Back story:
So I've been stuck on an architecture problem for the past couple of nights on a refactor I've been toying with. Nothing important, but it's been bothering me. It's actually an exercise in DRY, and an attempt to take it to such an extreme as the DAL architecture is completely DRY. It's a completely philosophical/theoretical exercise.
The code is based in part on one of #JohnMacIntyre's refactorings which I recently convinced him to blog about at http://whileicompile.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/my-clean-code-experience-no-1/. I've modified the code slightly, as I tend to, in order to take the code one level further - usually, just to see what extra mileage I can get out of a concept... anyway, my reasons are largely irrelevant.
Part of my data access layer is based on the following architecture:
abstract public class AppCommandBase : IDisposable { }
This contains basic stuff, like creation of a command object and cleanup after the AppCommand is disposed of. All of my command base objects derive from this.
abstract public class ReadCommandBase<T, ResultT> : AppCommandBase
This contains basic stuff that affects all read-commands - specifically in this case, reading data from tables and views. No editing, no updating, no saving.
abstract public class ReadItemCommandBase<T, FilterT> : ReadCommandBase<T, T> { }
This contains some more basic generic stuff - like definition of methods that will be required to read a single item from a table in the database, where the table name, key field name and field list names are defined as required abstract properties (to be defined by the derived class.
public class MyTableReadItemCommand : ReadItemCommandBase<MyTableClass, Int?> { }
This contains specific properties that define my table name, the list of fields from the table or view, the name of the key field, a method to parse the data out of the IDataReader row into my business object and a method that initiates the whole process.
Now, I also have this structure for my ReadList...
abstract public ReadListCommandBase<T> : ReadCommandBase<T, IEnumerable<T>> { }
public class MyTableReadListCommand : ReadListCommandBase<MyTableClass> { }
The difference being that the List classes contain properties that pertain to list generation (i.e. PageStart, PageSize, Sort and returns an IEnumerable) vs. return of a single DataObject (which just requires a filter that identifies a unique record).
Problem:
I'm hating that I've got a bunch of properties in my MyTableReadListCommand class that are identical in my MyTableReadItemCommand class. I've thought about moving them to a helper class, but while that may centralize the member contents in one place, I'll still have identical members in each of the classes, that instead point to the helper class, which I still dislike.
My first thought was dual inheritance would solve this nicely, even though I agree that dual inheritance is usually a code smell - but it would solve this issue very elegantly. So, given that .NET doesn't support dual inheritance, where do I go from here?
Perhaps a different refactor would be more suitable... but I'm having trouble wrapping my head around how to sidestep this problem.
If anyone needs a full code base to see what I'm harping on about, I've got a prototype solution on my DropBox at http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3029830/Prototypes/Prototype%20-%20DAL%20Refactor.zip. The code in question is in the DataAccessLayer project.
P.S. This isn't part of an ongoing active project, it's more a refactor puzzle for my own amusement.
Thanks in advance folks, I appreciate it.
Separate the result processing from the data retrieval. Your inheritance hierarchy is already more than deep enough at ReadCommandBase.
Define an interface IDatabaseResultParser. Implement ItemDatabaseResultParser and ListDatabaseResultParser, both with a constructor parameter of type ReadCommandBase ( and maybe convert that to an interface too ).
When you call IDatabaseResultParser.Value() it executes the command, parses the results and returns a result of type T.
Your commands focus on retrieving the data from the database and returning them as tuples of some description ( actual Tuples or and array of arrays etc etc ), your parser focuses on converting the tuples into objects of whatever type you need. See NHibernates IResultTransformer for an idea of how this can work (and it's probably a better name than IDatabaseResultParser too).
Favor composition over inheritance.
Having looked at the sample I'll go even further...
Throw away AppCommandBase - it adds no value to your inheritance hierarchy as all it does is check that the connection is not null and open and creates a command.
Separate query building from query execution and result parsing - now you can greatly simplify the query execution implementation as it is either a read operation that returns an enumeration of tuples or a write operation that returns the number of rows affected.
Your query builder could all be wrapped up in one class to include paging / sorting / filtering, however it may be easier to build some form of limited structure around these so you can separate paging and sorting and filtering. If I was doing this I wouldn't bother building the queries, I would simply write the sql inside an object that allowed me to pass in some parameters ( effectively stored procedures in c# ).
So now you have IDatabaseQuery / IDatabaseCommand / IResultTransformer and almost no inheritance =)
I think the short answer is that, in a system where multiple inheritance has been outlawed "for your protection", strategy/delegation is the direct substitute. Yes, you still end up with some parallel structure, such as the property for the delegate object. But it is minimized as much as possible within the confines of the language.
But lets step back from the simple answer and take a wide view....
Another big alternative is to refactor the larger design structure such that you inherently avoid this situation where a given class consists of the composite of behaviors of multiple "sibling" or "cousin" classes above it in the inheritance tree. To put it more concisely, refactor to an inheritance chain rather than an inheritance tree. This is easier said than done. It usually requires abstracting very different pieces of functionality.
The challenge you'll have in taking this tack that I'm recommending is that you've already made a concession in your design: You're optimizing for different SQL in the "item" and "list" cases. Preserving this as is will get in your way no matter what, because you've given them equal billing, so they must by necessity be siblings. So I would say that your first step in trying to get out of this "local maximum" of design elegance would be to roll back that optimization and treat the single item as what it truly is: a special case of a list, with just one element. You can always try to re-introduce an optimization for single items again later. But wait till you've addressed the elegance issue that is vexing you at the moment.
But you have to acknowledge that any optimization for anything other than the elegance of your C# code is going to put a roadblock in the way of design elegance for the C# code. This trade-off, just like the "memory-space" conjugate of algorithm design, is fundamental to the very nature of programming.
As is mentioned by Kirk, this is the delegation pattern. When I do this, I usually construct an interface that is implemented by the delegator and the delegated class. This reduces the perceived code smell, at least for me.
I think the simple answer is... Since .NET doesn't support Multiple Inheritence, there is always going to be some repetition when creating objects of a similar type. .NET simply does not give you the tools to re-use some classes in a way that would facilitate perfect DRY.
The not-so-simple answer is that you could use code generation tools, instrumentation, code dom, and other techniques to inject the objects you want into the classes you want. It still creates duplication in memory, but it would simplify the source code (at the cost of added complexity in your code injection framework).
This may seem unsatisfying like the other solutions, however if you think about it, that's really what languages that support MI are doing behind the scenes, hooking up delegation systems that you can't see in source code.
The question comes down to, how much effort are you willing to put into making your source code simple. Think about that, it's rather profound.
I haven't looked deeply at your scenario, but I have some thoughs on the dual-hierarchy problem in C#. To share code in a dual-hierarchy, we need a different construct in the language: either a mixin, a trait (pdf) (C# research -pdf) or a role (as in perl 6). C# makes it very easy to share code with inheritance (which is not the right operator for code-reuse), and very laborious to share code via composition (you know, you have to write all that delegation code by hand).
There are ways to get a kind of mixin in C#, but it's not ideal.
The Oxygene (download) language (an Object Pascal for .NET) also has an interesting feature for interface delegation that can be used to create all that delegating code for you.
Related
I'm working with a C# WPF application, which uses a kind of inheritance:
Main_Class has two subclasses, Sub_Class1 and Sub_Class2.
In my application, I work with objects of Sub_Class1.
Another application works with objects of Sub_Class2.
I have the impression that the following is happening:
My application creates an object of Sub_Class1 and store it in DB (due to Telerik technology, the voa_class gets filled in as Sub_Class1).
The other application uses objects of type Main_Class and modifies them in database.
My application captures the database modifications and finds that an object, derived from Main_Class has been modified. In my application, I do:
((Sub_Class1)Db_Object)...
But, as the object is of type Sub_Class1, the typecast goes into an exception.
I would like to handle this in the following way (I don't care about losing Sub_Class2 information):
((Sub_Class1) (Main_Class) Db_Object)...
In other words: first typecast to the main class, and only then to the subclass, used in my application.
Can this work? (The application is currently installed at a customer site, so it's not easy to just do some "trial-and-error")
Edit after first comments
Apparently, my simple approach does not work. What about this:
Main_Class Main_Object = Db_Object;
Sub_Class1 Sub_Object1 = (Sub_Class1) Main_Object;
Edit after some thoughts: general O.O. reflection
In fact, it all comes down to this (very general):
class Sub_Class : Main_Class { ... }
...
Sub_Class Sub_Object = ...;
Main_Class Main_Object = Sub_Object; // or:
Main_Class Main_Object = (Main_Class) Sub_Object;
In both cases, Main_Object won't be a Main_Class, but a Sub_Class object.
Although this is handy in a lot of cases (it's even a basic feature for quite some O.O. implementations), it might be hindering (like in my case). It's quite a pity that no simple solution/workaround exists for this particular case.
I am writing a piece of software in c# .net 4.0 and am running into a wall in making sure that the code-base is extensible, re-usable and flexible in a particular area.
We have data coming into it that needs to be broken down in discrete organizational units. These units will need to be changed, sorted, deleted, and added to as the company grows.
No matter how we slice the data structure we keep running into a boat-load of conditional statements (upwards of 100 or so to start) that we are trying to avoid, allowing us to modify the OUs easily.
We are hoping to find an object-oriented method that would allow us to route the object to different workflows based on properties of that object without having to add switch statements every time.
So, for example, let's say I have an object called "Order" come into the system. This object has 'orderItems' inside of it. Each of those different kinds of 'orderItems' would need to fire a different function in the code to be handled appropriately. Each 'orderItem' has a different workflow. The conditional looks basically like this -
if(order.orderitem == 'photo')
{do this}
else if(order.orderitem == 'canvas')
{do this}
edit: Trying to clarify.
I'm not sure your question is very well defined, you need a lot more specifics here - a sample piece of data, sample piece of code, what have you tried...
No matter how we slice the data structure we keep running into a boat-load of conditional statements (upwards of 100 or so to start) that we are trying to avoid
This usually means you're trying to encode data in your code - just add a data field (or a few).
Chances are your ifs are linked to each other, it's hard to come up with 100 independent ifs - that would imply you have 100 independent branches for 100 independent data conditions. I haven't encountered such a thing in my career that really would require hard-coding 100 ifs.
Worst case scenario you can make an additional data field contain a config file or even a script of your choice. Either case - your data is incomplete if you need 100 ifs
With the update you've put in your question here's one simple approach, kind of low tech. You can do better with dependency injection and some configuration but that can get excessive too, so be careful:
public class OrderHandler{
public static Dictionary<string,OrderHandler> Handlers = new Dictionary<string,OrderHandler>(){
{"photo", new PhotoHandler()},
{"canvas", new CanvasHandler()},
};
public virtual void Handle(Order order){
var handler = handlers[order.OrderType];
handler.Handle(order);
}
}
public class PhotoHandler: OrderHandler{...}
public class CanvasHandler: OrderHandler{...}
What you could do is called - "Message Based Routing" or "Message Content Based" Routing - depending on how you implement it.
In short, instead of using conditional statements in your business logic, you should implement organizational units to look for the messages they are interested in.
For example:
Say your organization has following departments - "Plant Products", "Paper Products", "Utilities". Say there is only one place where the orders come in - Ordering (module).
here is a sample incoming message.
Party:"ABC Cop"
Department: "Plant Product"
Qty: 50
Product: "Some plan"
Publish out a message with this information. In the module that processes orders for "Plant Products" configure it such that it listens to a message that has "Department = Plant Products". This way, you push the onus on the department modules instead of on the main ordering module.
You can do this using NServiceBus, BizTalk, or any other ESB you might already have.
This is how you do in BizTalk and this is how you can do in NServiceBus
Have you considered sub-typing OrderItem?
public class PhotoOrderItem : OrderItem {}
public class CanvasOrderItem : OrderItem {}
Another option would be to use the Strategy pattern. Add an extra property to your OrderItem class definition for the OrderProcessStrategy and use a PhotoOrderStrategy/CanvasOrderStrategy to contain all of the different logic.
public class OrderItem{
public IOrderItemStrategy Strategy;
}
public interface IOrderItemStrategy{
public void Checkout();
public Control CheckoutStub{get;}
public bool PreCheckoutValidate();
}
public class PhotoOrderStrategy : IOrderItemStrategy{}
public class CanvasOrderStrategy : IOrderItemStrategy{}
Taking the specific example:
You could have some Evaluator that takes an order and iterates each line item. Instead of processing if logic raise events that carry in their event arguments the photo, canvas details.
Have a collection of objects 'Initiators' that define: 1)an handler that can process Evaluator messages, 2)a simple bool that can be set to indicate if they know what to do with something in the message, and 3)an Action or Process method which can perform or initiate the workflow. Design an interface to abstract these.
Issue the messages. Visit each Initiator, ask it if it can process the lineItem if it can tell it to do so. The processing is kicked off by the 'initiators' and they can call other workflows etc.
Name the pieces outlined above whatever best suits your domain. This should offer some flexibility. Problems may arise depending on concurrent processing requirements and workflow dependencies between the Initiators.
In general, without knowing a lot more detail, size of the project, workflows, use cases etc it is hard to comment.
In order to protect ourself from failure because of any renaming of properties (Let's say you regenerate your poco classes because you have changed some column names in the relevant Db table) is it a good practice to decalre constant strings that keep the property names inside?
public const string StudentCountPropertyName = "StudentCount";
public int StudentCount {get;set;}
For example: Think about a DataBinding; where you type the property name in the DataFieldName attribute explicitly.
Or this is not a good idea and there is a better and still safer way?
It is always a good idea IMHO to move any 'magic strings' to constants.
You could consider using lambda expressions to 'pick' your properties, for example:
GetDataFieldName(studentCollection => studentCollection.Count)
You will have to implement GetDataFieldName yourself, using a bit of reflection. You can look at HtmlHelperExtensions from MVC to see how it can be done. This will be the most safe approach, which gives you compile-time errors when something goes wrong and allows easy property renaming using existing refactoring tools.
From one point of view: if you using this property name multiple times it is good practice. It will help for sure with the refactoring and when you for example change property name you see that you need change this const also.
From another point of view i guess it will be ugly when my class with 10 properties will have 10 additional consts. Another solution if you want avoid consts or explicit name typing can be getting property names through the reflection.
Use such approach or not you should decide yourself.
I think it's a common practice to put this "magical string" or "magical numbers" in some kind of strong typed store.
Something you can consider is to code it in a Aspect Orientied Way.
For example the calls to notifypropertychagned can be realized with an attribute implemented with an aop framework, like PostSharp .
[NotifyChange]
public int Value {get;private set}
This tools also have some downsides but i think there are scenarios where they can save you a lot of work
I do not know if I fully understand your question, but if I understand it right I would have used an attribute for that, an example could be the use of ColumnAttribute in Linq which you use to map a property to a specific column in a database (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.data.linq.mapping.columnattribute.dbtype.aspx), like in this example:
[Column(Storage="ProductID", DbType="VarChar(150)", CanBeNull=False)]
public string Id { get; set; }
And I would never use DataFieldName, I would DataBind to the strongly typed objects (and of course also make an interface to the class that uses the property above so I easily can change the implementation in the future ;))
I suppose if the names are used in many places then it would be easier just to change them in this one place and use the constant as described in your comment.
However, a change to a database column name and object property name implies a change to your conceptual data model. How often do you think this is going to happen? In the early stages of a project, whilst conceptual modelling and implementation are paralellised across a dev team, this may be quite fluid, but once the initial conceptual modelling is done (whether this in a formalised conscious manner or just organically), it's usually quite unlikely that fundamental things like these are going to change. For this reason I think it's relatively unusual to have do this and the technique will only be productive in edge cases.
Absolutely. It's a good idea.
By the way, I would argue that these kind of things could be better stored in application settings, because you can define such things in an application configuration file later by overriding these settings.
Doing that this way you'll avoid re-compiling if some database, POCO or whatever changes, and as in newer Visual Studio versions like 2010, you can tell it to generate settings with "public" accessibility, you can share strongly-typed settings with any assembly that reference the one containing them.
At the end of the day, I'd change your code with DataBindingSettings.StudentCountPropertyName instead of a constant.
Easy to manage, more re-usable, and readable, as "you configure a data-binding with its settings".
Check this MSDN article to learn more about application settings:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/a65txexh(v=VS.100).aspx
Small design question here. I'm trying to develop a calculation app in C#. I have a class, let's call it InputRecord, which holds 100s of fields (multi dimensional arrays) This InputRecordclass will be used in a number of CalculationEngines. Each CalculcationEngine can make changes to a number of fields in the InputRecord. These changes are steps needed for it's calculation.
Now I don't want the local changes made to the InputRecord to be used in other CalculcationEngine's classes.
The first solution that comes to mind is using a struct: these are value types. However I'd like to use inheritance: each CalculationEngine needs a few fields only relevant to that engine: it's has it's own InputRecord, based on BaseInputRecord.
Can anyone point me to a design that will help me accomplish this?
If you really have a lot of data, using structs or common cloning techniques may not be very space-efficient (e.g. it would use much memory).
Sounds like a design where you need to have a "master store" and a "diff store", just analogous to a RDBMS you have data files and transactions.
Basically, you need to keep a list of the changes performed per calculation engine, and use the master values for items which aren't affected by any changes.
The elegant solution would be to not change the inputrecord. That would allow sharing (and parallel processing).
If that is not an option you will have to Clone the data. Give each derived class a constructor that takes the base Input as a parameter.
You can declare a Clone() method on your BaseInputRecord, then pass a copy to each CalculationEngine.
I'm trying to find a collective name for these non-"helper" classes which encapsulate method results (e.g. "SignupResult"), classes which hold multiple filter values (e.g. "ContactSearchFilter"), my SortDirection enum etc. -- I want to organize these correctly but can't find the correct name for these as a whole. Help?
Do they really have anything in common that would justify an own category name?
If you want to organize such files, I suggest putting them in the same folder/namespace as their dependencies, i.e. the enum belongs in the same namespace as the dictionary you use it with, SignupResult belongs together with the other signup process classes etc.
Depends on what you do with it. If you save it in the database, it's effectively an 'Entity'. If you just use it to pass variables around, I'd call it a 'Holder' class (though that's not really a formal term).
It's arguably interesting to consider that if you have too many of these, perhaps your design is not so great. You probably shouldn't be so-much passing results around, as doing actions based on things happening. JMHO. FWIW.
Perhaps creating a class called UserSession or something and have things like SignupResult/ContactSearchFilter as properties.