I find myself creating a significant number of wrapper classes, purely because I want to mock out the behaviour of
Classes that don't lend themselves well to the RhinoMocks isolation model (for instance like DirectoryInfo or WindowsIdentity)
Native Win API methods (I normally collect all the methods I need into a single class and wrap the native calls as a class method)
I then find myself appending the class that is wrapped with a 'W' (to indicate that it's a wrapper) and so I end up with DirectoryInfoW (as opposed to DirectoryInfoWrapper which seems rather verbose). Similarly, I end up with wrapped native methods called NativeMethods.DuplicateTokenW.
What would be a good rule of thumb to follow when naming wrapper classes?
Naming conventions are whatever works for the team that you're working with. As long as everyone's ok with a particular convention, then it's ok.
I tend to prefer the more verbose version though, i.e. DirectoryInfoWrapper, rather than having a single letter that doesn't explain anything to anyone who's not familiar with the code. But that's just me.
I'll agree with aberrant80 , if everyone agrees with the convention you are using, then it'll work.
I personally prefer using names that are shorter and descriptive to the class's purpose. At least at the interface level. If you're using a mock framework, then IDirectory or IDirectoryInfo would be a decent set of names, while DirectoryInfoW or DirectoryInfoWrapper would be an interface implementer.
A better example might be wrapping an HttpRequest; define an IRequest to state 'this is what is important to my application', then Request, HttpRequestWrapper, Request, etc would be implementers.
So, to summarize, try and use descriptive, non-overly-verbose interface names.
Just as a side note, I found a more aesthetically pleasing (well, to me) way of wrapping native method calls:
public class NativeMethods
{
// made virtual so that it can be mocked - I don't really want
// an interface for this class!
public virtual bool RevertToSelf()
{
return WinApi.RevertToSelf();
}
...
private static class WinApi
{
[DllImport("advapi32.dll")]
public static extern bool RevertToSelf();
...
}
}
i.e. avoid name collision by encapsulating native method calls in a private nested class.
No 'good' solution to the wrapper class naming issue though, I'd probably go with aberrant80's suggestion and explicitly call my wrappers wrappers.
If you are using C++, you can use namespaces and then just re-use the same class name. For example:
namespace WrapperNamespace
{
class MyClass {...};
}
namespace InternalNamespace
{
class MyClass {...};
}
Related
I have little doubt about adapter class. I know what's the goal of adapter class. And when should be used. My doubt is about class construction. I've checked some tutorials and all of them say that I should pass "Adaptee" class as a dependency to my "Adapter".
e.g.
Class SampleAdapter implements MyInterface
{
private AdapteeClass mInstance;
public SampleAdapter(AdapteeClass instance)
{
mInstance=instance;
}
}
This example is copied from wikipedia. As you can see AdapteeClass is passed to my object as dependency. The question is why? If I'm changing interface of an object It's obvious I'm going to use "new" interface and I won't need "old" one. Why I need to create instance of "old" class outside my adapter. Someone may say that I should use dependency injection so I can pass whatever I want, but this is adapter - I need to change interface of concrete class. Personally I think code bellow is better.
Class SampleAdapter implements MyInterface
{
private AdapteeClass mInstance;
public SampleAdapter()
{
mInstance= new AdapteeClass();
}
}
What is your opinion?
I would say that you should always avoid the new operator in a class when it comes to complex objects (except when the class is a Builder or Factory) to reduce coupling and make your code better testable. Off course objects like a List or Dictionary or value objects can be constructed inside a class method (which is probably the purpose of the class method!)
Lets say for example that your AdapteeClass is a Remote Proxy. If you want to use Unit Testing, your unit tests will have to use the real proxy class because there is no way to replace it in your unit tests.
If you use the first approach, you can easily inject a mock or fake into the constructor when running your unit test so you can test all code paths.
Google has a guide on writing testable code which describes this in more detail but some important points are:
Warning Signs for not testable code
new keyword in a constructor or at field declaration
Static method calls in a constructor or at field declaration
Anything more than field assignment in constructors
Object not fully initialized after the constructor finishes (watch out for initialize methods)
Control flow (conditional or looping logic) in a constructor
Code does complex object graph construction inside a constructor rather than using a factory or builder
Adding or using an initialization block
AdapteeClass can have one or more non-trivial constructors. In this case you'll need to duplicate all of them in your SampleAdapter constructor to have the same flexibility. Passing already constructed object is simpler.
I think creating the Adaptee inside the Adapter is limiting. What if some day you want to adapt a pre-existing instance?
To be honest though, I'd do both if at all possible.
Class SampleAdapter implements MyInterface
{
private AdapteeClass mInstance;
public SampleAdapter()
: base (new AdapteeClass())
{
}
public SampleAdapter(AdapteeClass instance)
{
mInstance=instance;
}
}
Let's assume you have an external hard drive with a regular USB port and you are trying to hook it up with a Mac which only has type-c ports. Yes, you can buy a new drive which has a type-c port but what about the data in it?
It's the same for the adapter pattern. There're times you initialize AdapteeClass with tons of flavors. When you do the conversion, you want to keep all the context.
I am going over some OO basics and trying to understand why is there a use of Interface reference variables.
When I create an interface:
public interface IWorker
{
int HoneySum { get; }
void getHoney();
}
and have a class implement it:
public class Worker : Bee, IWorker
{
int honeySum = 15;
public int HoneySum { get { return honeySum; } }
public void getHoney()
{
Console.WriteLine("Worker Bee: I have this much honey: {0}", HoneySum);
}
}
why do people use:
IWorker worker = new Worker();
worker.getHoney();
instead of just using:
Worker worker3 = new Worker();
worker3.getHoney();
whats the point of a interface reference variable when you can just instatiate the class and use it's methods and fields that way?
If your code knows what class will be used, you are right, there is no point in having an interface type variable. Just like in your example. That code knows that the class that will be instantiated is Worker, because that code won't magically change and instantiate anything else than Worker. In that sense, your code is coupled with the definition and use of Worker.
But you might want to write some code that works without knowing the class type. Take for example the following method:
public void stopWorker(IWorker worker) {
worker.stop(); // Assuming IWorker has a stop() method
}
That method doesn't care about the specific class. It would handle anything that implements IWorker.
That is code you don't have to change if you want later to use a different IWorker implementation.
It's all about low coupling between your pieces of code. It's all about maintainability.
Basically it's considered good programming practice to use the interface as the type. This allows different implementations of the interface to be used without effecting the code. I.e. if the object being assigned was passed in then you can pass in anything that implements the interface without effecting the class. However if you use the concrete class then you can only passin objects of that type.
There is a programming principle I cannot remember the name of at this time that applies to this.
You want to keep it as generic as possible without tying to specific implementation.
Interfaces are used to achieve loose coupling between system components. You're not restricting your system to the specific concrete IWorker instance. Instead, you're allowing the consumer to specify which concrete implementation of IWorker they'd like to use. What you get out of it is loosely dependent components and better flexibility.
One major reason is to provide compatibility with existing code. If you have existing code that knows how to manipulate objects via some particular interface, you can instantly make your new code compatible with that existing code by implementing that interface.
This kind of capability becomes particularly important for long-term maintenance. You already have an existing framework, and you typically want to minimize changes to other code to fit your new code into the framework. At least in the ideal case, you do this by writing your new code to implement some number of existing interfaces. As soon as you do, the existing code that knows how to manipulate objects via those interfaces can automatically work with your new class just as well as it could with the ones for which it was originally designed.
Think about interfaces as protocols and not classes i.e. does this object implement this protocol as distinct from being a protocol? For example can my number object be serialisable? Its class is a number but it might implement an interface that describes generally how it can be serialised.
A given class of object may actually implement many interfaces.
I have a class that consists only of static member variables and static methods. Essentially, it is serving as a general-purpose utility class.
Is it bad practice for a class to contain only static member variables and static methods?
No, I don't think so at all. It is worse practice to have a class full of instance methods which don't actually depend on a particular instance. Making them static tells the user exactly how they are intended to be used. Additionally, you avoid unnecessary instantiations this way.
EDIT: As an afterthought, in general I think its nice to avoid using language features "just because", or because you think that that is the "Java way to do it". I recall my first job where I had a class full of static utility methods and one of the senior programmers told me that I wasn't fully harnessing the OO power of Java by making all of my methods "global". She was not on the team 6 months later.
As long as the class has no internal state and is essentially what is known as a leaf class (utility classes fall into this category), in other words it is independent of other classes. It is fine.
The Math class being a prime example.
Sounds reasonable.
Note: Classes that do this often have a private no-arg constructor just so that the compiler yields an error if a programmer tries to create an instance of the static class.
Static methods don't worry me much (except for testing).
In general, static members are a concern. For example, what if your app is clustered? What about start-up time -- what kind of initialization is taking place? For a consideration of these issues and more, check out this article by Gilad Bracha.
It's perfectly reasonable. In fact, in C# you can define a class with the static keyword specifically for this purpose.
Just don't get carried away with it. Notice that the java.lang.Math class is only about math functions. You might also have a StringUtilities class which contains common string-handling functions which aren't in the standard API, for example. But if your class is named Utilities, for example, that's a hint that you might want to split it up.
Note also that Java specifically introduced the static import: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_import)
Static import is a feature introduced
in the Java programming language that
members (fields and methods) defined
in a class as public static to be used
in Java code without specifying the
class in which the field is defined.
This feature was introduced into the
language in version 5.0.
The feature provides a typesafe
mechanism to include constants into
code without having to reference the
class that originally defined the
field. It also helps to deprecate the
practice of creating a constant
interface: an interface that only
defines constants then writing a class
implementing that interface, which is
considered an inappropriate use of
interfaces[1].
The mechanism can be used to reference
individual members of a class:
import static java.lang.Math.PI;
import static java.lang.Math.pow;
or all the static members of a class:
import static java.lang.Math.*;
While I agree with the sentiment that it sounds like a reasonable solution (as others have already stated), one thing you may want to consider is, from a design standpoint, why do you have a class just for "utility" purposes. Are those functionals truly general across the entire system, or are they really related to some specific class of objects within your architecture.
As long as you have thought about that, I see no problem with your solution.
The Collections class in Java SDK has static members only.
So, there you go, as long as you have proper justification -- its not a bad design
Utility methods are often placed in classes with only static methods (like StringUtils.) Global constants are also placed in their own class so that they can be imported by the rest of the code (public final static attributes.)
Both uses are quite common and have private default constructors to prevent them from being instantiated. Declaring the class final prevents the mistake of trying to override static methods.
If by static member variables you did not mean global constants, you might want to place the methods accessing those variables in a class of their own. In that case, could you eleborate on what those variables do in your code?
This is typically how utility classes are designed and there is nothing wrong about it. Famous examples include o.a.c.l.StringUtils, o.a.c.d.DbUtils, o.s.w.b.ServletRequestUtils, etc.
According to a rigid interpretation of Object Oriented Design, a utility class is something to be avoided.
The problem is that if you follow a rigid interpretation then you would need to force your class into some sort object in order to accomplish many things.
Even the Java designers make utility classes (java.lang.Math comes to mind)
Your options are:
double distance = Math.sqrt(x*x + y*y); //using static utility class
vs:
RootCalculator mySquareRooter = new SquareRootCalculator();
mySquareRooter.setValueToRoot(x*x + y*y);
double distance;
try{
distance = mySquareRooter.getRoot();
}
catch InvalidParameterException ......yadda yadda yadda.
Even if we were to avoid the verbose method, we could still end up with:
Mathemetician myMathD00d = new Mathemetician()
double distance = myMathD00d.sqrt(...);
in this instance, .sqrt() is still static, so what would the point be in creating the object in the first place?
The answer is, create utility classes when your other option would be to create some sort of artificial "Worker" class that has no or little use for instance variables.
This link http://java.dzone.com/articles/why-static-bad-and-how-avoid seems to go against most of the answers here. Even if it contains no member variables (i.e. no state), a static class can still be a bad idea because it cannot be mocked or extended (subclassed), so it is defeating some of the principles of OO
I wouldn't be concerned over a utility class containing static methods.
However, static members are essentially global data and should be avoided. They may be acceptable if they are used for caching results of the static methods and such, but if they are used as "real" data that may lead to all kinds of problems, such as hidden dependencies and difficulties to set up tests.
From TSLint’s docs:
Users who come from a Java-style OO language may wrap their utility functions in an extra class, instead of putting them at the top level.
The best way is to use a constant, like this:
export const Util = {
print (data: string): void {
console.log(data)
}
}
Examples of incorrect code for this rule:
class EmptyClass {}
class ConstructorOnly {
constructor() {
foo();
}
}
// Use an object instead:
class StaticOnly {
static version = 42;
static hello() {
console.log('Hello, world!');
}
}
Examples of correct code for this rule:
class EmptyClass extends SuperClass {}
class ParameterProperties {
constructor(public name: string) {}
}
const StaticOnly = {
version: 42,
hello() {
console.log('Hello, world!');
},
};
Here's a Clone() implementation for my class:
MyClass^ Clone(){
return gcnew MyClass(this->member1, this->member2);
}
Now I have about 10 classes derived from MyClass. The implementation is the same in each case. Owing to the fact that I need to call gcnew with the actual class name in each case, I am required to create 10 nearly identical implementations of Clone().
Is there a way to write one single Clone() method in the base class which will serve all 10 derived classes?
Edit: Is there a way to invoke the constructor of a class via one of it's objects? In a way that will invoke the actual derived class constructor. Something like:
MyClass ^obj2 = obj1->Class->Construct(arg1, arg2);
I'm doing this on C++/CLI but answers from other languages are welcome.
In plain old C++, you can do this with compile-time polymorphism (the curiously-recurring template pattern). Assuming your derived classes are copyable, you can just write:
class Base
{
public:
virtual Base* Clone() const = 0;
//etc.
};
template <typename Derived>
class BaseHelper: public Base
{
//other base code here
//This is a covariant return type, allowed in standard C++
Derived * Clone() const
{
return new Derived(static_cast<Derived *>(*this));
}
};
Then use it like:
class MyClass: public BaseHelper<MyClass>
{
//MyClass automatically gets a Clone method with the right signature
};
Note that you can't derive from a class again and have it work seamlessly - you have to "design in" the option to derive again by templating the intermediate classes, or start re-writing Clone again.
Not in C++ that I'm aware of. As you say, you need to create an object of a different class in each implementation of Clone().
Hm, I think you can use Factory pattern here. I.e.:
MyClass Clone(){
return MyClassFactory.createInstance(this.getClass(), this.member1, this.member2, ...);
}
In the factory, you would have to create instance of subclass based on passed class type. So probably it has the same disadvantages as your approach.
I would suggest using copy constructors instead (as derived classes can call the base implementation's copy constructor as well) -- also handy, as it will be familiar territory for C++ programmers.
You might be able to create a single Clone method that uses reflection to call the copy constructor on itself in this instance.
Possibly also worth noting that Jeffrey Richter said in the Framework Design Guidelines book, "The ICloneable interface is an example of a very simple abstraction with a contract that was never explicitly documented. Some types implement this interface's Clone method so that it performs a shallow copy of the object, whereas some implementations perform a deep copy. Because what this interface's Clone method should do was never fully documented, when using an object with a type that implements ICloneable, you never know what you're going to get. This makes the interface useless" (emphasis mine)
When I first started working with object-oriented programming languages, I was taught the following rule:
When declaring a field in a class, don't initialize it yet. Do that in the constructor.
An example in C#:
public class Test
{
private List<String> l;
public Test()
{
l = new List<String>();
}
}
But when someone recently asked me why to do that, I couldn't come up with a reason.
I'm not really familiar with the internal workings of C# (or other programming languages, for that matter, as I believe this can be done in all OO languages).
So why is this done? Is it security? Properties?
If you have multiple constructors, you might want to initialize a field to different values
When you initialize the field in the constructor, there can be no confusion over when exactly it is initialized in regard to the rest of the constructor. This may seem trivial with a single class, but not so much when you have an inheritance hierarchy with constructor code running at each level and accessing superclass fields.
The C# compiler will take any non-static member intialization that you do inline and move it into the constructor for you. In other words this:
class Test
{
Object o = new Object();
}
gets compiled to this:
class Test
{
Object o;
public Test()
{
this.o = new Object();
}
}
I am not sure how compilers for other languages handle this but as far as C# is concerned it is a matter of style and you are free to do whichever you wish. Please note that static fields are handled differently: read this article for more information on that.
One reason to do it is that it puts all of the initialization code in one place which is convenient for others reading your class. Having said this I don't really do it for two primary reasons. (1) I use TDD/Unit testing to define the behavior of my class. If you want to know what the parameterless constructor does, you should really read the tests I've built on the parameterless constructor. (2) With C# 3.0, I typically use automatic properties and inline initialization with a parameterless constructor to instantiate the object. This is much more flexible and it puts the definition of the properties right in line where the code is being used. This would override any initialization in the constructor so I rarely put any there. Of course, this only applies to C#.
Ex. (of 2)
var foo = new Foo { Bar = "baz" };
public class Foo
{
public string Bar { get; set; }
public Foo() { }
}
sometimes the constructor has parameters that are used for initializing internal variables. For example size of arrays
I haven't heard a compelling reason to not offer both options. I suspect that the real reason has to do with simplifying the language structure from a parsing perspective. This is especially true in C-derivative languages where parsing an assignment statement requires 75% of the language syntax rules. It seems to me that allowing it and defining how it would work precisely would be nice. I agree with Michael's comment about the complexity increase as you insert inheritance and multiple constructors but just because you add a feature doesn't mean that you have to use it. I would vote to support both even though my vote doesn't really add up to much.
I always like to think of the class as a factory for objects, and the constructor as the final stop on the production line. The fields declared in the class are blueprints descirbing the object, but the blueprint won't be realised into an object before such an object is ordered tthrough a call to the constructor... Also, as someone pointed out, doing all your initialisations in your constructor will improve readability, as well as it wil provide for dynamicity in initialisation (it might not be a parameterless constructor you're dealing with).
Also, in some languages the constructor may be used for resetting an object to an original state, which is why it will then be necessary to instatiate the object in the constructor.