I need to name this structure:
struct NameNeeded
{
DateTime timestamp;
float value;
}
I will have arrays of this struct (a time-series).
I'd like a short and suggestive name. The data is financial (and Tick is not a good name).
The best one I can think of is DataPoint, but I feel that a better one exists :)
How would you name it?
Since you have a data value and an associated timestamp, the first thing that popped into my head was DataSample. I pictured a series of these, as if you were taking a digital sampling of an analog signal (the two values were like x- and y-coordinates on a graph).
My old scientist neurons are telling me that this is a Measurement. A measurement is an instrument reading associated with some context - time, position, experimental conditions, and so on.
The other metaphor that springs to mind is a Snapshot, or a moment in an evolving scene illuminated by a strobe light - an Instant, perhaps.
Given that we can't associate a specific concept with the float value structure member, only vague names such as "Value", "Number", "Float" or "Data" come to mind.
The DateTime timestamp member suggests to me that the name should have a time related suffix such as "When", "AtTime", "Instant" or "Moment"
So, combining these name fragments and you could have
ValueWhen
ValueAtInstant
NumberWhen
DataAtTime
etc.
When stuck on a naming problem, consulting a dictionary or thesaurus can sometimes help. It's pleasing to see well chosen type names, and gratifying to come up with them - good luck with your quest.
I would personally include "Float" in the name, to leave open the possibility of providing other time-stamped types. For example, you could provide a timestamped int or enum for analyst recommendation.
If you want the time-stamping to be implicit, consider "FloatValue." Making it implicit might be desirable if other attributes might someday join the timestamp (e.g., source of data, confidence level, or uncertainty).
If you want to be explicit, one possibility would be "RecordedFloat."
Related
The principle of always valid domain model dictates that value object and entities should be self validating to never be in an invalid state.
This requires creating some kind of wrapper, sometimes, for primitive values. However it seem to me that this might break the ubiquitous language.
For instance say I have 2 entities: Hotel and House. Each of those entities has images associated with it which respect the following rules:
Hotels must have at least 5 images and no more than 20
Houses must have at least 1 image and no more than 10
This to me entails the following classes
class House {
HouseImages images;
// ...
}
class Hotel {
HotelImages images;
}
class HouseImages {
final List<Image> images;
HouseImages(this.images) : assert(images.length >= 1),
assert(images.length <= 10);
}
class HotelImages {
final List<Image> images;
HotelImages(this.images) : assert(images.length >= 5),
assert(images.length <= 20);
}
Doesn't that break the ubiquitous languages a bit ? It just feels a bit off to have all those classes that are essentially prefixed (HotelName vs HouseName, HotelImages vs HouseImages, and so on). In other words, my value object folder that once consisted of x, y, z, where x, y and z where also documented in a lexicon document, now has house_x, hotel_x, house_y, hotel_y, house_z, hotel_z and it doesn't look quite as english as it was when it was x, y, z.
Is this common or is there something I misunderstood here maybe ? I do like the assurance it gives though, and it actually caught some bugs too.
There is some reasoning you can apply that usually helps me when deciding to introduce a value object or not. There are two very good blog articles concerning this topic I would like to recommend:
https://enterprisecraftsmanship.com/posts/value-objects-when-to-create-one/
https://enterprisecraftsmanship.com/posts/collections-primitive-obsession/
I would like to address your concrete example based on the heuristics taken from the mentioned article:
Are there more than one primitive values that encapsulate a concept, i.e. things that always belong together?
For instance, a Coordinate value object would contain Latitude and Longitude, it would not make sense to have different places of your application knowing that these need to be instantiated and validated together as a whole. A Money value object with an amount and a currency identifier would be another example. On the other hand I would usually not have a separate value object for the amount field as the Money object would already take care of making sure it is a reasonable value (e.g. positive value).
Is there complexity and logic (like validation) that is worth being hidden behind a value object?
For instance, your HotelImages value object that defines a specific collection type caught my attention. If HotelImages would not be used in different spots and the logic is rather simple as in your sample I would not mind adding such a collection type but rather do the validation inside the Hotel entity. Otherwise you would blow up your application with custom value objects for basically everything.
On the other hand, if there was some concept like an image collection which has its meaning in the business domain and a set of business rules and if that type is used in different places, for instance, having a ImageCollection value object that is used by both Hotel and House it could make sense to have such a value object.
I would apply the same thinking concerning your question for HouseName and HotelName. If these have no special meaning and complexity outside of the Hotel and House entity but are just seen as some simple properties of those entities in my opinion having value objects for these would be an overkill. Having something like BuildingName with a set of rules what this name has to follow or if it even is consisting of several primitive values then it would make sense again to use a value object.
This relates to the third point:
Is there actual behaviour duplication that could be avoided with a value object?
Coming from the last point thinking of actual duplication (not code duplication but behaviour duplication) that can be avoided with extracting things into a custom value object can also make sense. But in this case you always have to be careful not to fall into the trap of incidental duplication, see also [here].1
Does your overall project complexity justify the additional work?
This needs to be answered from your side of course but I think it's good to always consider if the benefits outweigh the costs. If you have a simple CRUD like application that is not expected to change a lot and will not be long lived all the mentioned heuristics also have to be used with the project complexity in mind.
Suppose we're given some sort of graph where the feasible region of our optimization problem is given. For example: here is an image
How would I go on about constructing these constraints in an integer optimization problem? Anyone got any tips? Thanks!
Mate, I agree with the others that you should be a little more specific than that paint-ish picture ;). In particular you are neither specifying any objective/objective direction nor are you giving any context, what about this graph should be integer-variable related, except for the existence of disjunctive feasible sets, which may be modeled by MIP-techniques. It seems like your problem is formalization of what you conceptualized. However, in case you are just being lazy and are just interested in modelling disjunctive regions, you should be looking into disjunctive programming techniques, such as "big-M" (Note: big-M reformulations can be problematic). You should be aiming at some convex-hull reformulation if you can attain one (fairly easily).
Back to your picture, it is quite clear that you have a problem in two real dimensions (let's say in R^2), where the constraints bounding the feasible set are linear (the lines making up the feasible polygons).
So you know that you have two dimensions and need two real continuous variables, say x[1] and x[2], to formulate each of your linear constraints (a[i,1]*x[1]+a[i,2]<=rhs[i] for some index i corresponding to the number of lines in your graph). Additionally your variables seem to be constrained to the first orthant so x[1]>=0 and x[2]>=0 should hold. Now, to add disjunctions you want some constraints that only hold when a certain condition is true. Therefore, you can add two binary decision variables, say y[1],y[2] and an additional constraint y[1]+y[2]=1, to tell that only one set of constraints can be active at the same time. You should be able to implement this with the help of big-M by reformulating the constraints as follows:
If you bound things from above with your line:
a[i,1]*x[1]+a[i,2]-rhs[i]<=M*(1-y[1]) if i corresponds to the one polygon,
a[i,1]*x[1]+a[i,2]-rhs[i]<=M*(1-y[2]) if i corresponds to the other polygon,
and if your line bounds things from below:
-M*(1-y[1])<=-a[i,1]*x[1]-a[i,2]+rhs[i] if i corresponds to the one polygon,
-M*(1-y[1])<=-a[i,1]*x[1]-a[i,2]+rhs[i] if i corresponds to the other polygon.
It is important that M is sufficiently large, but not too large to cause numerical issues.
That being said, I am by no means an expert on these disjunctive programming techniques, so feel free to chime in, add corrections or make things clearer.
Also, a more elaborate question typically yields more elaborate and satisfying answers ;) If you had gone to the effort of making up a true small example problem you likely would have gotten a full formulation of your problem or even an executable piece of code in no time.
Let's say two domain objects: Product and ProductVariety (with data such as color, size etc). The relationship between these two is one-to-many. Conceptually saying in the domain driven design, the ProductVariaty should be a value object, which is not the same object once its data is changed. From the implementation point of view, however, it is better to have some sort identification for the ProductVariaty so that we know which ProductVariety is selected and so on. Is an only solution to convert it to an entity class?
The following is a code segment to illustrate this situation.
#Embeddable
class ProductVariety {...}
#Entity
class Product {
#ElementCollection
private Set<ProductVariety> varities;
...
}
Conceptually saying in the domain driven design, the ProductVariaty should be a value object, which is not the same object once its data is changed
That's not quite the right spelling. In almost all cases (many nines), Value Object should be immutable; its data never changes.
Is an only solution to convert it to an entity class?
"It depends".
There's nothing conceptually wrong with having an identifier be part of the immutable state of the object. For example, PANTONE 5395 C is an Identifier (value type) that is unique to a particular Color (value type).
However, for an identifier like PANTONE 5395 C to have value, it needs to be semantically stable. Changing the mapping of the identifier to the actual color spectrum elements destroys the meaning of previous messages about color. If the identifier is "wrong", then the proper thing to do is deprecate the identifier and nominate a replacement.
Put simply, you can't repaint the house by taking the label off the old paint can and putting it on a new one.
In that case, there's no great advantage to using the identifier vs the entire value object. But its not wrong to do so, either.
On the other hand, if you are really modeling a mapping, and you want to follow changes that happen over time -- that's pretty much the definition of an entity right there.
What it really depends on is "cost to the business". What are the trade offs involved, within the context of the problem you are trying to solve?
Note: if you really do find yourself in circumstances where you are considering something like this, be sure to document your cost benefit analysis, so that the next developer that comes along has a trail of breadcrumbs to work from.
Page 137 of the book Software Abstractions has these remarkable statements:
Integers are actually not very useful. If you think you need them,
think again; there is often a more abstract description that matches
the properties better. Just because integers appear in the problem
domain does not mean that they should be modeled as such. To figure
out whether integers are necessary, ask yourself what properties are
actually relied upon. For example, a communication protocol that
numbers its messages may rely only on the numbers being distinct; or
it may rely on them increasing; or perhaps even being totally ordered.
In none of these cases should integers be used.
Wow!
This is important. I want to deeply understand this.
To help me understand, I created two versions of the communication protocol.
The first version uses the Int datatype:
sig Message {
number: Int
}
The second version does not:
sig Message {
number: Number
}
sig Number {}
Is the second version more abstract? How is it more abstract? Is it more abstract because Number is not tied to a datatype? The first version is less abstract because it specifies a datatype (Int)?
Are datatypes the enemy of abstraction?
No, the second is no better. Suppose your messages aren't totally ordered, but are just partially ordered. Then the point is that rather than assigning an index to each message, you'd do better to make explicit the partial ordering on messages:
sig Message {follows: set Message, ...}
I am receiving as input a "map" represented by strings, where certain nodes of the map have significance (s). For example:
---s--
--s---
s---s-
s---s-
-----s
My question is, what reasonable options are there for representing this input as an object.
The only option that really comes to mind is:
(1) Each position translated to node with up,down,left,right pointers. The whole object contains a pointer to top right node.
This seems like just a graph representation specific to this problem.
Thanks for the help.
Additionally, if there are common terms for this type of input, please let me know
Well, it depends a lot on what you need to delegate to those objects. OOP is basically about asking objects to perform things in order to solve a given problem, so it is hard to tell without knowing what you need to accomplish.
The solution you mention can be a valid one, as can also be having a matrix (in this case of 6x5) where you store in each matrix cell an object representing the node (just as an example, I used both approaches once to model the Conway's game of life). If you could give some more information on what you need to do with the object representation of your map then a better design can be discussed.
HTH