By putting functionality into a function, does that alone constitute an example of encapsulation or do you need to use objects to have encapsulation?
I'm trying to understand the concept of encapsulation. What I thought was if I go from something like this:
n = n + 1
which is executed out in the wild as part of a big body of code and then I take that, and put it in a function such as this one, then I have encapsulated that addition logic in a method:
addOne(n)
n = n + 1
return n
Or is it more the case that it is only encapsulation if I am hiding the details of addOne from the outside world - like if it is an object method and I use an access modifier of private/protected?
I will be the first to disagree with what seems to be the answer trend. Yes, a function encapsulates some amount of implementation. You don't need an object (which I think you use to mean a class).
See Meyers too.
Perhaps you are confusing abstraction with encapsulation, which is understood in the broader context of object orientation.
Encapsulation properly includes all three of the following:
Abstraction
Implementation Hiding
Division of Responsibility
Abstraction is only one component of encapsulation. In your example you have abstracted the adding functionality from the main body of code in which it once resided. You do this by identifying some commonality in the code - recognizing a concept (addition) over a specific case (adding the number one to the variable n). Because of this ability, abstraction makes an encapsulated component - a method or an object - reusable.
Equally important to the notion of encapsulation is the idea of implementation hiding. This is why encapsulation is discussed in the arena of object orientation. Implementation hiding protects an object from its users and vice versa. In OO, you do this by presenting an interface of public methods to the users of your object, while the implementation of the object takes place inside private methods.
This serves two benefits. First, by limiting access to your object, you avoid a situation where users of the object can leave the object in an invalid state. Second, from the user's perspective, when they use your object they are only loosely coupled to it - if you change your implementation later on, they are not impacted.
Finally, division of responsility - in the broader context of an OO design - is something that must be considered to address encapsulation properly. It's no use encapsulating a random collection of functions - responsibility needs to be cleanly and logically defined so that there is as little overlap or ambiguity as possible. For example, if we have a Toilet object we will want to wall off its domain of responsibilities from our Kitchen object.
In a limited sense, though, you are correct that a function, let's say, 'modularizes' some functionality by abstracting it. But, as I've said, 'encapsulation' as a term is understood in the broader context of object orientation to apply to a form of modularization that meets the three criteria listed above.
Sure it is.
For example, a method that operates only on its parameters would be considered "better encapsulated" than a method that operates on global static data.
Encapsulation has been around long before OOP :)
A method is no more an example of encapsulation than a car is an example of good driving. Encapsulation isn't about the synax, it is a logical design issue. Both objects and methods can exhibit good and bad encapsulation.
The simplest way to think about it is whether the code hides/abstracts the details from other parts of the code that don't have a need to know/care about the implementation.
Going back to the car example:
Automatic transmission offers good encapsulation: As a driver you care about forward/back and speed.
Manual Transmission is bad encapsulation: From the driver's perspective the specific gear required for low/high speeds is generally irrelevant to the intent of the driver.
No, objects aren't required for encapsulation. In the very broadest sense, "encapsulation" just means "hiding the details from view" and in that regard a method is encapsulating its implementation details.
That doesn't really mean you can go out and say your code is well-designed just because you divided it up into methods, though. A program consisting of 500 public methods isn't much better than that same program implemented in one 1000-line method.
In building a program, regardless of whether you're using object oriented techniques or not, you need to think about encapsulation at many different places: hiding the implementation details of a method, hiding data from code that doesn't need to know about it, simplifying interfaces to modules, etc.
Update: To answer your updated question, both "putting code in a method" and "using an access modifier" are different ways of encapsulating logic, but each one acts at a different level.
Putting code in a method hides the individual lines of code that make up that method so that callers don't need to care about what those lines are; they only worry about the signature of the method.
Flagging a method on a class as (say) "private" hides that method so that a consumer of the class doesn't need to worry about it; they only worry about the public methods (or properties) of your class.
The abstract concept of encapsulation means that you hide implementation details. Object-orientation is but one example of the use of ecnapsulation. Another example is the language called module-2 that uses (or used) implementation modules and definition modules. The definition modules hid the actual implementation and therefore provided encapsulation.
Encapsulation is used when you can consider something a black box. Objects are a black box. You know the methods they provide, but not how they are implemented.
[EDIT]
As for the example in the updated question: it depends on how narrow or broad you define encapsulation. Your AddOne example does not hide anything I believe. It would be information hiding/encapsulation if your variable would be an array index and you would call your method moveNext and maybe have another function setValue and getValue. This would allow people (together maybe with some other functions) to navigate your structure and setting and getting variables with them being aware of you using an array. If you programming language would support other or richer concepts you could change the implementation of moveNext, setValue and getValue with changing the meaning and the interface. To me that is encapsulation.
It's a component-level thing
Check this out:
In computer science, Encapsulation is the hiding of the internal mechanisms and data structures of a software component behind a defined interface, in such a way that users of the component (other pieces of software) only need to know what the component does, and cannot make themselves dependent on the details of how it does it. The purpose is to achieve potential for change: the internal mechanisms of the component can be improved without impact on other components, or the component can be replaced with a different one that supports the same public interface.
(I don't quite understand your question, let me know if that link doesn't cover your doubts)
Let's simplify this somewhat with an analogy: you turn the key of your car and it starts up. You know that there's more to it than just the key, but you don't have to know what is going on in there. To you, key turn = motor start. The interface of the key (that is, e.g., the function call) hides the implementation of the starter motor spinning the engine, etc... (the implementation). That's encapsulation. You're spared from having to know what's going on under the hood, and you're happy for it.
If you created an artificial hand, say, to turn the key for you, that's not encapsulation. You're turning the key with additional middleman cruft without hiding anything. That's what your example reminds me of - it's not encapsulating implementation details, even though both are accomplished through function calls. In this example, anyone picking up your code will not thank you for it. They will, in fact, be more likely to club you with your artificial hand.
Any method you can think of to hide information (classes, functions, dynamic libraries, macros) can be used for encapsulation.
Encapsulation is a process in which attributes(data member) and behavior(member function) of a objects in combined together as a single entity refer as class.
The Reference Model of Open Distributed Processing - written by the International Organisation for Standardization - defines the following concepts:
Entity: Any concrete or abstract thing of interest.
Object: A model of an entity. An object is characterised by its behaviour and, dually, by its state.
Behaviour (of an object): A collection of actions with a set of constraints on when they may occur.
Interface: An abstraction of the behaviour of an object that consists of a subset of the interactions of that object together with a set of constraints on when they may occur.
Encapsulation: the property that the information contained in an object is accessible only through interactions at the interfaces supported by the object.
These, you will appreciate, are quite broad. Let us see, however, whether putting functionality within a function can logically be considered to constitute towards encapsulation in these terms.
Firstly, a function is clearly a model of a, 'Thing of interest,' in that it represents an algorithm you (presumably) desire executed and that algorithm pertains to some problem you are trying to solve (and thus is a model of it).
Does a function have behaviour? It certainly does: it contains a collection of actions (which could be any number of executable statements) that are executed under the constraint that the function must be called from somewhere before it can execute. A function may not spontaneously be called at any time, without causal factor. Sounds like legalese? You betcha. But let's plough on, nonetheless.
Does a function have an interface? It certainly does: it has a name and a collection of formal parameters, which in turn map to the executable statements contained in the function in that, once a function is called, the name and parameter list are understood to uniquely identify the collection of executable statements to be run without the calling party's specifying those actual statements.
Does a function have the property that the information contained in the function is accessible only through interactions at the interfaces supported by the object? Hmm, well, it can.
As some information is accessible via its interface, some information must be hidden and inaccessible within the function. (The property such information exhibits is called information hiding, which Parnas defined by arguing that modules should be designed to hide both difficult decisions and decisions that are likely to change.) So what information is hidden within a function?
To see this, we should first consider scale. It's easy to claim that, for example, Java classes can be encapsulated within a package: some of the classes will be public (and hence be the package's interface) and some will be package-private (and hence information-hidden within the package). In encapsulation theory, the classes form nodes and the packages form encapsulated regions, with the entirety forming an encapsulated graph; the graph of classes and packages is called the third graph.
It's also easy to claim that functions (or methods) themselves are encapsulated within classes. Again, some functions will be public (and hence be part of the class's interface) and some will be private (and hence information-hidden within the class). The graph of functions and classes is called the second graph.
Now we come to functions. If functions are to be a means of encapsulation themselves they they should contain some information public to other functions and some information that's information-hidden within the function. What could this information be?
One candidate is given to us by McCabe. In his landmark paper on cyclomatic complexity, Thomas McCabe describes source code where, 'Each node in the graph corresponds to a block of code in the program where the flow is sequential and the arcs correspond to branches taken in the program.'
Let us take the McCabian block of sequential execution as the unit of information that may be encapsulated within a function. As the first block within the function is always the first and only guaranteed block to be executed, we can consider the first block to be public, in that it may be called by other functions. All the other blocks within the function, however, cannot be called by other functions (except in languages that allow jumping into functions mid-flow) and so these blocks may be considered information-hidden within the function.
Taking these (perhaps slightly tenuous) definitions, then we may say yes: putting functionality within a function does constitute to encapsulation. The encapsulation of blocks within functions is the first graph.
There is a caveate, however. Would you consider a package whose every class was public to be encapsulated? According to the definitions above, it does pass the test, as you can say that the interface to the package (i.e., all the public classes) do indeed offer a subset of the package's behaviour to other packages. But the subset in this case is the entire package's behaviour, as no classes are information-hidden. So despite regorously satisfying the above definitions, we feel that it does not satisfy the spirit of the definitions, as surely something must be information-hidden for true encapsulation to be claimed.
The same is true for the exampe you give. We can certainly consider n = n + 1 to be a single McCabian block, as it (and the return statement) are a single, sequential flow of executions. But the function into which you put this thus contains only one block, and that block is the only public block of the function, and therefore there are no information-hidden blocks within your proposed function. So it may satisfy the definition of encapsulation, but I would say that it does not satisfy the spirit.
All this, of course, is academic unless you can prove a benefit such encapsulation.
There are two forces that motivate encapsulation: the semantic and the logical.
Semantic encapsulation merely means encapsulation based on the meaning of the nodes (to use the general term) encapsulated. So if I tell you that I have two packages, one called, 'animal,' and one called 'mineral,' and then give you three classes Dog, Cat and Goat and ask into which packages these classes should be encapsulated, then, given no other information, you would be perfectly right to claim that the semantics of the system would suggest that the three classes be encapsulated within the, 'animal,' package, rather than the, 'mineral.'
The other motivation for encapsulation, however, is logic.
The configuration of a system is the precise and exhaustive identification of each node of the system and the encapsulated region in which it resides; a particular configuration of a Java system is - at the third graph - to identify all the classes of the system and specify the package in which each class resides.
To logically encapsulate a system means to identify some mathematical property of the system that depends on its configuration and then to configure that system so that the property is mathematically minimised.
Encapsulation theory proposes that all encapsulated graphs express a maximum potential number of edges (MPE). In a Java system of classes and packages, for example, the MPE is the maximum potential number of source code dependencies that can exist between all the classes of that system. Two classes within the same package cannot be information-hidden from one another and so both may potentially form depdencies on one another. Two package-private classes in separate packages, however, may not form dependencies on one another.
Encapsulation theory tells us how many packages we should have for a given number of classes so that the MPE is minimised. This can be useful because the weak form of the Principle of Burden states that the maximum potential burden of transforming a collection of entities is a function of the maximum potential number of entities transformed - in other words, the more potential source code dependencies you have between your classes, the greater the potential cost of doing any particular update. Minimising the MPE thus minimises the maximum potential cost of updates.
Given n classes and a requirement of p public classes per package, encapsulation theory shows that the number of packages, r, we should have to minimise the MPE is given by the equation: r = sqrt(n/p).
This also applies to the number of functions you should have, given the total number, n, of McCabian blocks in your system. Functions always have just one public block, as we mentioned above, and so the equation for the number of functions, r, to have in your system simplifies to: r = sqrt(n).
Admittedly, few considered the total number of blocks in their system when practicing encapsulation, but it's readily done at the class/package level. And besides, minimising MPE is almost entirely entuitive: it's done by minimising the number of public classes and trying to uniformly distribute classes over packages (or at least avoid have most packages with, say, 30 classes, and one monster pacakge with 500 classes, in which case the internal MPE of the latter can easily overwhelm the MPE of all the others).
Encapsulation thus involves striking a balance between the semantic and the logical.
All great fun.
in strict object-oriented terminology, one might be tempted to say no, a "mere" function is not sufficiently powerful to be called encapsulation...but in the real world the obvious answer is "yes, a function encapsulates some code".
for the OO purists who bristle at this blasphemy, consider a static anonymous class with no state and a single method; if the AddOne() function is not encapsulation, then neither is this class!
and just to be pedantic, encapsulation is a form of abstraction, not vice-versa. ;-)
It's not normally very meaningful to speak of encapsulation without reference to properties rather than solely methods -- you can put access controls on methods, certainly, but it's difficult to see how that's going to be other than nonsensical without any data scoped to the encapsulated method. Probably you could make some argument validating it, but I suspect it would be tortuous.
So no, you're most likely not using encapsulation just because you put a method in a class rather than having it as a global function.
Related
In interviews I have been asked to explain the difference between abstraction and encapsulation. My answer has been along the lines of
Abstraction allows us to represent complex real world in simplest manner. It is the process of identifying the relevant qualities and behaviors an object should possess; in other words, to represent the necessary feature without representing the background details.
Encapsulation is a process of hiding all the internal details of an object from the outside real world. The word "encapsulation", is like "enclosing" into a "capsule". It restricts clients from seeing its internal view where the behavior of the abstraction is implemented.
I think with above answer the interviewer was convinced, but then I was asked, if the purpose of both is hiding, then why there is a need to use encapsulation. At that time I didn't have a good answer for this.
What should I have added to make my answer more complete?
Abstraction has to do with separating interface from implementation. (We don't care what it is, we care that it works a certain way.)
Encapsulation has to do with disallowing access to or knowledge of internal structures of an implementation. (We don't care or need to see how it works, only that it does.)
Some people do use encapsulation as a synonym for abstraction, which is (IMO) incorrect. It's possible that your interviewer thought this. If that is the case then you were each talking about two different things when you referred to "encapsulation."
It's worth noting that these concepts are represented differently in different programming languages. A few examples:
In Java and C#, interfaces (and, to some degree, abstract classes) provide abstraction, while access modifiers provide encapsulation.
It's mostly the same deal in C++, except that we don't have interfaces, we only have abstract classes.
In JavaScript, duck typing provides abstraction, and closure provides encapsulation. (Naming convention can also provide encapsulation, but this only works if all parties agree to follow it.)
Its Simple!
Take example of television - it is Encapsulation, because:
Television is loaded with different functionalies that i don't know because they are completely hidden.
Hidden things like music, video etc everything bundled in a capsule that what we call a TV
Now, Abstraction is When we know a little about something and which can help us to manipulate something for which we don't know how it works internally.
For eg:
A remote-control for TV is abstraction, because
With remote we know that pressing the number keys will change the channels. We are not aware as to what actually happens internally. We can manipulate the hidden thing but we don't know how it is being done internally.
Programmatically, when we can acess the hidden data somehow and know something.. is Abstraction .. And when we know nothing about the internals its Encapsulation.
Without remote we can't change anything on TV we have to see what it shows coz all controls are hidden.
Abstraction
Exposing the Entity instead of the details of the entity.
"Details are there, but we do not consider them. They are not required."
Example 1:
Various calculations:
Addition, Multiplication, Subtraction, Division, Square, Sin, Cos, Tan.
We do not show the details of how do we calculate the Sin, Cos or Tan. We just Show Calculator and it's various Methods which will be, and which needs to be used by the user.
Example 2:
Employee has:
First Name, Last Name, Middle Name. He can Login(), Logout(), DoWork().
Many processes might be happening for Logging employee In, such as connecting to database, sending Employee ID and Password, receiving reply from Database. Although above details are present, we will hide the details and expose only "Employee".
Encapsulation
Enclosing. Treating multiple characteristics/ functions as one unit instead of individuals.
So that outside world will refer to that unit instead of it's details directly.
"Details are there, we consider them, but do not show them, instead we show what you need to see."
Example 1:
Instead of calling it as Addition, Subtraction, Multiplication, Division, Now we will call it as a Calculator.
Example 2:
All characteristics and operations are now referred by the employee, such as "John". John Has name. John Can DoWork(). John can Login().
Hiding
Hiding the implemention from outside world.
So that outside world will not see what should not be seen.
"Details are there, we consider them, but we do not show them. You do not need to see them."
Example 1:
Your requirement: Addition, Substraction, Multiplication, Division. You will be able to see it and get the result.
You do not need to know where operands are getting stored. Its not your requirement.
Also, every instruction that I am executing, is also not your requirement.
Example 2:
John Would like to know his percentage of attendance. So GetAttendancePercentage() Will be called.
However, this method needs data saved in database. Hence it will call FetchDataFromDB(). FetchDataFromDB() is NOT required to be visible to outside world.
Hence we will hide it. However, John.GetAttendancePercentage() will be visible to outside world.
Abstraction, encapsulation and hiding complement each others.
Because we create level of abstraction over details, the details are encapsulated. And because they are enclosed, they are hidden.
Difference between Abstraction and Encapsulation :-
Abstraction
Abstraction solves the problem in the design level.
Abstraction is used for hiding the unwanted data and giving relevant data.
Abstraction lets you focus on what the object does instead of how it does it.
Abstraction- Outer layout, used in terms of design.
For Example:-
Outer Look of a Mobile Phone, like it has a display screen and keypad buttons to dial a number.
Encapsulation
Encapsulation solves the problem in the implementation level.
Encapsulation means hiding the code and data into a single unit to protect the data from outside world.
Encapsulation means hiding the internal details or mechanics of how an object does something.
Encapsulation- Inner layout, used in terms of implementation.
For Example:- Inner Implementation detail of a Mobile Phone, how keypad button and Display Screen are connect with each other using circuits.
Encapsulation
Encapsulation from what you have learnt googling around, is a concept of combining the related data and operations in a single capsule or what we could say a class in OOP, such that no other program can modify the data it holds or method implementation it has, at a particular instance of time. Only the getter and setter methods can provide access to the instance variables.
Our code might be used by others and future up-gradations or bug fixes are liable. Encapsulation is something that makes sure that whatever code changes we do in our code doesn't break the code of others who are using it.
Encapsulation adds up to the maintainability, flexibility and extensibility of the code.
Encapsulation helps hide the implementation behind an interface.
Abstraction
Abstraction is the process of actually hiding the implementation behind an interface. So we are just aware of the actual behavior but not how exactly the think works out internally. The most common example could the scenario where put a key inside the lock and easily unlock it. So the interface here is the keyhole, while we are not aware of how the levers inside the lock co-ordinate among themselves to get the lock unlocked.
To be more clear, abstraction can be explained as the capability to use the same interface for different objects. Different implementations of the same interface can exist, while the details of every implementation are hidden by encapsulation.
Finally, the statement to answer all the confusions until now -
The part that is hidden relates to encapsulation while the part that is exposed relates to abstraction.
Read more on this here
Abstraction : Abstraction is process in which you collect or gather relevant data and remove non-relevant data. (And if you have achieved abstraction, then encapsulation also achieved.)
Encapsulation: Encapsulation is a process in which you wrap of functions and members in a single unit. Means You are hiding the implementation detail. Means user can access by making object of class, he/she can't see detail.
Example:
public class Test
{
int t;
string s;
public void show()
{
s = "Testing";
Console.WriteLine(s);
Console.WriteLine(See()); // No error
}
int See()
{
t = 10;
return t;
}
public static void Main()
{
Test obj = new Test();
obj.Show(); // there is no error
obj.See(); // Error:- Inaccessible due to its protection level
}
}
In the above example, User can access only Show() method by using obj, that is Abstraction.
And See() method is calling internally in Show() method that is encapsulation, because user doesn't know what things are going on in Show() method.
I know there are lot's of answers before me with variety of examples.
Well here is my opinion abstraction is getting interested from reality .
In abstraction we hide something to reduce the complexity of it
and In encapsulation we hide something to protect the data.
So we define encapsulation as wrapping of data and methods in single entity referred as class.
In java we achieve encapsulation using getters and setters not just by wrapping data and methods in it. we also define a way to access that data.
and while accessing data we protect it also. Techinical e.g would be to define a private data variable call weight.Now we know that weight can't be zero or less than zero in real world scenario. Imagine if there are no getters and setters someone could have easily set it to a negative value being public member of class.
Now final difference using one real world example,
Consider a circuit board consisting of switches and buttons.
We wrap all the wires into a a circuit box, so that we can protect someone by not getting in contact directly(encapsulation).
We don't care how those wires are connected to each other we just want an interface to turn on and off switch. That interface is provided by buttons(abstraction)
Encapsulation : Suppose I have some confidential documents, now I hide these documents inside a locker so no one can gain access to them, this is encapsulation.
Abstraction : A huge incident took place which was summarised in the newspaper. Now the newspaper only listed the more important details of the actual incident, this is abstraction. Further the headline of the incident highlights on even more specific details in a single line, hence providing higher level of abstraction on the incident. Also highlights of a football/cricket match can be considered as abstraction of the entire match.
Hence encapsulation is hiding of data to protect its integrity and abstraction is highlighting more important details.
In programming terms we can see that a variable may be enclosed is the scope of a class as private hence preventing it from being accessed directly from outside, this is encapsulation. Whereas a a function may be written in a class to swap two numbers. Now the numbers may be swapped in either by either using a temporary variable or through bit manipulation or using arithmetic operation, but the goal of the user is to receive the numbers swapped irrespective of the method used for swapping, this is abstraction.
Abstraction: In case of an hardware abstraction layer, you have simple interfaces to trigger the hardware (e.g. turn enginge left/right) without knowing the hardware details behind. So hiding the complexity of the system. It's a simplified view of the real world.
Encapsulation: Hiding of object internals. The object is an abstraction of the real world. But the details of this object (like data structures...) can be hidden via encapsulation.
Abstraction refers to the act of representing essential features without including the background details or explanations.
Encapsulation is a technique used for hiding the properties and behaviors of an object and allowing outside access only as appropriate. It prevents other objects from directly altering or accessing the properties or methods of the encapsulated object.
Difference between abstraction and encapsulation
1.Abstraction focuses on the outside view of an object (i.e. the interface) Encapsulation (information hiding) prevents clients from seeing it’s inside view, where the behavior of the abstraction is implemented.
2.Abstraction solves the problem in the design side while Encapsulation is the Implementation.
3.Encapsulation is the deliverable of Abstraction. Encapsulation barely talks about grouping up your abstraction to suit the developer needs.
ABSTRACTION:"A view of a problem that extracts the essential information
relevant to a particular purpose and ignores the remainder of
the information."[IEEE, 1983]
ENCAPSULATION: "Encapsulation or equivalently information hiding refers to the
practice of including within an object everything it needs, and
furthermore doing this in such a way that no other object need ever
be aware of this internal structure."
Abstraction is one of the many benefits of Data Encapsulation. We can also say Data Encapsulation is one way to implement Abstraction.
My opinion of abstraction is not in the sense of hiding implementation or background details!
Abstraction gives us the benefit to deal with a representation of the real world which is easier to handle, has the ability to be reused, could be combined with other components of our more or less complex program package. So we have to find out how we pick a complete peace of the real world, which is complete enough to represent the sense of our algorithm and data. The implementation of the interface may hide the details but this is not part of the work we have to do for abstracting something.
For me most important thing for abstraction is:
reduction of complexity
reduction of size/quantity
splitting of non related domains to clear and independent components
All this has for me nothing to do with hiding background details!
If you think of sorting some data, abstraction can result in:
a sorting algorithm, which is independent of the data representation
a compare function, which is independent of data and sort algorithm
a generic data representation, which is independent of the used algorithms
All these has nothing to do with hiding information.
In my view encapsulation is a thought of programmer to hide the complexity of the program code by using access specifier.
Where as Abstraction is separation of method and object according to there function and behavior. For example Car has sheets, wheels, break, headlight.
Developer A, who is inherently utilising the concept of abstraction will use a module/library function/widget, concerned only with what it does (and what it will be used for) but not how it does it. The interface of that module/library function/widget (the 'levers' the Developer A is allowed to pull/push) is the personification of that abstraction.
Developer B, who is seeking to create such a module/function/widget will utilise the concept of encapsulation to ensure Developer A (and any other developer who uses the widget) can take advantage of the resulting abstraction. Developer B is most certainly concerned with how the widget does what it does.
TLDR;
Abstraction - I care about what something does, but not how it does it.
Encapsulation - I care about how something does what it does such that others only need to care about what it does.
(As a loose generalisation, to abstract something, you must encapsulate something else. And by encapsulating something, you have created an abstraction.)
Encapsulation is basically denying the access to the internal implementation or knowledge about internals to the external world, while Abstraction is giving a generalized view of any implementation that helps the external world to interact with it
The essential thing about abstraction is that client code operates in terms of a different logical/abstract model. That different model may be more or less complex than the implementation happens to be in any given client usage.
For example, "Iterator" abstracts (aka generalises) sequenced traversal of 0 or more values - in C++ it manifests as begin(), */-> (dereferencing), end(), pre/post ++ and possibly --, then there's +, +=, [], std::advance etc.. That's a lot of baggage if the client could say increment a size_t along an array anyway. The essential thing is that the abstraction allows client code that needs to perform such a traversal to be decoupled from the exact nature of the "container" or data source providing the elements. Iteration is a higher-level notion that sometimes restricts the way the traversal is performed (e.g. a forward iterator can only advance an element at a time), but the data can then be provided by a larger set of sources (e.g. from a keyboard where there's not even a "container" in the sense of concurrently stored values). The client code can generally switch to another data source abstracted through its own iterators with minimal or even no changes, and even polymorphically to other data types - either implicitly or explicitly using something like std::iterator_traits<Iterator>::value_type available.
This is quite a different thing from encapsulation, which is the practice of making some data or functions less accessible, such that you know they're only used indirectly as a result of operations on the public interface. Encapsulation is an essential tool for maintaining invariants on an object, which means things you want to keep true after every public operation - if client code could just reach in and modify your object then you can't enforce any invariants. For example, a class might wrap a string, ensuring that after any operation any lowercase letters were changed to upper case, but if the client code can reach in and put a lowercase letter into the string without the involvement of the class's member functions, then the invariant can't be enforced.
To further highlight the difference, consider say a private std::vector<Timing_Sample> data member that's incidentally populated by operations on the containing object, with a report dumped out on destruction. With the data and destructor side effect not interacting with the object's client code in any way, and the operations on the object not intentionally controlling the time-keeping behaviour, there's no abstraction of that time reporting functionality but there is encapsulation. An example of abstraction would be to move the timing code into a separate class that might encapsulate the vector (make it private) and just provide a interface like add(const Timing_Sample&) and report(std::ostream&) - the necessary logical/abstract operations involved with using such instrumentation, with the highly desirable side effect that the abstracted code will often be reusable for other client code with similar functional needs.
In my opinion, both terms are related in some sense and sort of mixed into each other. "Encapsulation" provides a way to grouping related fields, methods in a class (or module) to wrap the related things together. As of that time, it provides data hiding in two ways;
Through access modifiers.
Purely for hiding state of the class/object.
Abstracting some functionalities.
a. Through interfaces/abstract classes, complex logic inside the encapsulated class or module can be abstracted/generalized to be used by outside.
b. Through function signatures. Yes, even function signatures example of abstracting. Because callers only knows the signature and parameters (if any) and know nothing about how the function is carried out. It only cares of returned value.
Likewise, "Abstraction" might be think of a way of encapsulation in terms of grouping/wrapping the behaviour into an interface (or abstract class or might be even a normal class ).
As far as iOS is concerned, it can be said that Objective C files (i.e. .h and .m) use abstraction as well as encapsulation.
Abstraction
Header file (.h) only exposes the functions and public members to outside world. No one knows how they are used unless they have the implementation file with them. It is the .m file that holds all the usage and implementation logic with it self. "Implementation remains unexposed".
Encapsulation
The property (#property) encapsulates the memory management attribute (atomic, strong, retain, weak) of an iVar.
A program has mainly two parts : DATA and PROCESS. abstraction hides data in process so that no one can change. Encapsulation hides data everywhere so that it cannot be displayed.
I hope this clarifies your doubt.
Encapsulation is used for 2 main reasons:
1.) Data hiding & protecting (the user of your class can't modify the data except through your provided methods).
2.) Combining the data and methods used to manipulate the data together into one entity (capsule).
I think that the second reason is the answer your interviewer wanted to hear.
On the other hand, abstraction is needed to expose only the needed information to the user, and hiding unneeded details (for example, hiding the implementation of methods, so that the user is not affected if the implementation is changed).
Abstraction: Hiding the data.
Encapsulation: Binding the data.
Why Encapsulation? Why Abstraction?
lets start with the question below:
1)What happens if we allow code to directly access field ? (directly allowing means making field public)
lets understand this with an example,
following is our BankAccount class and following is its limitation
*Limitation/Policy* : Balance in BankAccount can not be more than 50000Rs. (This line
is very important to understand)
class BankAccount
{
**public** double balanceAmount;
}
Following is **AccountHolder**(user of BankAccount) class which is consumer of
**BankAccount** class.
class AccountHolder
{
BankAccount mybankAccount = new BankAccount();
DoAmountCreditInBankAccount()
{
mybankAccount.balanceAmount = 70000;
/*
this is invalid practice because this statement violates policy....Here
BankAccount class is not able to protect its field from direct access
Reason for direct access by acount holder is that balanceAmount directly
accessible due to its public access modifier. How to solve this issue and
successfully implement BankAccount Policy/Limitation.
*/
}
}
if some other part of code directly access balanceAmount field and set balance amount to 70000Rs which is not acceptable. Here in this case we can not prevent some other part of code from accessing balanceAmount field.
So what we can do?
=> Answer is we can make balanceAmount field private so that no other code can directly access it and allowing access to that field only via public method which operates on balanceAmount field. Main role of method is that we can write some prevention logic inside method so that field can not be initialized with more than 50000Rs. Here we are making binding between data field called balanceAmount and method which operates on that field. This process is called Encapsulation.(it is all about protecting fields using access modifier such as private)
Encapsulation is one way to achieve abstraction....but How?
=> User of this method will not know about implementation (How amount gets credited? logic and all that stuff) of method which he/she will invoke. Not knowing about implementation details by user is called Abstraction(Hiding details from user).
Following will be the implementation of class:
class BankAccount
{
**private** double balanceAmount;
**public** void UpdateBankBalance(double amount)
{
if(balanceAmount + amount > 50000)
{
Console.WriteLine("Bank balance can not be more than 50000, Transaction can
not be proceed");
}
else
{
balanceAmount = balanceAmount + amount;
Console.WriteLine("Amount has been credited to your bank account
successfully.....");
}
}
}
class AccountHolder
{
BankAccount mybankAccount = new BankAccount();
DoAmountCreditInBankAccount()
{
mybankAccount.UpdateBankBalance(some_amount);
/*
mybankAccount.balanceAmount will not be accessible due to its protection level
directly from AccountHolder so account holder will consume BankAccount public
method UpdateBankBalance(double amount) to update his/her balance.
*/
}
}
Simply put, abstraction is all about making necessary information for interaction with the object visible, while encapsulation enables a developer to implement the desired level of abstraction.
Encapsulation: Hiding the information at the implementation level. This deals with properties or methods which will be hidden from other objects.
Abstraction: Hiding the information at the idea level/design level. Here we decide that something will be abstract(hidden) from the user while thinking of an idea. Abstraction can be achieved using encapsulation at the implementation level.
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...
This is a question with many answers - I am interested in knowing what others consider to be "best practice".
Consider the following situation: you have an object-oriented program that contains one or more data structures that are needed by many different classes. How do you make these data structures accessible?
You can explicitly pass references around, for example, in the constructors. This is the "proper" solution, but it means duplicating parameters and instance variables all over the program. This makes changes or additions to the global data difficult.
You can put all of the data structures inside of a single object, and pass around references to this object. This can either be an object created just for this purpose, or it could be the "main" object of your program. This simplifies the problems of (1), but the data structures may or may not have anything to do with one another, and collecting them together in a single object is pretty arbitrary.
You can make the data structures "static". This lets you reference them directly from other classes, without having to pass around references. This entirely avoids the disadvantages of (1), but is clearly not OO. This also means that there can only ever be a single instance of the program.
When there are a lot of data structures, all required by a lot of classes, I tend to use (2). This is a compromise between OO-purity and practicality. What do other folks do? (For what it's worth, I mostly come from the Java world, but this discussion is applicable to any OO language.)
Global data isn't as bad as many OO purists claim!
After all, when implementing OO classes you've usually using an API to your OS. What the heck is this if it isn't a huge pile of global data and services!
If you use some global stuff in your program, you're merely extending this huge environment your class implementation can already see of the OS with a bit of data that is domain specific to your app.
Passing pointers/references everywhere is often taught in OO courses and books, academically it sounds nice. Pragmatically, it is often the thing to do, but it is misguided to follow this rule blindly and absolutely. For a decent sized program, you can end up with a pile of references being passed all over the place and it can result in completely unnecessary drudgery work.
Globally accessible services/data providers (abstracted away behind a nice interface obviously) are pretty much a must in a decent sized app.
I must really really discourage you from using option 3 - making the data static. I've worked on several projects where the early developers made some core data static, only to later realise they did need to run two copies of the program - and incurred a huge amount of work making the data non-static and carefully putting in references into everything.
So in my experience, if you do 3), you will eventually end up doing 1) at twice the cost.
Go for 1, and be fine-grained about what data structures you reference from each object. Don't use "context objects", just pass in precisely the data needed. Yes, it makes the code more complicated, but on the plus side, it makes it clearer - the fact that a FwurzleDigestionListener is holding a reference to both a Fwurzle and a DigestionTract immediately gives the reader an idea about its purpose.
And by definition, if the data format changes, so will the classes that operate on it, so you have to change them anyway.
You might want to think about altering the requirement that lots of objects need to know about the same data structures. One reason there does not seem to be a clean OO way of sharing data is that sharing data is not very object-oriented.
You will need to look at the specifics of your application but the general idea is to have one object responsible for the shared data which provides services to the other objects based on the data encapsulated in it. However these services should not involve giving other objects the data structures - merely giving other objects the pieces of information they need to meet their responsibilites and performing mutations on the data structures internally.
I tend to use 3) and be very careful about the synchronisation and locking across threads. I agree it is less OO, but then you confess to having global data, which is very un-OO in the first place.
Don't get too hung up on whether you are sticking purely to one programming methodology or another, find a solution which fits your problem. I think there are perfectly valid contexts for singletons (Logging for instance).
I use a combination of having one global object and passing interfaces in via constructors.
From the one main global object (usually named after what your program is called or does) you can start up other globals (maybe that have their own threads). This lets you control the setting up of program objects in the main objects constructor and tearing them down again in the right order when the application stops in this main objects destructor. Using static classes directly makes it tricky to initialize/uninitialize any resources these classes use in a controlled manner. This main global object also has properties for getting at the interfaces of different sub-systems of your application that various objects may want to get hold of to do their work.
I also pass references to relevant data-structures into constructors of some objects where I feel it is useful to isolate those objects from the rest of the world within the program when they only need to be concerned with a small part of it.
Whether an object grabs the global object and navigates its properties to get the interfaces it wants or gets passed the interfaces it uses via its constructor is a matter of taste and intuition. Any object you're implementing that you think might be reused in some other project should definately be passed data structures it should use via its constructor. Objects that grab the global object should be more to do with the infrastructure of your application.
Objects that receive interfaces they use via the constructor are probably easier to unit-test because you can feed them a mock interface, and tickle their methods to make sure they return the right arguments or interact with mock interfaces correctly. To test objects that access the main global object, you have to mock up the main global object so that when they request interfaces (I often call these services) from it they get appropriate mock objects and can be tested against them.
I prefer using the singleton pattern as described in the GoF book for these situations. A singleton is not the same as either of the three options described in the question. The constructor is private (or protected) so that it cannot be used just anywhere. You use a get() function (or whatever you prefer to call it) to obtain an instance. However, the architecture of the singleton class guarantees that each call to get() returns the same instance.
We should take care not to confuse Object Oriented Design with Object Oriented Implementation. Al too often, the term OO Design is used to judge an implementation, just as, imho, it is here.
Design
If in your design you see a lot of objects having a reference to exactly the same object, that means a lot of arrows. The designer should feel an itch here. He should verify whether this object is just commonly used, or if it is really a utility (e.g. a COM factory, a registry of some kind, ...).
From the project's requirements, he can see if it really needs to be a singleton (e.g. 'The Internet'), or if the object is shared because it's too general or too expensive or whatsoever.
Implementation
When you are asked to implement an OO Design in an OO language, you face a lot of decisions, like the one you mentioned: how should I implement all the arrows to the oft used object in the design?
That's the point where questions are addressed about 'static member', 'global variable' , 'god class' and 'a-lot-of-function-arguments'.
The Design phase should have clarified if the object needs to be a singleton or not. The implementation phase will decide on how this singleness will be represented in the program.
Option 3) while not purist OO, tends to be the most reasonable solution. But I would not make your class a singleton; and use some other object as a static 'dictionary' to manage those shared resources.
I don't like any of your proposed solutions:
You are passing around a bunch of "context" objects - the things that use them don't specify what fields or pieces of data they are really interested in
See here for a description of the God Object pattern. This is the worst of all worlds
Simply do not ever use Singleton objects for anything. You seem to have identified a few of the potential problems yourself