I am trying to structure my code in such a way to reduce/avoid code duplication and I have encountered an interesting problem. Every time my code invokes a stored proc, I need to pass few variables that are common to the stored proc: such as username, domain, server_ip and client_ip. These all come from either HttpRequest object or a system.environment object.
Since these are passed to every stored proc, my initial thought was to create a utility class that is a database wrapper and will initialize and pass these every time, so I don't have to do it in my code.
The problem is though that c# class (inside App_Code folder) doesn't see Httprequest object. Of course, I could pass this as an argument to the wrapper, but that would defeat the whole purpose of creating the wrapper. Am I missing something here?
I realize it's not such a huge deal to repeat 4 lines of code each time I call a stored proc, but I would rather eliminate the code duplication at the very early stages.
Set up your data layer to inherit from a base class which contains 4 properties for those values. Make the public constructor require those 4 properties.
Then do something similar in the business layer - base class with those 4 properties in the constructor.
Then the UI does new BusObj( Request["username"], ... ).method()
Within the data layer you can have a method that builds a SQLParameter array with those 4 properties, then each method can add additional parameters to the array.
As a general rule regardless of programming language, if you can squint your eyes and the code looks the same you should make a function/method/message out of it and pass the parameters.
Another thing to look at once you have methods that take a large number of parameters (4 is a good rule of thumb, but it is definatly a case-by-case basis) it is time to make that method take an object as a parameter instead of individual parameters. 99.99999999999999999999% of the time such an object should be immutable (no writeable instance variables).
HttpContext.Current has similar information to what you find in HttpRequest and more importantly is available inside App_Code.
Here's a weird idea you may or may not like: define a 'profile' class and a function that expands the profile into the arguments of functions taking the common arguments.
class P {
readonly string name;
readonly string domain;
public P(string name, string domain) {
this.name = name; this.domain = domain;
}
public void inject(Action<string, string> f) {
f(p.arg1, p.arg2);
}
public T inject<T>(Func<string, string, T> f) {
return f(p.arg1, p.arg2);
}
}
It might work better in VB.net where you have the AddressOf operator. I would be really cautious using this type of thing, because you could easily damage readability and encapsulation.
I would keep it the way you have it now. It's cleaner, easier to extend/modify, and easier to unit test.
As for using HttpContext instead as some others have suggested, I would say that it is a bad idea. Once you start introduce dependencies in your domain on HttpContext, it's very difficult to take it out. What if later on you wanted to use your module without an HttpContext? What about unit testing it?
Try System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Request to get the current request.
You are possibly headed down a slippery slope. The point to DRY is to not repeat business logic in multiple places where a change in requirement creates the need to change code in multiple similar places. You don't necessarily refactor just because 4 lines are the same if those 4 lines are context dependent. You have also broken encapsulation by referencing the httprequest in that you are using a global variable. As a consumer of you class I would have to know the implementation detail that I could only call you from a web application.
That being said, if you take that into account and still want to proceed, here is another option for information like this. Create a custom SecurityPrincipal (Implement IPrincipal) that contains the properties you need and attach it to the thread. Fill them when the user logs in and then you can access it anywhere during the request. Your caller would still need to make sure this was done but at least it isn't platform specific.
Otherwise for the best encapsulation, pass in a class with the properties you need into the constructor for each object that needs to consume those properties.
Related
I just want to understand the purpose that static method serves and what are the desirable situation where i can create static methods except some would say that static methods are used for creating helper.
Consider i have 1 website that will be used in my company only like Human resource management system like websites.
Now after Admin login in to the system admin will see the list of employees.so the method is simple which does nothing more than fetching all details of employees from employee table and will display them on the web site and this method will be define in business access layer like this in .net:
public class EmployeeBal
{
public List<Employee> GetAllEmployees()
{
return Select * from Employee
}
}
This is how i would call this method from my application.For Eg(.aspx page or mvc controller etc....)
var employeeBal= new EmployeeBal();
employeeBal.GetAllEmployees();
So my question is should i create this method as static method or non static method??
Note:This is just an example of method and this method is in my business access layer.
Consider i have 1 ecommerce website where on the home page i am displaying some list of products and on visit of that website every users can see that list of products.
so my function would be same as above define in Business acess layer:
public class ProductBal
{
public List<Product> DisplayProductonHomePage()
{
return Select * from Products
}
}
So my question would be same like whether to create this method as static method or non-static method and what will happen if more than 10 users at same time simultaneously access this website then what will be the behaviour/implications of this method???
Will this method will serve the purpose of this each user if we declare this method as static??
Can anybody answer this question with briefly explaining every scenario???
A static method makes sense when there’s no state to maintain. What do I mean by state? Well, consider the following: You have two distinct objects, a and b, which are both of type EmployeeBal. Is there ever a case in your program where a.GetAllEmployees() and b.GetAllEmployees() would yield different results?
If not, then why do the objects a and b exist at all? The whole point of having objects is to associate some distinct state with them. If two different objects can never refer to a different state, then they fulfil no purpose.
In fact, in this situation your EmployeeBal would be exactly equivalent to System.Math, and all its methods are “helper methods” (if that’s what you want to call them). In this case, forget about static methods for a minute: your whole class should be static (static class EmployeeBal), and it should not have any constructors; because the concept of an object of type EmployeeBal simply makes no sense. In fact, in other languages EmployeeBal wouldn’t be a class at all; instead, it would be something generally called a module: a unit that logically groups code. C# has no modules, and all code must reside within classes. Classes thus fulfil a dual purpose: they group code, and they generate objects.1
Now consider a less extreme case: EmployeeBal objects actually maintain state, and differ. Yet GetAllEmployees() will still yield the same result, regardless of which object calls the method.
In this case, EmployeeBal obviously cannot be a static class. But GetAllEmployees is still stateless, and thus doesn’t belong to objects of type EmployeeBal. And thus the method should be static.
1 This lack of distinction between two fundamentally distinct concepts (module and class) is actually quite annoying, and the main reason that C# behaves this way is because it was conceived to be similar to Java. It was a mistake in hindsight, but not a serious one.
Is there a reason why the method should be static? If not I'd always side with non-static.
One big reason is being able to write unit tests.
In order to write unit tests you want to be able to isolate the class you're testing from other classes. But if class A contains a reference to static class B, then you can't test A without testing B. Maybe B depends on connection strings or config settings. Maybe B depends on other static classes. Now you can't test A unless B and everything it depends on are in place.
If, on the other hand, class A depends on an interface like IEmployeeProvider that gets provided through its constructor then you can test class A with a mocked implementation of IEmployeeProvider.
If A has IEmployeeProvider as an argument in its constructor then you can tell by looking at the constructor that it depends on IEmployeeProvider. But if it depends on a static EmployeeProvider class somewhere inside a method then the dependency is hidden. You have to read the whole class to know what it depends on.
Also, the static class itself can be harder to test. Unless it's absolutely always going to remain stateless then it's better to have a non-static class that you can unit test.
It's fine to have multiple threads executing the same static method, as long as the method does not access static state such as field or properties. In that case, the shared objects stored in the fields/properties must themselves be thread safe. The data access parts of .Net are not designed to be thread safe.
As soon as you start considering aspects such as managing a database connection that can be reused for several queries during the execution of a single web request, you should consider if static is the best approach. Since you cannot store the connection in a static field as explained above, you will have to pass it as a parameter to each static method. On the other hand, if you pass the connection to a constructor and store it in a (non-static) field, you can access it from multiple non-static methods of that instance, which will IMO be easier to manage.
This is quite a big topic however, and in general the management of class dependencies is quite tricky to get right in OOP. Some programmers prefer to delegate this task to an "Inversion of Control"-library. There are many available for .Net such as Microsoft Unity, StructureMap, AutoFac, etc.
To answer your question:
So my question is should i create this method as static method or non static method??
Note:This is just an example of method and this method is in my business access layer.
I would make those methods static - given what you provided. But I bet that you would have instance variables either declared in your class, or in methods in that class, which then of course that would mean don't make it static.
So a determining factor for me if I decide to use a static method or not has to do with re-use and resources.
If I find myself re-using a method many times over, and I conclude it doesn't need state (kept in memory) - I will make it a static method.
Also I usually will make my methods static if they can be used in other applications or if I think they will be useful down the road.
For example I recently wrote a method that converts a excel file to a flat file. I made this a static method in its own static class (i may put it in a similar utility class down the road) because I will probably end up using it again in another project, so I can now just reference its class without having to instantiate a new object to just call the method. ( I don't need state anyways)
I'm pretty new to programming as well and I hope you found this helpful.
If we are going to talk about static, we need to introduce a dependency. In this case it is a sql client. Here's what the code looks like with that introduced. Since we aren't going to get into the details of a sql client it's used as an interface in the static method.
var client = new SqlClient();
var allEmployeeData = EmployeeBal.GetAllEmployees(client);
class EmployeeBal
{
public static Employee GetAllEmployees(ISqlClient client)
{
return client.Execute("Select * from Employee");
}
}
Dependency injection through an interface changes everything. Now the method is good as being static, because it only deals with an interface and a string. Both of these are stateless. Since all components of the method are stateless they are perfectly safe for a static method which can have only one global state.
As your code was written originally it's not safe as being static, because how can I be assured the sql client is prepared to be used and after I've checked that it's ready it hasn't been altered when I go to run the query? If I can inject the sql client I can manage it since it has a local vs global scope.
A better example would be something like a factory for a sql client. For example with nhibernate there should only be one session factory created. That one thread safe session factory can create multiple non-thread safe sessions for running sql queries. In this case it's appropriate to have the session factory exposed through a static method, because that describes the fact that there is only ever going to be one session factory.
var session = SessionFactory.OpenSession();
Using static methods is equivalent of having a global behaviour. It comes with benefits: ease of access for simple scenarios.
It also comes with all the problems that global data and state have. Among them you cannot substitute an implementation with another (for example for tests). See https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/148108/why-is-global-state-so-evil
While you might consider that you don't have a global state ... conceptually you have. You have a unique, predetermined, unconfigurable, hard coded way of accessing some behaviour. You published it and you cannot change it ... ever. You break the open-close principle. You break the liskov substitution principle.
Java has this but scala amended that. More on this here: Why doesn't Scala have static members inside a class?
Use cases for static and non-static methods differ, so you need to create one based on what's the need that they fulfill:
Static method does not participate in inheritance-based polymorphism, while non-static does. In other words, you can't mark static method as virtual or abstract, which means you cannot change its behavior. This also means that caller of the static method knows exactly what this static method is going to do and how exactly. With non-static method, you can be calling it on base class but due to polymorphism you may end up calling the derived class method with overriden behavior.
Both static and non-static methods can be changing a state of something (as opposed to what others claim), but there's a difference. You can design a static class that has all static members (properties, methods, etc.) in it, so the methods can be changing the state of this static class (that said, even though C# allows you doing that, I don't recommend creating such class anyway). With non-static method, you can be changing both static and non-static state of the class. This goes further into the differences between static and non-static classes, which in short means: static class is one concrete instance, while a non-static class can be multiplied and each of them will have its own copy of the state (so why design a static class with the artificial limitation then - this is why I didn't recommend them before).
One more nice usage of static methods is extension methods. These should be defined as static, but you can call them on the instance of the class that they are extending. They still serve as outside shortcuts to the instance, since they can't do anything more than regular static methods (cannot access private or protected members for instance).
And you're right, static class fits well when defining helper methods, because those usually are just shortcuts to some fixed functionality, accessible easily to re-execute it from many places. In Visual Basic, instead of static keyword you would use shared keyword, which nicely explains the purpose of the static method.
Finally, I personally recommend creating static methods as Pure functions, which always produce same output for the same input (no side effects, such as output is different based on time or other implicit factors). You should have a strong reason to design it otherwise (e.g. if you are writing Math.Random()).
Now, to answer the points from your question (I know, finally):
I think business access layer should not be static, because you would most likely need benefits of non-static classes, such as dependency injection and unit-testability.
There is no difference between static and non-static methods from the threading/multithreading standpoint, both of them can be called by multiple threads at the same time and all of them will execute simultaneously (unless using synchronization constructs). However, there is common design recommendation that you should make static methods thread-safe if you expect race conditions. Non-static methods don't have to worry about this, as this would put them into too many assumptions.
When I create classes, simple constructors tend to be the norm. On one of my current projects, a movie library, I have a Movie domain object. It has a number of properties, resulting in a constructor as follows:
public Movie(string title, int year, Genre genre, int length, IEnumerable<string> actors)
{
_title = title;
_year = year;
_genre = genre;
_length = length;
_actors = new List<string>(actors);
}
This isn't terrible, but it's not simple either. Would it be worthwhile to use a factory method (static Movie CreateMovie(...)), or a perhaps an object builder? Is there any typical pattern for instantiating domain classes?
UPDATE: thanks for the responses. I was probably overthinking the matter initially, though I've learned a few things that will be useful in more complex situations. My solution now is to have the title as the only required parameter, and the rest as named/optional parameters. This seems the all round ideal way to construct this domain object.
If you are using .NET 4.0, you can use optional/named parameters to simplify the creation of an object that accepts multiple arguments, some of which are optional. This is helpful when you want to avoid many different overloads to supply the necessary information about the object.
If you're not on .NET 4, you may want to use the Object Builder pattern to assembly your type. Object builder takes a bit of effort to implement, and keep in sync with you type - so whether there's enough value in doing so depends on your situation.
I find the builder pattern to be most effective when assembling hierarchies, rather than a type with a bunch of properties. In the latter case, I generally either overloads or optional/named parameters.
Yes, using a factory method is a typical pattern, but the question is: Why do you need it? This is what Wikipedia says about Factory Methods:
Like other creational patterns, it deals with the problem of creating objects (products) without specifying the exact class of object that will be created. The factory method design pattern handles this problem by defining a separate method for creating the objects, which subclasses can then override to specify the derived type of product that will be created.
So, the factory method pattern would make sense if you want to return subclasses of Movie. If this isn't (and won't be) a requirement, replacing the public constructor with a factory method doesn't really serve any purpose.
For the requirements stated in your question, your solution looks really fine to me: All mandatory fields are passed as parameters to the constructor. If none of your fields are mandatory, you might want to add a default initializer and use the C# object initializer syntax.
It depends.
If that is the only constructor for that class, it means all the properties are required in order to instantiate the object. If that aligns with your business rules, great. If not, it might be a little cumbersome. If, for example, you wanted to seed your system with Movies but didn't always have the Actors, you could find yourself in a pickle.
The CreateMovie() method you mention is another option, in case you have a need to separate the internal constructor from the act of creating a Movie instance.
You have many options available to your for arranging constructors. Use the ones that allow you to design your system with no smells and lots of principles (DRY, YAGNI, SRP.)
I don't see anything wrong with your constructor's interface and don't see what a static method will get you. I will have the exact same parameters, right?
The parameters don't seem optional, so there isn't a way to provide an overload with fewer or
use optional parameters.
From the point-of-view of the caller, it looks something like this:
Movie m = new Movie("Inception", 2010, Genre.Drama, 150, actors);
The purpose of a factory is to provide you a customizable concrete instance of an interface, not just call the constructor for you. The idea is that the exact class is not hard-coded at the point of construction. Is this really better?
Movie m = Movie.Create("Inception", 2010, Genre.Drama, 150, actors);
It seems pretty much the same to me. The only thing better is if Create() returned other concrete classes than Movie.
One thing to think about is how to improve this so that calling code is easy to understand. The most obvious problem to me is that it isn't obvious what the 150 means without looking at the code for Movie. There are a few ways to improve that if you wanted to:
Use a type for movie length and construct that type inline new MovieLength(150)
Use named parameters if you are using .NET 4.0
(see #Heinzi's answer) use Object Initializers
Use a fluent interface
With a fluent interface, your call would look like
Movie m = new Movie("Inception").
MadeIn(2010).
InGenre(Genre.Drama).
WithRuntimeLength(150).
WithActors(actors);
Frankly, all of this seems like overkill for your case. Named parameters are reasonable if you are using .NET 4.0, because they aren't that much more code and would improve the code at the caller.
You gave a good answer to your own question, it's the factory pattern. With the factory pattern you don't need huge constructors for encapsulation, you can set the object's members in your factory function and return that object.
This is perfectly acceptable, IMHO. I know static methods are sometimes frowned upon, but I typically drop that code into a static method that returns an instance of the class. I typically only do that for objects that are permitted to have null values.
If the values of the object can't be null, add them as parameters to the constructor so you don't get any invalid objects floating around.
I see nothing wrong with leaving the public constructor the way it is. Here are some of the rules I tend follow when deciding whether to go with a factory method.
Do use a factory method when initialization requires a complex algorithm.
Do use a factory method when initialization requires an IO bound operation.
Do use a factory method when initialization may throw an exception that cannot be guarded against at development time.
Do use a factory method when extra verbage may be warranted to enhance the readability.
So based on my own personal rules I would leave the constructor the way it is.
If you can distinguish core data members from configuration parameters, make a constructor that takes all of the core data members and nothing else (not even configuration parameters with default values—shoot for readability). Initialize the configuration parameters to sane default values (in the body of the method) and provide setters. At that point, a factory method could buy you something, if there are common configurations of your object that you want.
Better yet, if you find you have an object that takes a huge list of parameters, the object may be too fat. You have smelled the fact that your code may need to be refactored. Consider decomposing your object. The good literature on OO strongly argues for small objects (e.g. Martin Fowler, Refactoring; Bob Martin, Clean Code). Fowler explain how to decompose large objects. For example, the configuration parameters (if any) may indicate the need for more polymorphism, especially if they are booleans or enumerations (refactoring "Convert Conditional to Polymorphism").
I would need to see the way that your object is used before giving more specific advice. Fowler says that variables that are used together should be made into their own object. So, sake of illustration, if you are calculating certain things on the basis of the genre, year and length, but not the other attributes, those together may need to be broken out in to their own object—reducing the number of parameters that must be passed to your constructor.
As for me - all depending on your domain model. If your domain model allows you to create simple objects - you should do it.
But often we have a lot of composite objects and the creation of each individually is too complicated. That's why we`re looking for the best way to encapsulate the logic of composite object creation. Actually, we have only two alternatives described above - "Factory Method" and "Object Builder". Creating object through the static method looks a bit strange because we placing the object creation logic into the object. Object Builder, in turn, looks to complicated.
I think that the answer lies in the unit tests. This is exactly the case when TDD would be quite useful - we make our domain model step-by-step and understand the need of domain model complexity.
I'm using
Environment.GetFolderPath(Environment.SpecialFolder.CommonApplicationData) + "\MyProgram"
As the path to store several files used by my program. I'd like to avoid pasting the same snippet of code all over the my applcation.
I need to ensure that:
The path cannot be accidentally changed once its been set
The classes that need it have access to it.
I've considered:
Making it a singleton
Using constructor dependency injection
Using property dependency injection
Using AOP to create the path where its needed.
Each has pros and cons.
The singleton is everyone's favorite whipping boy. I'm not opposed to using one but there are valid reasons to avoid it if possible.
I'm already heavily using constructor injection through Castle Windsor. But this is a path string and Windsor doesn't handle system type dependencies very gracefully. I could always wrap it in a class but that seems like overkill for something as simple as a passing around a string value. In any case this route would add yet another constructor argument to each class where it is used.
The problem I see with property injection in this case is that there is a large amount of indirection from the where the value is set to where it is needed. I would need a very long line of middlemen to reach all the places where its used.
AOP looks promising and I'm planning on using AOP for logging anyway so this at least sounds like a simple solution.
Is there any other options I haven't considered? Am I off base with my evaluation of the options I have considered?
I've never seen a problem with creating a static class like Environment for my own projects, when there's been strong enough need.
MyAppEnvironment.ApplicationFolder
If you're passing the value in using injection then you're either a) creating a class just to hold the value or b) passing in a string. The latter is bad, because your value should be constant. The former is valid, but seems like a fair overhead since there's only ever a single valid value (and you can still mock/fake that value for tests if you really need to).
I suppose you could inject your environment class, but for me this seems like overkill.
It seems like what you have amounts to a global setting within your application. Using AOP o constructor injection to pass around this dependency seems like quite a bit of overkill since a simpler solution would do the trick.
My preference here would be to use a static property on a static class. I would add a specific write routine that prevents multiple sets. For example ...
public static class GlobalSettings {
private static string s_path;
public static string Path { get { return s_path; } }
public static void UpdatePath(string path) {
if ( s_path != null || path == null ) { throw ... }
s_path = path;
}
}
We would constructor inject a class of type IMyAppConfig which is just a wrapper for all this kind of stuff.
if you have a standard .net application, you should already have a settings - class. you could create a new setting and set that value as default value or so.
My process is to always ask questions like these: What kinds of things can change? What would create the least amount of pain when those things change? What pieces can be re-used in other systems, and how can the pain of the reuse be minimized? Basically, how can these things be decoupled as much as possible?
With that in mind, the answer is really based on the details of the system that you are working on.
In whatever process uses this path, I would likely pass it down as a parameter. This would start at whatever action initiates the use of the path. Each method should "do one thing well", and if the path is part of that thing, then it should be a parameter. In the class that initiates the action (and in whatever classes control the lifetime of that class, etc.), I would likely make the path part of the constructor.
This is the method that I have used in the past, and it has served me well. For example, in one application I took this approach, and then later discovered a need to allow the user to change the path setting. By following this architecture (and avoiding a singleton) the objects that had already used the path could continue to use the old one without an error, but the new path was used correctly from the point of the change. It just worked.
And the classes can be migrated to a new project without a dependency on this particular detail.
public MyClass(int someUniqueID)
{
using(//Session logic)
{
var databaseVersionOfMyClass = session.CreateCriteria(/*criteria*/)
.UniqueResult<MyClass>();
//Load logic
}
}
The code sample above is my current direction, although I've reached a point where I need a bit of a sanity check.
With NHibernate(I'm green in this area), is it common or best practice to instantiate an object from a database within the class constructor? The alternative I believe, would be to have a static method that returns the object from the database.
I've also come across a relevent question regarding constructors vs factory methods, however I don't believe this implementation fits the factory methodology.
To add an additional question onto the above, if instantiation within the constructor is the way to go, I've always used some sort of Load() method in the past. Either a specific private method that literally matches properties from the returned db object to the new class, or via a generic reflective method that assumes property names will match up. I'm curious if there is another way to "load" an object that I've missed.
I do not like this approach.
IMHO , it is better to implement some kind of repository which retrieves instances of persisted classes for you.
As an alternative, you could also follow the ActiveRecord approach, where you could have a static 'Load' method inside your class, and an instance method 'Save' for instance. (Take a look at Castle ActiveRecord).
But, for me, I prefer the Repository approach.
I have around 8-9 parameters to pass in a function which returns an array. I would like to know that its better to pass those parameters directly in the function or pass an array instead? Which will be a better way and why?
If I would do anything, then it would be to create an structure that holds all parameters to get nice intellisence and strong names.
public struct user
{
public string FirstName;
public string LastName;
public string zilionotherproperties;
public bool SearchByLastNameOnly;
}
public user[] GetUserData(user usr)
{
//search for users using passed data and return an array of users.
}
Pass them individually, because:
that is the type-safe way.
IntelliSense will pick it up in Visual Studio and when you write your calling functions, you will know what's what.
It is faster to execute that way.
If the parameter really IS the array, though, then pass the array. Example:
For functions which look like this, use this notation:
Array FireEmployee(string first, string middle, string last, int id) {...}
For functions that look like this, use the array:
Array FireEmployees(Employee[] unionWorkers) {...}
Your scenario is covered by the Introduce Parameter Object refactoring in Martin Fowler's refactoring book. The book is well worth owning, but for those who don't, the refactoring is described here. There's also a preview on the publisher's site, and on Google books. It recommends replacing the parameters not with an array, but a new object.
Regarding Skeets comment on my example above that he would use a class instead of a structure and maybe make it clearer where to use a class and where to use a structure i post this too. I think there are other out there who are curious about this too.
The main reason to use a class as I could see was you could make it immutable, but thats possible with structures too?
for example:
struct user
{
public user(string Username, string LastName)
{
_username = Username;
}
private string _username;
public string UserName {
get { return _username; }
}
}
I have long time felt that I dont know the differences anymore between classes and structures now when we can have propertys, initializers, fields and exactly everything that a class has in a structure too. I know classes are refernce types and structures are value types but what difference does it make in the case above when using it as a parameter in a function?
I found this description of the differences on the site http://www.startvbdotnet.com/oop/structure.aspx and that description is exactly how I mapped it in my head:
Structures can be defined as a tool
for handling a group of logically
related data items. They are
user-defined and provide a method for
packing together data of different
types. Structures are very similar to
Classes. Like Classes, they too can
contain members such as fields and
methods. The main difference between
classes and structures is, classes are
reference types and structures are
value types. In practical terms,
structures are used for smaller
lightweight objects that do not
persist for long and classes are used
for larger objects that are expected
to exist in memory for long periods.
Maybe this should be a own question but I felt it was related when we all had different views on the structure vs class-thing as parameter.
I assume you're using C# 4 and can just use named parameters:
FireEmployee(
first: "Frank",
middle: "",
last: "Krueger",
id: 338);
These make the code almost as readable as VB or Smalltalk. :-)
If not, I would go with what Dave Markle has to say.
If this is library code that will see a lot of use, and if some of the parameters have typical values that are candidates for default values, then you should consider Dave Markle's advice, and provide a selectio of overloads with progressively fewer parameters. This is the approach recommended in the Microsoft Framework Design Guidelines.
Alternately, you can get a similar effect with Stefan's approach, by setting default values with member initializers and using a progression of ctor overloads.
If you really don't want to pass in your arguments separately I would suggest creating a new class which encapsulates all of your arguments. You can (in Java and most likely in C#) declare a public inner class inside the class containing the gnarly method for this purpose. This avoids having classes floating around which are really just helper types.
I would say pass them individually as well. I don't like the idea of creating a class, then passing that class through as an argument. Its a form of stamp coupling, which means making changes will be harder since one class uses the other. And reusing one class means you would have to reuse the other as well.
You could use an interface to reduce stamp coupling, but that's too much overhead for my tastes, so that's why I like to pass the arguments individually.
Do you really need 8-9 parameters for a single function? It seems to me that if you need that many parameters, then you're probably doing too many different things in that function. Try refactoring the code into separate functions so that each function has exactly one purpose.
Do not pass them as an array unless the function acts on an array, I wouldn't create a new data structure either to group the parameters for the following reasones
Passing a new data structure hides what the function really needs as input (does it need all the data structure/part of it?)
Related to 1 it makes UTs more difficult (when writing a UT you need to recreate the entire data structure)
If the input parameters are not related you end up with a new data structure that groups unrelated data types for no other reason than to make a function call look neater
If you chose to pass the new data structure to your function the function can not be used in a scope where the new datastructure was defined
Really the only disadvantage to passing each paramater to the function is that you might not be able to fit the function in one line of code, but don't forget the lines you need before the function call in which you will fill up your data structure.