var b = 5;
print a + b;
… and so on, statements following statements…
To make such pieces of code reusable, you make a function out of them:
function a_plus_b() {
var a = 4
var b = 5;
print a + b;
}
Now you can use that piece of code as often as you want, but you only had to write it once.
Usually an application depends on a certain way of how pieces of code and variables have to work together. This data needs to be processed by that function, but cannot be processed by that other function.
function foo(data) {
…do something…
return data;
}
function bar(data) {
…do something else…
return data;
}
a = "some data";
b = 123456;
a = foo(a);
b = bar(b);
c = bar(a); // ERROR, WRONG DATA FOR FUNCTION
To help group these related parts together, there are classes.
class A {
var data = 'some data';
function foo() {
…do something…
return data;
}
}
The function foo now has a variable data that is "bundled" with it in the same class. It can operate on that variable without having to worry about that it may be the wrong kind of data. Also there's no way that data can accidentally end up in function bar, which is part of another class.
The only problem is, there's only one variable data here. The function is reusable, but it can only operate on one set of data. To solve this, you create objects (also called instances) from the class:
instance1 = new A();
instance2 = new A();
instance1 and instance2 both behave exactly like class A, they both know how to perform function foo (now called an instance method) and they both hold a variable data (now called an instance variable or attribute), but that variable data can hold different data for both instances.
That's the basics of classes and objects. How your particular "OK", "Cancel" dialog box is implemented is a different story. Both buttons could be linked to different methods of different classes, or just to different methods of the same class, or even to the same method of the same class. Classes are just a way to logically group code and data, how that's going to be used is up to you.
In a language agnostic fasion, I would describe a class as being an object that contains related information.
A person class would have methods like Talk(), Walk(), Eat(); and attributes like Height, Color, Language, etc.
A class is like a blueprint of things that you can instantiate, and also procedures that are related to each other.
If you have a Database class, you might have many methods related to databases that do all sorts of voodoo with a database.
A class is a bunch of code that defines an entity in your application. There may be many such entities, but the behaviour of each is the same, as defined by the class. The class will typically define fields, whose contents are local to the instances (or objects) of that class. It is these fields that provide the objects with state and make them distinguishable from one another.
To use your example, there might be a Button class that defines what a button is in your application. This class would then be instantiated twice to provide two objects: one for the "No" button and another for the "Yes" button. The Button class could have a Text field/property that defines what text it contains – this could be set to "No" and "Yes" on the appropriate Button instances to give them their different appearances.
As for the click behaviour of the buttons, this would typically be implemented via the observer pattern, in which the subject class (Button in this case) maintains a list of separate "observer" objects which it notifies whenever some event occurs (i.e. when the button is clicked).
You should look at some sample code, in your language of choice. Just reading about the concept of classes will not answer many questions.
For example, I could tell you that a class is a "blueprint" for an object. Using this class, you can instantiate multiple such objects, each one of them (potentially) having unique attributes.
But you didn't understand a thing, now, did you? Your example with the buttons is very limited. Classes have nothing to do with user interfaces or actions or whatever. They define a way of programming, just like functions/methods/whatever you want to call them do.
So, to give a concrete example, here's a class that defines a ball, written in Python:
class Ball:
color = ''
def __init__(self, color):
self.color = color
def bounce(self):
print "%s ball bounces" % self.color
blueBall = Ball("blue")
redBall = Ball("red")
blueBall.bounce()
redBall.bounce()
Running this produces the expected output:
blue ball bounces
red ball bounces
However, there is much more to classes than I described here. Once you understand what a class is, you go on to learn about constructors, destructors, inheritance and a lot of other good stuff. Break a leg :)
From the definition of Class at Wikipedia:
In object-oriented programming, a
class is a construct that is used as
a blueprint (or template) to create
objects of that class. This blueprint
describes the state and behavior that
the objects of the class all share. An
object of a given class is called an
instance of the class. The class that
contains (and was used to create) that
instance can be considered as the type
of that object, e.g. an object
instance of the "Fruit" class would be
of the type "Fruit".
A class usually represents a noun,
such as a person, place or (possibly
quite abstract) thing - it is a model
of a concept within a computer
program. Fundamentally, it
encapsulates the state and behavior of
the concept it represents. It
encapsulates state through data
placeholders called attributes (or
member variables or instance
variables); it encapsulates behavior
through reusable sections of code
called methods.
Your understanding of a Class isn't at all incorrect but to make things clear consider the following...
The Yes and No buttons plus the TextBox are usually specified within a class taking for example code written in C# (Microsoft .NET Framework). Let's name this class MyClass.
The actions the buttons cause are handled by what are called handlers (methods). You could write your code in such a way that when you click the Yes button something gets written in the TextBox.
To instantiate MyClass you'd do the following:
MyClass myClass = new MyClass();
myClass.ButtonYes += new EventHandler(YourMethodForYes);
myClass.ButtonNo += new EventHandler(YourMethodForNo);
myClass.TextBox.Text = "Yes button was clicked";
Hope you get the idea.
I wrote usually above because this cenario you described could be implemented in a number of ways. OOP gives you plenty of ways to accomplish the same task.
Besides the definition of Class I think that reading about Object Oriented Programming (OOP) can help you a lot to understand it even more. Take a look at Fundamental Concepts.
A lot of times in code on the internet or code from my co-workers I see them creating an Object with just one method which only gets used once in the whole application. Like this:
class iOnlyHaveOneMethod{
public function theOneMethod(){
//loads and loads of code, say 100's of lines
// but it only gets used once in the whole application
}
}
if($foo){
$bar = new iOnlyHaveOneMEthod;
$bar->theOneMethod();
}
Is that really better then:
if($foo){
//loads and loads of code which only gets used here and nowhere else
}
?
For readability it makes sense to move the loads and loads of code away, but shouldn't it just be in a function?
function loadsAndLoadsOfCode(){
//Loads and loads of code
}
if($foo){ loadsAndLoadsOfCode(); }
Is moving the code to a new object really better then just creating a function or putting the code in there directly?
To me the function part makes more sense and seems more readible then creating an object which hardly is of any use since it just holds one method.
The problem is not whether it's in a function or an object.
The problem is that you have hundreds of lines in one blob. Whether that mass of code is in a method of an object or just a class seems more or less irrelevant to me, just being minor syntatic sugar.
What are those hundreds of lines doing? That's the place to look to implement object oriented best practice.
If your other developers really think using an object instead of a function makes it significantly more "object oriented" but having a several-hundred line function/method isn't seen as a code smell, then I think organisationally you have some education to do.
Well, if there really is "loads and loads" of code in the method, then it should be broken down into several protected methods in that class, in which case the use of a class scope is justified.
Perhaps that code isn't reusable because it hasn't been factored well into several distinct methods. By moving it into a class and breaking it down, you might find it could be better reused elsewhere. At least it would be much more maintainable.
Whilst the function with hundreds of lines of code clearly indicates a problem (as others have already pointed out), placing it in a separate instance class rather than a static function does have advantages, which you can exploit by rejigging your example a fraction:
// let's instead assume that $bar was set earlier using a setter
if($foo){
$bar = getMyBar();
$bar->theOneMethod();
}
This gives you a couple of advantages now:
This is a simple example of the Strategy Pattern. if $bar implements an interface that provides theOneMethod() then you can dynamically switch implementations of that method;
Testing your class independently of $bar->theOneMethod() is dramatically easier, as you can replace $bar with a mock at testing time.
Neither of these advantages are available if you just use a static function.
I would argue that, whilst simple static functions have their place, non-trivial methods (as this clearly is by the 'hundreds of lines' comment) deserve their own instance anyway:
to separate concerns;
to aid testing;
to aid refactoring and reimplementation.
You are really asking two questions here:
Is just declaring a function better than creating an object to hold only this function?
Should any function contain "loads of code"?
The first part: If you want to be able to dynamically switch functions, you may need the explicit object encapsulation as a workaround in languages that cannot handle functions this way. Of course, having to allocate a new object, assign it to a variable, then call the function from that variable is a bit dumb when all you want to do is call a function.
The second part: Ideally not, but there is no clear definition of "loads", and it may be the appropriate thing to do in certain cases.
yes, the presences of loads and loads of code is a Code Smell.
I'd say you almost never want to have either a block or a method with loads of code in it -- doesn't matter if it's in it's own class or not.
Moving it to an object might be a first step in refactoring 'though - so it might make sense in that way. First move it to its own class and later split it down to several smaller methods.
Well, I'd say it depends on how tightly coupled the block of code is with the calling section of code.
If it's so tightly coupled, that I can't imagine it being used anywhere else, I'd prefer sticking it in a private method of the calling class. That way it won't be visible to other parts of your system, guaranteeing it won't be misused by others.
On the other hand, if the block of code is generic enough (email validation i.e.) to possibly be interesting in other parts of the system, I'd have no problem extracting that part into it's own class, and then consider that to be a utility class. Even if it means it will be a single-method class.
If your question was more in the lines of "what to do with hundreds and hundreds of lines of code", then you really need to be doing some refactoring.
As much as a single method with lots of code is a code smell. My first thought was to at least make the method static. No data in the class so no need for creating an object.
I think i would look to rephrase the question that you are asking. I think you want to ask the questions is my class supporting singles responsibility principle. Is there anyway to decompose the pieces of your class into seperate smaller pieces that might change independently of each other (data access and parsing, etc . .). Can you unit test your class easily . .
If you can say yes to the above items, i wouldn't worry about method versus new class as the whole point here is that you have readable, maintainable code.
In my team we have red flag if a class gets long (over x amount of lines) but that is just a heuristic as if you class has 2000 lines of codes it probably can get broken down and is probably not supporting SRP.
For testability, it is definitely better to break it out into a separate class with separate method(s). It is a whole lot easier to write unit tests for single methods than as part of an inline if statement in a code-behind file or whatnot.
That being said, I agree with everyone else that the method should be broken out into single responsibility methods instead of hundreds of lines of code. This too will make it more readable and easier to test. And hopefully, you might get some reuse out of some of the logic contained in that big mess of code.