Generally speaking, creating a fluid API is something that makes all programmers happy; Both for the creators who write the interface, and the consumers who program against it. Looking beyond conventions, why is it that we prefix all our getters with the word "get". Omitting it usually results in a more fluid, easy to read set of instructions, which ultimately leads to happiness (however small or passive). Consider this very simple example. (pseudo code)
Conventional:
person = new Person("Joey")
person.getName().toLower().print()
Alternative:
person = new Person("Joey")
person.name().toLower().print()
Of course this only applies to languages where getters/setters are the norm, but is not directed at any specific language. Were these conventions developed around technical limitations (disambiguation), or simply through the pursuit of a more explicit, intentional feeling type of interface, or perhaps this is just a case of trickle a down norm. What are your thoughts? And how would simple changes to these conventions impact your happiness / daily attitudes towards your craft (however minimal).
Thanks.
Because, in languages without Properties, name() is a function. Without some more information though, it's not necessarily specific about what it's doing (or what it's going to return).
Functions/Methods are also supposed to be Verbs because they are performing some action. name() obviously doesn't fit the bill because it tells you nothing about what action it is performing.
getName() lets you know without a doubt that the method is going to return a name.
In languages with Properties, the fact that something is a Property expresses the same meaning as having get or set attached to it. It merely makes things look a little neater.
The best answer I have ever heard for using the get/set prefixes is as such:
If you didn't use them, both the accessor and mutator (getter and setter) would have the same name; thus, they would be overloaded. Generally, you should only overload a method when each implementation of the method performs a similar function (but with different inputs).
In this case, you would have two methods with the same name that peformed very different functions, and that could be confusing to users of the API.
I always appreciate consistent get/set prefixing when working with a new API and its documentation. The automatic grouping of getters and setters when all functions are listed in their alphabetical order greatly helps to distinguish between simple data access and advanced functinality.
The same is true when using intellisense/auto completion within the IDE.
What about the case where a property is named after an verb?
object.action()
Does this get the type of action to be performed, or execute the action... Adding get/set/do removes the ambiguity which is always a good thing...
object.getAction()
object.setAction(action)
object.doAction()
In school we were taught to use get to distinguish methods from data structures. I never understood why the parens wouldn't be a tipoff. I'm of the personal opinion that overuse of get/set methods can be a horrendous time waster, and it's a phase I see a lot of object oriented programmers go through soon after they start.
I may not write much Objective-C, but since I learned it I've really come to love it's conventions. The very thing you are asking about is addressed by the language.
Here's a Smalltalk answer which I like most. One has to know a few rules about Smalltalk BTW.
fields are only accessible in the they are defined.If you dont write "accessors" you won't be able to do anything with them.
The convention there is having a Variable (let's anme it instVar1.
then you write a function instVar1 which just returns instVar1 and instVar: which sets
the value.
I like this convention much more than anything else. If you see a : somewhere you can bet it's some "setter" in one or the other way.
Custom.
Plus, in C++, if you return a reference, that provides potential information leakage into the class itself.
Related
I was recently watching a webcast on Clojure. In it the presenter made a comment in the context of discussing the FP nature of Clojure which went something like (I hope I don't misrepresent him) "Mock objects are mocking you".
I also heard a similar comment a while back when I watched a webcast when Microsoft's Reactive Framework was starting to appear . It went something like "Mock objects are for those who don't know math")
Now I know that both comments are jokes/tongue-in-cheek etc etc (and probably badly paraphrased), but underlying them is obviously something conceptual which I don't understand as I haven't really made the shift to the FP paradigm.
So, I would be grateful if someone could explain whether FP does in fact render mocking redundant and if so how.
In pure FP you have referentially transparent functions that compute the same output every time you call them with the same input. All the state you need must therefore be explicitly passed in as parameters and out as function results, there are no stateful objects that are in some way "hidden behind" the function you call. This, however, is, what your mock objects usually do: simulate some external, hidden state or behavior that your subject under test relies on.
In other words:
OO: Your objects combine related state and behavior.
Pure FP: State is something you pass between functions that by themselves are stateless and only rely on other stateless functions.
I think the important thing to think about is the idea of using tests help you to structure your code. Mocks are really about deferring decisions you don't want to take now (and a widely misunderstood technique). Instead of object state, consider partial functions. You can write a function that takes defers part of its behaviour to a partial function that's passed in. In a unit test, that could be a fake implementation that lets you just focus on the code in hand. Later, you compose your new code with a real implementation to build the system.
Actually, when we were developing the idea of Mocks, I always thought of Mocks this way. The object part was incidental.
Ok so I was just thinking to myself why do programmers stress so much when it comes down to Access Modifiers within OOP.
Lets take this code for example / PHP!
class StackOverflow
{
private var $web_address;
public function setWebAddress(){/*...*/}
}
Because web_address is private it cannot be changed by $object->web_address = 'w.e.', but the fact that that Variable will only ever change is if your programme does $object->web_address = 'w.e.';
If within my application I wanted a variable not to be changed, then I would make my application so that my programming does not have the code to change it, therefore it would never be changed ?
So my question is: What are the major rules and reasons in using private / protected / non-public entities
Because (ideally), a class should have two parts:
an interface exposed to the rest of the world, a manifest of how others can talk to it. Example in a filehandle class: String read(int bytes). Of course this has to be public, (one/the) main purpose of our class is to provide this functionality.
internal state, which noone but the instance itself should (have to) care about. Example in a filehandle class: private String buffer. This can and should be hidden from the rest of the world: They have no buisness with it, it's an implementation detail.
This is even done in language without access modifiers, e.g. Python - except that we don't force people to respect privacy (and remember, they can always use reflection anyway - encapsulation can never be 100% enforced) but prefix private members with _ to indicate "you shouldn't touch this; if you want to mess with it, do at your own risk".
Because you might not be the only developer in your project and the other developers might not know that they shouldn't change it. Or you might forget etc.
It makes it easy to spot (even the compiler can spot it) when you're doing something that someone has said would be a bad idea.
So my question is: What are the major rules and reasons in using private / protected / non-public entities
In Python, there are no access modifiers.
So the reasons are actually language-specific. You might want to update your question slightly to reflect this.
It's a fairly common question about Python. Many programmers from Java or C++ (or other) backgrounds like to think deeply about this. When they learn Python, there's really no deep thinking. The operating principle is
We're all adults here
It's not clear who -- precisely -- the access modifiers help. In Lakos' book, Large-Scale Software Design, there's a long discussion of "protected", since the semantics of protected make subclasses and client interfaces a bit murky.
http://www.amazon.com/Large-Scale-Software-Design-John-Lakos/dp/0201633620
Access modifiers is a tool for defensive programming strategy. You protect your code consciously against your own stupid errors (when you forget something after a while, didn't understand something correctly or just haven't had enough coffee).
You keep yourself from accidentally executing $object->web_address = 'w.e.';. This might seem unnecessary at the moment, but it won't be unnecessary if
two month later you want to change something in the project (and forgot all about the fact that web_address should not be changed directly) or
your project has many thousand lines of code and you simply cannot remember which field you are "allowed" to set directly and which ones require a setter method.
Just because a class has "something" doesn't mean it should expose that something. The class should implement its contract/interface/whatever you want to call it, but in doing so it could easily have all kinds of internal members/methods that don't need to be (and by all rights shouldn't be) known outside of that class.
Sure, you could write the rest of your application to just deal with it anyway, but that's not really considered good design.
I'm currently using Qt's QTextStream to read many different types (read: different extension) of text files. Each "FileReader" class I create starts to have a similar pattern where it needs to readLine() like this:
// Get the line's first word as float where each word is delimited by a comma
fileData.readLine().split(",")[0].toFloat();
You can imagine I have tens of these lines in my program.
Further, it's possible that toFloat() could fail (e.g. the value read is not convertible to float), so I'm planning to modify the above line like this:
// Get the line's first word as float where each word is delimited by a comma
bool convertible;
fileData.readLine().split(",")[0].toFloat(&convertible);
if(!convertible) throw std::runtime_error("Error!");
Obviously, IMO, the least maintainable code would be to simply repeat the above code to every line that I use readLine(). This is definitely not the path I plan to choose. (I would welcome someone who could prove otherwise the benefits of doing so)
I could think of a few ways to refactor this code.
1) Instead of directly using Qt's QTextStream class, create my own class that owns QTextStream, and then create a method called readFirstTokenAsFloat(). Inside that method I would have error checking as shown above. Then every "FileReader" class would now switch to use this new class. The pros of this approach, IMO, is it accomplishes what I want to do, but the cons, IMO, is that if I were to need to do other things, or if I wanted to use other QTextStream's methods, I would violate the DRY principle (?) by duplicating the same methods, and internally just have a one-liner calling QTextStream.
2) OR I could just inherit from QTextStream. This way I would simply extend its functionality, and would also get all of QTextStream's functionality. But is inheritance a good idea in this case?
3) Any other thoughts? I'm sure someone has come across something like this. Is there a specific name for this pattern?
If you think you're using all QTextStream functionality, then inheritance is the way to go IMO. Inheritance is not a bad thing in itself, should just be avoided in some cases. But if there's at least a method in QTextStream which shouldn't be called at all, then this would probably lead to a weird design (perhaps using a interface would help in this case)
Now, if you're using a subset of the functionalities, then composition (approach number 1) is the way to go.
I would additionaly suggest to create an interface with the "readFirstTokenAsFloat()" method and whichever other method you want, and then implement the interface (and use it on your "FileReaders"). This way, you have a less coupled and easier to change design.
If something wasn't clear or was controversial, feel free to post in the comments, so we can improve the answer =).
class FileReaderBase {
protected:
QTextStream* fileData;
virtual float(readFirstTokenAsFloat);
}
Your FileReaders derive from that class so that they can use the same fileData. You can handle open in the constructor, close in destructor, e.g...
IMHO much better than subclassing into a framework. (favour composition over inheritance)
When I try to refactor my functions, for new needs, I stumble from time to time about the crucial question:
Shall I add another variable with a default value? Or shall I use only one array, where I´m able to add an additional variable without breaking the API?
Unless you need to support a flexible number of variables, I think it's best to explicitly identify each parameter. In most cases you can add an overloaded method that has a different signature to support the extra parameter while still supporting the original method signature. If you use an array for passing variables it just makes it too confusing for users of your API. Obviously there are some inputs that lend themselves to an array (a list of points in a polygon, a list of account IDs you wish to perform an action on, etc.) but if it's not a variable that you would reasonably expect to be an array or list, you should pass it into the method as a separate parameter.
Just like many questions in programming, the right answer is "it depends".
To take Javascript/jQuery as an example, one good rule of thumb is whether the parameter will be required each time the function is called or whether it is optional. For example, the main jQuery function itself requires an expression to determine what element(s) the operation will affect:
jQuery(expresssion)
It makes no sense to try to pass this parameter as part of an array as it will be required every time this function is called.
On the other hand, many jQuery plugins require several miscellaneous parameters that may be optional. By convention, these are passed as parameters via an 'options' array. As you said, this provides a nice interface as new parameters can be added without affecting the existing API. This makes the API clean as well since the user can ignore those options that are not applicable.
In general, when several parameters are involved, passing them as an array is a nice convention as many of them are certainly going to be optional. This would have helped clean up many WIN32 API's, although it is more difficult to deal with arrays in C/C++ than in Javascript.
It depends on the programming language used.
If you have a run-of-the-mill OO language, you should use an object that you can easily extend, if you are really concerned about API consistency.
If that doesn't matter that much, there is the option of changing the method signature and overloading the method with more / different parameters.
If your language doesn't support either and you want the API to be binary stable, use an array.
There are several considerations that must be made.
Where is the function used? - Only in code you created? One place or hundreds of places? The amount of work that will need to be done to maintain existing code is important. Remember to include the amount of time it will take to communicate to other programmers that may currently be using your function.
How critical is the new parameter? - Do you want to require it to be used? If it has a default value, will that default value break existing use of the function in any subtle ways?
Ease of comprehension - How many parameters are already passed into the function? The larger the number, the more confusing and error prone it will be. Code Complete recommends that you restrict the number of parameters to 7 or less. If you need more than that, you should try to abstract some or all of the related parameters into one object.
Other special considerations - Do you want to optimize your efforts for any special conditions such as code speed or size? Are there any special considerations that must be taken into account for your execution environment? Keep in mind your goals for the project and make sure you aren't working against them with whatever design choice you make.
In his book Code Complete, Steve McConnell decrees that a function should never have more than 7 arguments, and rarely even that many. He presents compelling arguments - that I can't cite from memory, alas.
Clean Code, more recently, advocates even fewer arguments.
So unless the number of things to pass is really small, they should be passed in an enveloping structure. If they're homogenous, an array. If not, then a reasonably lightweight object should be built for the purpose.
You should do neither. Just add the parameter and change all callers to supply the proper default value. The reason is that parameters with default values can only be at the end, and will not be able to add any more required parameters anywhere in the parameters list, without having a risk of misinterpretation.
These are the critical steps to disaster:
1. add one or two parameters with defaults
2. some callers will supply it, and some will rely on defaults.
[half a year passed]
3. add a required parameter (before them)
4. change all callers to accept the required parameter
5. get a phone call, or other event which will make you forget to change one of the instances in part#2
6. now your program compiles perfectly, but is invalid.
Unfortunately, in function call semantics we usually don't have a chance to say, by name, which value goes where.
Array is also not a proper solution. Array should be used as a connection of similar objects, upon which there's a uniform activity performed. As they say here, if it's worth refactoring, it's worth refactoring now.
Recently I was talking to a co-worker about C++ and lamented that there was no way to take a string with the name of a class field and extract the field with that name; in other words, it lacks reflection. He gave me a baffled look and asked when anyone would ever need to do such a thing.
Off the top of my head I didn't have a good answer for him, other than "hey, I need to do it right now". So I sat down and came up with a list of some of the things I've actually done with reflection in various languages. Unfortunately, most of my examples come from my web programming in Python, and I was hoping that the people here would have more examples. Here's the list I came up with:
Given a config file with lines like
x = "Hello World!"
y = 5.0
dynamically set the fields of some config object equal to the values in that file. (This was what I wished I could do in C++, but actually couldn't do.)
When sorting a list of objects, sort based on an arbitrary attribute given that attribute's name from a config file or web request.
When writing software that uses a network protocol, reflection lets you call methods based on string values from that protocol. For example, I wrote an IRC bot that would translate
!some_command arg1 arg2
into a method call actions.some_command(arg1, arg2) and print whatever that function returned back to the IRC channel.
When using Python's __getattr__ function (which is sort of like method_missing in Ruby/Smalltalk) I was working with a class with a whole lot of statistics, such as late_total. For every statistic, I wanted to be able to add _percent to get that statistic as a percentage of the total things I was counting (for example, stats.late_total_percent). Reflection made this very easy.
So can anyone here give any examples from their own programming experiences of times when reflection has been helpful? The next time a co-worker asks me why I'd "ever want to do something like that" I'd like to be more prepared.
I can list following usage for reflection:
Late binding
Security (introspect code for security reasons)
Code analysis
Dynamic typing (duck typing is not possible without reflection)
Metaprogramming
Some real-world usages of reflection from my personal experience:
Developed plugin system based on reflection
Used aspect-oriented programming model
Performed static code analysis
Used various Dependency Injection frameworks
...
Reflection is good thing :)
I've used reflection to get current method information for exceptions, logging, etc.
string src = MethodInfo.GetCurrentMethod().ToString();
string msg = "Big Mistake";
Exception newEx = new Exception(msg, ex);
newEx.Source = src;
instead of
string src = "MyMethod";
string msg = "Big MistakeA";
Exception newEx = new Exception(msg, ex);
newEx.Source = src;
It's just easier for copy/paste inheritance and code generation.
I'm in a situation now where I have a stream of XML coming in over the wire and I need to instantiate an Entity object that will populate itself from elements in the stream. It's easier to use reflection to figure out which Entity object can handle which XML element than to write a gigantic, maintenance-nightmare conditional statement. There's clearly a dependency between the XML schema and how I structure and name my objects, but I control both so it's not a big problem.
There are lot's of times you want to dynamically instantiate and work with objects where the type isn't known until runtime. For example with OR-mappers or in a plugin architecture. Mocking frameworks use it, if you want to write a logging-library and dynamically want to examine type and properties of exceptions.
If I think a bit longer I can probably come up with more examples.
I find reflection very useful if the input data (like xml) has a complex structure which is easily mapped to object-instances or i need some kind of "is a" relationship between the instances.
As reflection is relatively easy in java, I sometimes use it for simple data (key-value maps) where I have a small fixed set of keys. One one hand it's simple to determine if a key is valid (if the class has a setter setKey(String data)), on the other hand i can change the type of the (textual) input data and hide the transformation (e.g simple cast to int in getKey()), so the rest of the application can rely on correctly typed data.
If the type of some key-value-pair changes for one object (e.g. form int to float), i only have to change it in the data-object and its users but don't have to keep in mind to check the parser too. This might not be a sensible approach, if performance is an issue...
Writing dispatchers. Twisted uses python's reflective capabilities to dispatch XML-RPC and SOAP calls. RMI uses Java's reflection api for dispatch.
Command line parsing. Building up a config object based on the command line parameters that are passed in.
When writing unit tests, it can be helpful to use reflection, though mostly I've used this to bypass access modifiers (Java).
I've used reflection in C# when there was some internal or private method in the framework or a third party library that I wanted to access.
(Disclaimer: It's not necessarily a best-practice because private and internal methods may be changed in later versions. But it worked for what I needed.)
Well, in statically-typed languages, you'd want to use reflection any time you need to do something "dynamic". It comes in handy for tooling purposes (scanning the members of an object). In Java it's used in JMX and dynamic proxies quite a bit. And there are tons of one-off cases where it's really the only way to go (pretty much anytime you need to do something the compiler won't let you do).
I generally use reflection for debugging. Reflection can more easily and more accurately display the objects within the system than an assortment of print statements. In many languages that have first-class functions, you can even invoke the functions of the object without writing special code.
There is, however, a way to do what you want(ed). Use a hashtable. Store the fields keyed against the field name.
If you really wanted to, you could then create standard Get/Set functions, or create macros that do it on the fly. #define GetX() Get("X") sort of thing.
You could even implement your own imperfect reflection that way.
For the advanced user, if you can compile the code, it may be possible to enable debug output generation and use that to perform reflection.