Assume class A with methods M1 and M2 has low coupling with other classes
a) Should we also make sure that each individual method in class A is not tightly coupled with any other method in the same class? Thus, should we make sure that changing code in A.M1 doesn't also require us to change code in A.M2?
b) I assume if A.M1 is performing two closely related tasks T1 and T2 instead of just a single task, then T1 and T2 are tightly coupled, since changes in T1 may also require changes in T2?
thank you
Write code that follows single-point-of-maintenance. If you change something, only change it in one place. This will reduce bugs throughout your code. That being said avoid code duplication and split classes, methods, namespaces, etc. into parts parts with a single responsibility.
Changing something in method A() should not force you to make a change in method B(). Maybe use a helper function in both that shares common functionality.
EDIT: The SOLID acronym is a good one to follow for software design/engineering: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOLID_(object-oriented_design)
Related
I have been working a a very dense set of calculations. It all is to support a specific problem I have.
But the nature of the problem is no different than this. Suppose I develop a class called 'Matrix' that has the machinery to implement matrices. Instantiation would presumably take a list of lists, which would be the matrix entries.
Now I want to provide a multiply method. I have two choices. First, I could define a method like so:
class Matrix():
def __init__(self, entries)
# do the obvious here
return
def determinant(self):
# again, do the obvious here
return result_of_calcs
def multiply(self, b):
# again do the obvious here
return
If I do this, the call signature for two matrix objects, a and b, is
a.multiply(b)...
The other choice is a #staticmethod. Then, the definition looks like:
#staticethod
def multiply(a,b):
# do the obvious thing.
Now the call signature is:
z = multiply(a,b)
I am unclear when one is better than the other. The free-standing function is not truly part of the class definition, but who cares? it gets the job done, and because Python allows "reaching into an object" references from outside, it seems able to do everything. In practice they'll (the class and the method) end up in the same module, so they're at least linked there.
On the other hand, my understanding of the #staticmethod approach is that the function is now part of the class definition (it defines one of the methods), but the method gets no "self" passed in. In a way this is nice because the call signature is the much better looking:
z = multiply(a,b)
and the function can access all the instances' methods and attributes.
Is this the right way to view it? Are there strong reasons to do one or the other? In what ways are they not equivalent?
I have done quite a bit of Python programming since answering this question.
Suppose we have a file named matrix.py, and it has a bunch of code for manipulating matrices. We want to provide a matrix multiply method.
The two approaches are:
define a free:standing function with the signature multiply(x,y)
make it a method of all matrices: x.multiply(y)
Matrix multiply is what I will call a dyadic function. In other words, it always takes two arguments.
The temptation is to use #2, so that a matrix object "carries with it everywhere" the ability to be multiplied. However, the only thing it makes sense to multiply it with is another matrix object. In such cases there are two equally good ways to do that, viz:
z=x.multiply(y)
or
z=y.multiply(x)
However, a better way to do it is to define a function inside the file that is:
multiply(x,y)
multiply(), as such, is a function any code using the 'library' expects to have available. It need not be associated with each matrix. And, since the user will be doing an 'import', they will get the multiply method. This is better code.
What I was wrongly confounding was two things that led me to the method attached to every object instance:
Functions which need to be generally available inside the file that should be
exposed outside it; and
Functions which are needed only inside the file.
multiply() is an example of type 1. Any matrix 'library' ought to likely define matrix multiplication.
What I was worried about was needing to expose all the 'internal' functions. For example, suppose we want to make externally available matrix add(), multiple() and invert(). Suppose, however, we did not want to make externally available - but needed inside - determinant().
One way to 'protect' users is to make determinant a function (a def statement) inside the class declaration for matrices. Then it is protected from exposure. However, nothing stops a user of the code from reaching in if they know the internals, by using the method matrix.determinant().
In the end it comes down to convention, largely. It makes more sense to expose a matrix multiply function which takes two matrices, and is called like multiply(x,y). As for the determinant function, instead of 'wrapping it' in the class, it makes more sense to define it as __determinant(x) at the same level as the class definition for matrices.
You can never truly protect internal methods by their declaration, it seems. The best you can do is warn users. the "dunder" approach gives warning 'this is not expected to be called outside the code in this file'.
I have two different types, TypeA and TypeB, both of which are relatable in the sense that they describe the same concept but from different view points - though there exists a loose temporal relationship.
I want to create a utility method which tests to see if the two types I pass into the utility method are in fact related.
The objects are not directly equitable, but I thought that they might be Comparable (which they are), however when I look at the description of ICompareable, it suggest that this should be implemented to assist sorting of arrays.
Is there a better interface to use, or should I just create my own comparer routine which does not implement any interface. This is what I am going with for now, but I thought there might be a more pattern specific solution, hence the question.
I would go for an own solution, as neither IComparer nor IEquatable are matching your requirement.
Maybe just bool IsRelatedTo() instance method would be enough?
I have an upcoming project in which a core requirement will be to mutate the way a method works at runtime. Note that I'm not talking about a higher level OO concept like "shadow one method with another", although the practical effect would be similar.
The key properties I'm after are:
I must be able to modify the method in such a way that I can add new expressions, remove existing expressions, or modify any of the expressions that take place in it.
After modifying the method, subsequent calls to that method would invoke the new sequence of operations. (Or, if the language binds methods rather than evaluating every single time, provide me a way to unbind/rebind the new method.)
Ideally, I would like to manipulate the atomic units of the language (e.g., "invoke method foo on object bar") and not the assembly directly (e.g. "pop these three parameters onto the stack"). In other words, I'd like to be able to have high confidence that the operations I construct are semantically meaningful in the language. But I'll take what I can get.
If you're not sure if a candidate language meets these criteria, here's a simple litmus test:
Can you write another method called clean which:
accepts a method m as input
returns another method m2 that performs the same operations as m
such that m2 is identical to m, but doesn't contain any calls to the print-to-standard-out method in your language (puts, System.Console.WriteLn, println, etc.)?
I'd like to do some preliminary research now and figure out what the strongest candidates are. Having a large, active community is as important to me as the practicality of implementing what I want to do. I am aware that there may be some unforged territory here, since manipulating bytecode directly is not typically an operation that needs to be exposed.
What are the choices available to me? If possible, can you provide a toy example in one or more of the languages that you recommend, or point me to a recent example?
Update: The reason I'm after this is that I'd like to write a program which is capable of modifying itself at runtime in response to new information. This modification goes beyond mere parameters or configurable data, but full-fledged, evolved changes in behavior. (No, I'm not writing a virus. ;) )
Well, you could always use .NET and the Expression libraries to build up expressions. That I think is really your best bet as you can build up representations of commands in memory and there is good library support for manipulating, traversing, etc.
Well, those languages with really strong macro support (in particular Lisps) could qualify.
But are you sure you actually need to go this deeply? I don't know what you're trying to do, but I suppose you could emulate it without actually getting too deeply into metaprogramming. Say, instead of using a method and manipulating it, use a collection of functions (with some way of sharing state, e.g. an object holding state passed to each).
I would say Groovy can do this.
For example
class Foo {
void bar() {
println "foobar"
}
}
Foo.metaClass.bar = {->
prinltn "barfoo"
}
Or a specific instance of foo without effecting other instances
fooInstance.metaClass.bar = {->
println "instance barfoo"
}
Using this approach I can modify, remove or add expression from the method and Subsequent calls will use the new method. You can do quite a lot with the Groovy metaClass.
In java, many professional framework do so using the open source ASM framework.
Here is a list of all famous java apps and libs including ASM.
A few years ago BCEL was also very much used.
There are languages/environments that allows a real runtime modification - for example, Common Lisp, Smalltalk, Forth. Use one of them if you really know what you're doing. Otherwise you can simply employ an interpreter pattern for an evolving part of your code, it is possible (and trivial) with any OO or functional language.
Many a times, I've come across statements of the form
X does/doesn't compose well.
I can remember few instances that I've read recently :
Macros don't compose well (context: clojure)
Locks don't compose well (context: clojure)
Imperative programming doesn't compose well... etc.
I want to understand the implications of composability in terms of designing/reading/writing code ? Examples would be nice.
"Composing" functions basically just means sticking two or more functions together to make a big function that combines their functionality in a useful way. Essentially, you define a sequence of functions and pipe the results of each one into the next, finally giving the result of the whole process. Clojure provides the comp function to do this for you, you could do it by hand too.
Functions that you can chain with other functions in creative ways are more useful in general than functions that you can only call in certain conditions. For example, if we didn't have the last function and only had the traditional Lisp list functions, we could easily define last as (def last (comp first reverse)). Look at that — we didn't even need to defn or mention any arguments, because we're just piping the result of one function into another. This would not work if, for example, reverse took the imperative route of modifying the sequence in-place. Macros are problematic as well because you can't pass them to functions like comp or apply.
Composition in programming means assembling bigger pieces out of smaller ones.
Composition of unary functions creates a more complicated unary function by chaining simpler ones.
Composition of control flow constructs places control flow constructs inside other control flow constructs.
Composition of data structures combines multiple simpler data structures into a more complicated one.
Ideally, a composed unit works like a basic unit and you as a programmer do not need to be aware of the difference. If things fall short of the ideal, if something doesn't compose well, your composed program may not have the (intended) combined behavior of its individual pieces.
Suppose I have some simple C code.
void run_with_resource(void) {
Resource *r = create_resource();
do_some_work(r);
destroy_resource(r);
}
C facilitates compositional reasoning about control flow at the level of functions. I don't have to care about what actually happens inside do_some_work(); I know just by looking at this small function that every time a resource is created on line 2 with create_resource(), it will eventually be destroyed on line 4 by destroy_resource().
Well, not quite. What if create_resource() acquires a lock and destroy_resource() frees it? Then I have to worry about whether do_some_work acquires the same lock, which would prevent the function from finishing. What if do_some_work() calls longjmp(), and skips the end of my function entirely? Until I know what goes on in do_some_work(), I won't be able to predict the control flow of my function. We no longer have compositionality: we can no longer decompose the program into parts, reason about the parts independently, and carry our conclusions back to the whole program. This makes designing and debugging much harder and it's why people care whether something composes well.
"Bang for the Buck" - composing well implies a high ratio of expressiveness per rule-of-composition. Each macro introduces its own rules of composition. Each custom data structure does the same. Functions, especially those using general data structures have far fewer rules.
Assignment and other side effects, especially wrt concurrency have even more rules.
Think about when you write functions or methods. You create a group of functionality to do a specific task. When working in an Object Oriented language you cluster your behavior around the actions you think a distinct entity in the system will perform. Functional programs break away from this by encouraging authors to group functionality according to an abstraction. For example, the Clojure Ring library comprises a group of abstractions that cover routing in web applications.
Ring is composable where functions that describe paths in the system (routes) can be grouped into higher order functions (middlewhere). In fact, Clojure is so dynamic that it is possible (and you are encouraged) to come up with patterns of routes that can be dynamically created at runtime. This is the essence of composablilty, instead of coming up with patterns that solve a certain problem you focus on patterns that generate solutions to a certain class of problem. Builders and code generators are just two of the common patterns used in functional programming. Function programming is the art of patterns that generate other patterns (and so on and so on).
The idea is to solve a problem at its most basic level then come up with patterns or groups of the lowest level functions that solve the problem. Once you start to see patterns in the lowest level you've discovered composition. As folks discover second order patterns in groups of functions they may start to see a third level. And so on...
Composition (in the context you describe at a functional level) is typically the ability to feed one function into another cleanly and without intermediate processing. Such an example of composition is in std::cout in C++:
cout << each << item << links << on;
That is a simple example of composition which doesn't really "look" like composition.
Another example with a form more visibly compositional:
foo(bar(baz()));
Wikipedia Link
Composition is useful for readability and compactness, however chaining large collections of interlocking functions which can potentially return error codes or junk data can be hazardous (this is why it is best to minimize error code or null return values.)
Provided your functions use exceptions, or alternatively return null objects you can minimize the requirement for branching (if) on errors and maximize the compositional potential of your code at no extra risk.
Object composition (vs inheritance) is a separate issue (and not what you are asking, but it shares the name). It is one of containment to derive object hierarchy as opposed to direct inheritance.
Within the context of clojure, this comment addresses certain aspects of composability. In general, it seems to emerge when units of the system do one thing well, do not require other units to understand its internals, eschew side-effects, and accept and return the system's pervasive data structures. All of the above can be seen in M2tM's C++ example.
composability, applied to functions, means that the functions are smaller and well-defined, thus easy to integrate into other functions (i have seen this idea in the book "the joy of clojure")
the concept can apply to other things that are supposed be composed into something else.
the purpose of composability is reuse. for example, a function well-build (composable) is easier to reuse
macros aren't that well-composable because you can't pass them as parameters
lock are crap because you can't really give them names (define them well) or reuse them. you just do them inplace
imperative languages aren't that composable because (some of them, at least) don't have closures. if you want functionality passed as parameter, you're screwed. you have to build an object and pass that; disclaimer here: this last idea i'm not entirely convinced is true, therefore research more before taking it for granted
another idea on imperative languages is that they don't compose well because they imply state (from wikipedia knowledgebase :) "Imperative programming - describes computation in terms of statements that change a program state").
state does not compose well because although you have given a specific "something" in input, that "something" generates an output according to it's state. different internal state, different behaviour. and thus you can say good-bye to what you where expecting to happen.
with state, you depend to much on knowing what the current state of an object is... if you want to predict it's behavior. more stuff to keep in the back of your mind, less composable (remember well-defined ? or "small and simple", as in "easy to use" ?)
ps: thinking of learning clojure, huh ? investigating... ? good for you ! :P
can two use cases extend or include each other at the same time?
A extend/include B and B extend/include A
I'm pretty sure the answer is "NO".
You've just described the digital equivalent fo the chicken and egg problem.
Circular references are [almost] always Bad Things (tm). The only place I know it to not be horrible is in the context of a linked list, in which each entry has a pointer to another of its own type.
If (A includes/extends B and B includes/extends A) then A = B
Admitting that if A extends/includes B then A >= B
It seems likely not, though I'm sure you could do it if you went generic [and useless] enough. Do you have a specific example? There are always exemptions to the rules and I'd be curious to see one.
below is the senario for business use case (business modelling) not system use case:
USE Case A: Service Vehicle
Use Case B: Authorise Additional repair
Use Case C: Repair Vehicle
Additional repair could be identified during initial repair.
or repair could be identified as a new repair during service,
in both case, customer authorisation is required?
A extend B and B extend C (authorisation and start of repair identified during service)
C extend B (authorisation for additional repair identified during repair)
It's rare but in the general case, there's nothing that prevents use cases from including/using each other.
the answer is no. extend and include are mutually-exclusive relationship types. Most likely the use-cases are incorrectly factored/separated, or you've misunderstood the extend/include relationship definitions, or both.
given the example you posted (fyi it is better for you to edit the question rather than post an answer that does not answer the original question) i would venture that B extends A and B extends C, since in both cases A and C additional repairs (case B) may be identified.
alternately, use cases A and C could conditionally include use case B
offhand, i would model this as Work On Vehicle, which is a composition of 2 use-cases, Obtain Customer Authorization, and Service Vehicle, where the latter includes any kind of service or repair and requires the output of the former before starting the work. The notion of 'additional repairs' is just another instance of Work On Vehicle.
but i don't know the full business context, so your mileage may vary ;-)
EDIT: you wrote "but in this case: work is being carried out and further authorisation is required during the course of work", but i don't see how that really matters.
the first step is to eliminate the confusion about includes and extends. Try modeling each use-case completely and independently, and then look at what is common to see if includes/extends is warranted
"YES" - Checked the Spec.
I just read through the UML specification section for use cases:
http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.1.2/Superstructure/PDF/
There was no rule that would prevent doing this that I could find. Many people may conceptually have a problem with this, but that is ok, as you are just instinctively trying to objectize or structure use cases logically. Use Cases are a behavior (or set) and are not like classes/"objects". We are not talking about Java objects.
Even in Rational Software Modeler (IBM) allows this "circular reference".
In practice and in trying to map this to Java or other Object languages it may not make sense or get confusing.