Related
I'm trying to find out if there's a way to stop functions/methods from being added (EDIT: by other developers) to a class for the case where the object is a Model or DTO which should not contain methods (to prevent 'abuse' of the Models/DTOs by others, who may try and add 'helper' methods etc).
Is there any way to achieve this?
Use reflection and write a unit test that fails if a model-class has methods.
Mark all you model classes with a custom attribute. Then make a unit test that uses reflection to load a given assembly, iterate all classes in that assembly and check that classes marked with the model attribute does not have methods. This should be fairly straight forward using reflection.
I believe you are trying to solve a procedural issue with code where you should be using communication.
Your colleagues (i assume) are operating on the code files with 'full trust' privileges. If they break that privilege you should open a dialogue. Use the change as an opportunity to educate them on the intended design. Perhaps they are correct and you will be educated!
I suggest simply making the intended design obvious in the class name and with a comment stating the intended nature. Perhaps quote the design document(s) that informed the class.
You cannot hinder anyone with full write-access to your code-base to do so. The only two things you may do to avoid it are create some CodeAnalysis-rule for FXCop as mentioned by Christian.K in the comments or by writing your DTO-class so that it is undoubtly a DTO that should not have any methods by using a unambigious name for the class and if this is not enough provide some code-comments that notifies the coder to do not so.
However you may need some kind of method if using collections e.g. where you will need some kind of comparision if two instances of your DTO are equal, so you have to provide at least an Equals- and GetHashCode-method.
You don't need to use a struct to prevent additions to a class. You can use the sealed keyword
public sealed class MyDTOObject { ... }
Now, you can not inherent a class and also prevent inheritance (which is essentially what you're asking). The very fact of inheriting MyDTOObject is creating a new class which is based off of not equal to, or restricted, or defined in any way by the implementation of MyDTOObject.
You can use an abstract class, to force derived classes to implement certain methods, but not the other way around.
If you want to prevent others from deriving from your class and implementing helper methods, you must use the sealed keyword, or mark the class internal.
You may prevent the class being extended or inherited by marking it final that way nobody would be able to extend your class and hence not being able to add any behavior. But stop and ask yourself whether you want to do that or not, because then you'd be signing an invisible contract that everything ever required by the class is written in the class and this class needs no further addition.
To be clear, I was talking in Java context.
We are debating at work the best way to define methods for an entity class - as extensions methods or using partial classes. The kind of methods we're talking about don't modify the state of the entity, they are purely "helper" methods that interrogate the state and return a value.
The main benefit to both approaches is to keep the entity class clean, while still providing intellisense support to client code.
I don't have a strong preference either way but am curious to know if others have a preference (or know of documented guidelines) towards one or the other.
I started writing the list of merits for each approach that I could think of, but in the end all I've come up with is:
Partial Classes
The method definition resides within the class (even if it's another file) so Visual Studio tool support for "find method" (e.g. ALT-\ in resharper) will locate the method
The existence of the other file containing helper methods is obvious as soon as the entity class is opened due to use of the partial keyword
Extension Methods
The naming of the file ("entityNameExtension") and its whereabouts in the project (in an "Extensions" sub-folder) are intuitive and easy to search for
Can anyone else add their opinion to this?
PS I don't feel this is a duplicate of the following question, as the asker of that question was content to mark a response which outlined the functional differences as the correct answer, which doesn't answer the question about which approach is best practice in this scenario:
Partial Class vs Extension Method
EDIT - I'm seeking people's preference towards one approach or the other, as there are no documented guidelines that we can find for this particular scenario. Both approaches are possible and neither violates any design principles, so it is a matter of preference and I'd like to know yours.
In my opinion, extension methods are good for two things. First, when you apply them to interfaces, it gives you the illusion of writing an abstract base class that lets you define some common methods, but it's more flexible because a class can only have one base class but can implement multiple interfaces. Second, if you apply it to regular classes, then I tend to look at it as some kind of hacking. When the original class lacks some methods, and you really feel like they should have those methods, but they don't, and they are out of your reach, so you are forced to implement them somewhere else, as utility methods, and it gives you an illusion that it's actually there.
Both cases are syntactic sugar only in the end, but extending interfaces makes much more sense to me, if I just look at LINQ's Enumerable class for example. I've used those extension methods on dozens of completely different classes, so it really paid off. An example of a class extension method is when I made my own string.IsNullOrWhitespace before it was added to the framework.
Extending an interface seems right because the interface defines a contract, and you can rely on that contract in your extension method, but when you extend a regular class, it may change and break your extension method. Of course, interfaces may change, too, but they tend to be more thoroughly designed I think, but I don't have any statistics.
Then there's the case of object-oriented programming. Where do you feel like your method should go, who uses those additional methods, where are the boundaries. If you think a method belongs inside a class, then put it in the class. It makes sense, it's simple. People wrote really good classes before extension methods were invented, they put everything where it belonged and life was good, haha.
Partial classes are cool because they are not that big of a hack as extension methods. They are not syntactic sugar, not magic. It is merely the best and easiest way to deal with auto-generated classes, so I don't think too much of it. I've written some code generators, and they emit regions where humans can write their own stuff and it is not overwritten in subsequent code generations. It is more comfortable that way, but that's all. I can't change how .NET tools generate code, and they don't do it this way, so partial classes are the next best thing.
To sum it up, my opinion is to only use extension methods when you really have to, and go with partial classes whenever possible.
I dont know why you would create a partial class uless your original class has grown out of its purpose. Take a look at your classes you would like to extend, are they really doing one thing, or are they doing many things. Take a look at at the Single Responsibility Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_responsibility_principle).
If you can create methods that OTHER CLASSES can take advantage of, I would recommend creating an extension class. It will extend the capability of other classes, making your toolbox more flexible.
I have a Business Layer, whose only one class should be visible to outer world. So, I have marked all classes as internal except that class. Since that class requires some internal class to instantiate, I need other classes to be marked as public and other classes depend on some other classes and so on. So ultimately almost all of my internal classes are made public.
How do You handle such scenarios?
Also today there is just one class exposed to outer world but in future there may be two or three, so it means I need three facades?
Thanks
Correct, all of your injected dependencies must be visible to your Composition Root. It sounds like you're asking this question: Ioc/DI - Why do I have to reference all layers/assemblies in entry application?
To quote part of that answer from Mark Seeman:
you don't have to add hard references to all required libraries. Instead, you can use late binding either in the form of convention-based assembly-scanning (preferred) or XML configuration.
Also this, from Steven:
If you are very strict about protecting your architectural boundaries using assemblies, you can simply move your Composition Root to a separate assembly.
However, you should ask yourself why doing so would be worth the effort. If it is merely to enforce architectural boundaries, there is no substitute for discipline. My experience is that that discipline is also more easily maintained when following the SOLID principles, for which dependency injection is the "glue".
After doing a lot of research I am writing my findings, so that it may be of some help to newcomers on Dependency Injection
Misunderstandings regarding my current design and Dependency Injection:
Initial approach and problem(s) associated with it:
My business layer was having a composition root inside it, where as
it should be outside the business layer and near to the application
entry point. In composition root I was essentially having a big factory referred as Poor Man's DI by Mark Seemann. In my application starting point, I was creating an instance of this factory class and then creating my only (intended to be) visible class to outside world. This decision clearly violates Liskov's Principle which says that every dependency should be replaceable. I was having a modular design, but my previous approach was tightly coupled, I wasn't able to reap more benefits out of it, despite only some code cleanliness and code maintainability.
A better approach is:
A very helplful link given by Facio Ratio
The Composition root should have been near the application root, all dependency classes should be made public which I referred initially as a problem; making them public I am introducing low coupling and following Liskov's substitution which is good.
You can change the public class to the interface and all other parts of the program will only know about the interface. Here's some sample code to illustrate this:
public interface IFacade
{
void DoSomething();
}
internal class FacadeImpl : IFacade
{
public FacadeImpl(Alfa alfa, Bravo bravo)
{
}
public void DoSomething()
{
}
}
internal class Alfa
{
}
internal class Bravo
{
}
I can see three solutions, none real good. You might want to combine them in someway. But...
First, put some simple parameters (numeric, perhaps) in the constructor that let the caller say what he wants to do, and that the new public class instance can use to grab internal class objects (to self-inject). (You could use special public classes/interfaces used solely to convey information here too.) This makes for an awkward and limited interface, but is great for encapsulation. If the caller prefers adding a few quick parameters to constructing complex injectable objects anyway this might work out well. (It's always a drag when a method wants five objects of classes you never heard of before when the only option you need, or even want, is "read-only" vs "editable".)
Second, you could make your internal classes public. Now the caller has immense power and can do anything. This is good if the calling code is really the heart of the system, but bad if you don't quite trust that code or if the caller really doesn't want to be bothered with all the picky details.
Third, you might find you can pull some classes from the calling code into your assembly. If you're really lucky, the class making the call might work better on the inside (hopefully without reintroducing this problem one level up).
Response to comments:
As I understand it, you have a service calling a method in a public class in your business layer. To make the call, it needs objects of other classes in the business layer. These other classes are and should be internal. For example, you want to call a method called GetAverage and pass it an instance of the (internal) class RoundingPolicy so it knows how to round. My first answer is that you should take an integer value instead of a class: a constant value such as ROUND_UP, ROUND_DOWN, NEAREST_INTEGER, etc. GetAverage would then use this number to generate the proper RoundingPolicy instance inside the business layer, keeping RoundingPolicy internal.
My first answer is the one I'm suggesting. However, it gives the service a rather primitive interface, so my second two answers suggest alternatives.
The second answer is actually what you are trying to avoid. My thinking was that if all those internal classes were needed by the service, maybe there was no way around the problem. In my example above, if the service is using 30 lines of code to construct just the right RoundingPolicy instance before passing it, you're not going to fix the problem with just a few integer parameters. You'd need to give the overall design a lot of thought.
The third answer is a forlorn hope, but you might find that the calling code is doing work that could just as easily be done inside the business layer. This is actually similar to my first answer. Here, however, the interface might be more elegant. My first answer limits what the service can do. This answer suggests the service doesn't want to do much anyway; it's always using one identical RoundingPolicy instance, so you don't even need to pass a parameter.
I may not fully understand your question, but I hope there's an idea here somewhere that you can use.
Still more: Forth Answer:
I considered this a sort of part of my first answer, but I've thought it through and think I should state it explicitly.
I don't think the class you're making the call to needs an interface, but you could make interfaces for all the classes you don't want to expose to the service. IRoundingPolicy, for instance. You will need some way to get real instances of these interfaces, because new IRoundingPolicy() isn't going to work. Now the service is exposed to all the complexities of the classes you were trying to hide (down side) but they can't see inside the classes (up side). You can control exactly what the service gets to work with--the original classes are still encapsulated. This perhaps makes a workable version of my second answer. This might be useful in one or two places where the service needs more elaborate options than my first answer allows.
With C++, I can have one class definition in a header file, and have a multiple implementation files by including the header file.
With C#, it seems that there is no such header file, as one class should contain both definition/implementation.
I wonder if the number of lines can be very big, because one can't separate the class into multiple files. Am I correct? I mean, in some cases, one can't change the class design to have smaller classes. In this case, is there a way to solve this problem?
You can separate a class into multiple files using the partial keyword
public partial class ClassNameHere
{
}
It is possible to split the definition of a class or a struct, or an interface over two or more source files using the Partial keyword modifier Link to msdn with the partial class
Partial classes only give you so much. There is still no way, that i know of, to split your class definition from implementation, such that each exists in a separate file. So if you like to develop based on a need-to-know paradigm then you are sort of stuck. Basically there are three levels a developer can work at...
1) Owns all the code and has access to, and maintains all of it.
2) Wishes to use some useful base class(s) which may form part of a framework, or may just be a useful class with some virtual methods, etc, and wishes to extend, or re-implement some virtual base class methods of interest. Now the developer should not need to go and look at the code in the base class(s) in order to understand things at a functional level. If you understand the job of a function, it's input and output parameters, there is no need to go and scratch inside source code. If you think there's a bug, or an optimization is needed, then refer to the developer from 1) who owns and maintains the base code. Of course there's nothing saying that 1) and 2) cannot be associated with the same developer, in which case we have no problem. In fact, this is more than often the case i suspect. Nevertheless, it is still good practice to keep things well separated according to the level at which you are working.
3) A developer needs to use an already packaged / sealed object / component dll, which exposes the relevant interfaces.
Within the context of c#, 1) and 3) have no problems. With 2) i believe there is no way to get round this (unless you change from exposing virtual base methods to exposing interface methods which can be reimplemented in a component owning the would-be base class). If i want to have a look at a class definition to browse over the methods, scaffolding functions, etc, i have to look at a whole lot of source code as well, which just gets in the way of what i am trying to focus on.
Of course if there is class definition documentation external to how we normally do it ( in headers and source files), then i must admit, that within the context of 2), there is not reason to ever look into a class definition file to gain functional knowledge.
So maybe clever Tom's came up with c#, decided to mix class definition with implementation in an attempt to encourage developers to have external documents for their class definitions, and interfaces, which in most IT companies is severely lacking.
Use a partial class as #sparks suggests, or, split into several classes. It's a good rule of thumb that, if you can't fit a class onto a couple of pages, it's complicated enough to need breaking apart.
Should a class implement an interface always in order to enforce a sort of 'contract' on the class?
When shouldn't a class implement an interface?
Edit: Meaning, when is it worthwhile to have a class implement an interface? Why not have a class just have public members and private members with various accessor/setter functions?
(Note: Not talking about COM)
No, an interface is not always required - the public members of the class already form a contract.
An interface is useful when you want to be able to exchange one class for another when both offer similar functionality. Using an interface allows you to decouple the contract from the specific implementation. However this decoupling is not always necessary or useful.
Many classes in the .NET framework do not implement any interfaces.
Only use an interface when it is needed.
That is: when you want to have different implementations for a certain abstraction.
When, in the future, it seems that it would be better to have an interface for a specific class (because for instance, you want to have another implementation for the same concept), then you can always create the interface from your existing class. (ExtractInterface refactoring)
Interfaces become more necessary when you are doing unit testing, but it all depends on the context of your development. As Mark said, an interface IS the contract and implementing it forces you to adhere to the "rules" of that contract.
If you are trying to enforce the implementation of certain methods, then using an interface is perfect for that.
There are some nice examples here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms173156.aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/87d83y5b(VS.80).aspx
An interface, here meaning the code construct and not the design abstraction, supports a basic principle of code design called "loose coupling". There are some more derived principles that tell you HOW code should be loosely coupled, but in the main, loose coupling helps allow changes to code to affect as small an area of the codebase as possible.
Consider, for example, a calculation of some arbitrary complexity. This calculation is used by 6 different classes, and so to avoid duplicating code, the calculation is encapsulated in its own class, Calculator. The 6 classes each contain a reference to a Calculator. Now, say that your customer comes to you and says that in one usage of Calculator, if certain conditions are met, a different calculation should be used instead. You might be tempted to simply put these two rules (usage rule and business rule) and the new calculation algorithm into the Calculator class, but if you do so, then two things will happen; first, you make Calculator aware of some implementation details (how it's used) outside of its scope, that it doesn't need to know and that can change again later. Second, the other 5 classes that use Calculator, which were working just fine as-is, will have to be recompiled since they reference the changed class, and will have to be tested to ensure you didn't break their functionality by changing the one for the 6th class.
The "proper" solution to this is an interface. By defining an interface ICalculator, that exposes the method(s) called by the other classes, you break the concrete dependence of the 6 classes on the specific class Calculator. Now, each of the 6 classes can have a reference to an ICalculator. On 5 of these classes, you provide the same Calculator class they've always had and work just fine with. On the 6th, you provide a special calculator that knows the additional rules. If you had done this from the beginning, you wouldn't have had to touch the other 5 classes to make the change to the 6th.
The basic point is, classes should not have to know the exact nature of other objects they depend on; they should instead only have to know what that object will do for them. By abstracting what the object DOES from what the object IS, multiple objects can do similar things, and the classes that require those things don't have to know the difference.
Loose coupling, along with "high cohesion" (objects should usually be specialists that know how to do a small, very highly-related set of tasks), is the foundation for most of the software design patterns you'll see as you progress into software development theory.
In contrast to a couple of answers, there are design methodologies (e.g. SOLID) that state that you should ALWAYS set up dependencies as abstractions, like an abstract base class or an interface, and NEVER have one class depend upon another concrete class. The logic here is that in commercial software development, the initial set of requirements for an application is very small, but it is a safe assumption, if not a guarantee, that the set of requirements will grow and change. When that happens, the software must grow. Creating even smaller applications according to strict design principles allows extending the software without causing the problems that are a natural consequence of bad design (large classes with lots of code, changes to one class affecting others in unpredictable ways, etc). However, the art of software development, and the time and money constraints of same, are such that you can (and have to) be smart and say "from what I know of the way this system will grow, this is an area that needs to be well-designed to allow adaptation, while this other section will almost surely never change". If those assumptions change, you can go back and refactor areas of code you designed very simply to be more robust before you extend that area. But, you have to be willing and able to go back and change the code after it's first implemented.
This once again comes down to what he means by "interface". There is some ambiguity between the term interface and Interface. When the term Interface is used it means an object that has no method declarations. When the term interface is used it means that you utilize a pre-defined set of functions (whether they be implemented or not) and override them with your logic if necessary. An example would be:
abstract class Animal
class Dog extends Animal
In this instance Animal == interface (or contract) for Dog
interface Measurable
class Cup implements Measurable
In this instance Measurable == Interface for Cup
A class should not implement interface/s unless you want to tell other parts of your program - "This class can do these things (but not specify how exactly it does what it does)".
When would you want to do that?
For example, say you have a game in which you have animals.. And say whenever an animal sees a human it makes it's sound (be it a bark, a roar etc.).
If all animals will implement interface IMakeSound in which there is a method called MakeSound, you will not have to care about what kind of animal it is that should make that sound.. All you'll have to do is to use the "IMakeSound" part of the animal, and call it's method.
I should add that when one reads in a class declaration that it implements a certain interface, it tells him a lot about that class, which is another benefit.
You may not always want an interface. Consider you can accomplish similar tasks with a delegate. In Java I used the Runnable Interface for multithreaded applications. Now that I program in .NET I rely a lot on delegates to accomplish my mulithreaded applications. This article helps explains the need for an Delegate vs an Interface.
When to Use Delegates Instead of Interfaces (C# Programming Guide)
Delegates provide a little more flexibility as in Java I found that any task that I accomplished in C with a function pointer now required incasulation with an an Interface.
Although, there are lots of circumstances for an Interface. Consider IEnumerable, it is designed to allow you to iterate over various collection without needing to understand how the underlying code works. Interfaces are great for when you need need to exchange one class for another but require a similar Interface. ICollection and IList provide a set of similar functionality to accomplish an operation on a collection without worrying about the specifics.
If you would like to better understand Interfaces I suggest you read "Head First Design Patterns".