In the situation of 100% guarantee that all the members of a system development will not call the object properties that should be "private" to that class only outside of that class, so we do not set the "private properties" as private, so that although technically these "private properties" still can be called outside but we as a developer will very carefully not to call those private properties, will this improve a bit system efficiency because the system do not need to take the privacy of the properties ?
No, not at all.
In interpreted languages, the access check will still be made when accessing the member (e.g. from a class method).
In compiled languages, being private vs. public leads to practically identical code. Access specifiers (private, public, protected) are not a security feature. They are "only" there for the writer of the class to specify what is the public interface for callers, and what are the implementation-specific details that callers need not (and should not) have to think about.
(There is one small exception: in C++, access specifiers can affect class layout, which may, in some cases, affect performance. However, there's no saying which access specifier "makes things faster", it could go both ways.)
Related
In Visual Studio, I've created a UML class diagram with a class that realises an interface containing an attribute and an operation as thus:
The operation is automatically replicated to the class, but not the attribute. The MSDN guidelines indicate this behaviour:
When you create a realization connector, the operations of the interface are automatically replicated in the realizing class. If you add new operations to an interface, they are replicated in its realizing classes.
However, this seems counterintuitive to their statement just beforehand, namely:
Realization means that a class implements the attributes and operations specified by the interface.
I'm sure there must be a good technical reason for this (some OO concept like polymorphism or abstraction), but I can't think why it discerns between attributes and operations in this way.
Can anyone give me some insight into this, and perhaps what I should do to get round it (do I add the attributes to the class manually in UML?), as it's resulting in generated code that doesn't compile?
While I don't know for sure, I'd imagine it is because in C# interfaces cannot contain fields, only methods. Having attributes on an Interface therefore doesn't make sense.
Interfaces can contain properties, but these just get compiled to PropType get_PropName() and void set_PropName(PropType value). (Fun fact, trying to declare those methods yourself will generate a compiler error.)
Unfortunately, there is not a nice "out of the box" way of defining properties in UML class diagrams, as they are a language specific feature. I think you have to define a custom stereotype and the templates to generate the code accordingly - faff.
Problem:
We know that Java doesn’t allow to extend multiple classes because it would result in the Diamond Problem where the compiler could’t decide which superclass method to use. With interface default methods the Diamond Problem were introduction in Java 8. That is, because if a class implements two interfaces, each defining the same default method, and the implementing class doesn’t override the common default method, the compiler couldn’t decide which implementation to chose.
Solution:
Java 8 requires to provide an implementation for default methods implemented by more than one interface. So if a class would implement both interfaces mentioned above, it would have to provide an implementation for the common default method. Otherwise the compiler would throw a compile time error.
Question:
Why is this solution not applicable for multiple class inheritance, by overriding common methods introduced by child class?
You didn’t understand the Diamond Problem correctly (and granted, the current state of the Wikipedia article doesn’t explain it sufficiently). As shown in this graphic,
the diamond problem occurs, when the same class is inherited multiple times through different inheritance paths. This isn’t a problem for interfaces (and never was), as they only define a contract and specifying the same contract multiple times makes no difference.
The main problem is not associated with the methods but the data of that super type. Should the instance state of A exist once or twice in that case? If once, C and B can have different, conflicting constraints on A’s instance state. Both classes might also assume to have full control over A’s state, i.e. not consider that other class having the same access level. If having two different A states, a widening conversion of a D reference to an A reference becomes ambiguous, as either A could be meant.
Interfaces don’t have these problems, as they do not carry instance data at all. They also have (almost) no accessibility issues as their methods are always public. Allowing default methods, doesn’t change this, as default methods still don’t access instance variables but operate with the interface methods only.
Of course, there is the possibility that B and C declared default methods with identical signature, causing an ambiguity that has to be resolved in D. But this is even the case, when there is no A, i.e. no “diamond” at all. So this scenario is not a correct example of the “Diamond Problem”.
Methods introduced by interfaces may always be overriden, while methods introduced by classes could be final. This is one reason why you potentially couldn't apply the same strategy for classes as you could for interfaces.
The conflict described as "diamond problem" can best be illustrated using a polymorphic call to method A.m() where the runtime type of the receiver has type D: Imagine D inherits two different methods both claiming to play the role of A.m() (one of them could be the original method A.m(), at least one of them is an override). Now, dynamic dispatch cannot decide which of the conflicting methods to invoke.
Aside: the distinction betwee the "diamond problem" and regular name clashes is particularly relevant in languages like Eiffel, where the conflict could be locally resolved for the perspective of type D, e.g., by renaming one method. This would avoid the name clash for invocations with static type D, but not for invocations with static type A.
Now, with default methods in Java 8, JLS was amended with rules that detect any such conflicts, requiring D to resolve the conflict (many different cases exist, depending on whether or not some of the types involved are classes). I.e., the diamond problem is not "solved" in Java 8, it is just avoided by rejecting any programs that would produce it.
In theory, similar rules could have been defined in Java 1 to admit multiple inheritance for classes. It's just a decision that was made early on, that the designers of Java did not want to support multiple inheritance.
The choice to admit multiple (implementation) inheritance for default methods but not for class methods is a purely pragmatic choice, not necessitated by any theory.
I read through the TypeScript Coding guidelines
And I found this statement rather puzzling:
Do not use "I" as a prefix for interface names
I mean something like this wouldn't make a lot of sense without the "I" prefix
class Engine implements IEngine
Am I missing something obvious?
Another thing I didn't quite understand was this:
Classes
For consistency, do not use classes in the core compiler pipeline. Use
function closures instead.
Does that state that I shouldn't use classes at all?
Hope someone can clear it up for me :)
When a team/company ships a framework/compiler/tool-set they already have some experience, set of best practices. They share it as guidelines. Guidelines are recommendations. If you don't like any you can disregard them.
Compiler still will compile your code.
Though when in Rome...
This is my vision why TypeScript team recommends not I-prefixing interfaces.
Reason #1 The times of the Hungarian notation have passed
Main argument from I-prefix-for-interface supporters is that prefixing is helpful for immediately grokking (peeking) whether type is an interface. Statement that prefix is helpful for immediately grokking (peeking) is an appeal to Hungarian notation. I prefix for interface name, C for class, A for abstract class, s for string variable, c for const variable, i for integer variable. I agree that such name decoration can provide you type information without hovering mouse over identifier or navigating to type definition via a hot-key. This tiny benefit is outweighed by Hungarian notation disadvantages and other reasons mentioned below. Hungarian notation is not used in contemporary frameworks. C# has I prefix (and this the only prefix in C#) for interfaces due to historical reasons (COM). In retrospect one of .NET architects (Brad Abrams) thinks it would have been better not using I prefix. TypeScript is COM-legacy-free thereby it has no I-prefix-for-interface rule.
Reason #2 I-prefix violates encapsulation principle
Let's assume you get some black-box. You get some type reference that allows you to interact with that box. You should not care if it is an interface or a class. You just use its interface part. Demanding to know what is it (interface, specific implementation or abstract class) is a violation of encapsulation.
Example: let's assume you need to fix API Design Myth: Interface as Contract in your code e.g. delete ICar interface and use Car base-class instead. Then you need to perform such replacement in all consumers. I-prefix leads to implicit dependency of consumers on black-box implementation details.
Reason #3 Protection from bad naming
Developers are lazy to think properly about names. Naming is one of the Two Hard Things in Computer Science. When a developer needs to extract an interface it is easy to just add the letter I to the class name and you get an interface name. Disallowing I prefix for interfaces forces developers to strain their brains to choose appropriate names for interfaces. Chosen names should be different not only in prefix but emphasize intent difference.
Abstraction case: you should not not define an ICar interface and an associated Car class. Car is an abstraction and it should be the one used for the contract. Implementations should have descriptive, distinctive names e.g. SportsCar, SuvCar, HollowCar.
Good example: WpfeServerAutosuggestManager implements AutosuggestManager, FileBasedAutosuggestManager implements AutosuggestManager.
Bad example: AutosuggestManager implements IAutosuggestManager.
Reason #4 Properly chosen names vaccinate you against API Design Myth: Interface as Contract.
In my practice, I met a lot of people that thoughtlessly duplicated interface part of a class in a separate interface having Car implements ICar naming scheme. Duplicating interface part of a class in separate interface type does not magically convert it into abstraction. You will still get concrete implementation but with duplicated interface part. If your abstraction is not so good, duplicating interface part will not improve it anyhow. Extracting abstraction is hard work.
NOTE: In TS you don't need separate interface for mocking classes or overloading functionality.
Instead of creating a separate interface that describes public members of a class you can use TypeScript utility types. E.g. Required<T> constructs a type consisting of all public members of type T.
export class SecurityPrincipalStub implements Required<SecurityPrincipal> {
public isFeatureEnabled(entitlement: Entitlement): boolean {
return true;
}
public isWidgetEnabled(kind: string): boolean {
return true;
}
public areAdminToolsEnabled(): boolean {
return true;
}
}
If you want to construct a type excluding some public members then you can use combination of Omit and Exclude.
Clarification regarding the link that you reference:
This is the documentation about the style of the code for TypeScript, and not a style guideline for how to implement your project.
If using the I prefix makes sense to you and your team, use it (I do).
If not, maybe the Java style of SomeThing (interface) with SomeThingImpl (implementation) then by all means use that.
I find #stanislav-berkov's a pretty good answer to the OP's question. I would only share my 2 cents adding that, in the end it is up to your Team/Department/Company/Whatever to get to a common understanding and set its own rules/guidelines to follow across.
Sticking to standards and/or conventions, whenever possible and desirable, is a good practice and it keeps things easier to understand. On the other side, I do like to think we are still free to choose the way how we write our code.
Thinking a bit on the emotional side of it, the way we write code, or our coding style, reflects our personality and in some cases even our mood. This is what keeps us humans and not just coding machines following rules. I believe coding can be a craft not just an industrialized process.
I personally quite like the idea of turning a noun into an adjective by adding the -able suffix. It sounds very impropper, but I love it!
interface Walletable {
inPocket:boolean
cash:number
}
export class Wallet implements Walletable {
//...
}
}
The guidelines that are suggested in the Typescript documentation aren't for the people who use typescript but rather for the people who are contributing to the typescript project. If you read the details at the begging of the page it clearly defines who should use that guideline. Here is a link to the guidelines.
Typescript guidelines
In conclusion as a developer you can name you interfaces the way you see fit.
I'm trying out this pattern similar to other answers, but exporting a function that instantiates the concrete class as the interface type, like this:
export interface Engine {
rpm: number;
}
class EngineImpl implements Engine {
constructor() {
this.rpm = 0;
}
}
export const createEngine = (): Engine => new EngineImpl();
In this case the concrete implementation is never exported.
I do like to add a Props suffix.
interface FormProps {
some: string;
}
const Form:VFC<FormProps> = (props) => {
...
}
The type being an interface is an implementation detail. Implementation details should be hidden in API:s. That is why you should avoid I.
You should avoid both prefix and suffix. These are both wrong:
ICar
CarInterface
What you should do is to make a pretty name visible in the API and have a the implemtation detail hidden in the implementation. That is why I propose:
Car - An interface that is exposed in the API.
CarImpl - An implementation of that API, that is hidden from the consumer.
I am using FxCop to look for improvements on our application. One of the rules we are often breaking is "Mark members as static" which is marked as a performance rule.
Certainly we have a lot of class methods that do not action on any of the class members, which could be marked as static, but is there really a performance gain to this?
My understanding is that static will be intantiated once at execution time. If the method is never invoked that it would have been a waste. If the method is invoked multiple times than there might be a small benefit.
With variables there are obvious implications as to whether or not they are marked static, and it is critical to the operation of your application how they are defined. For methods though I don't believe there is any functional affect on whether or not they are marked static if they do not reference any instance variables or methods.
Am I missing the point here? Is the standard to mark all of these methods as static?
Performance becomes better because static method doesn't have hidden "this" pointer.
Every instance (non-static) method has hidden "this" pointer, which is passed to the method to access instance members. If no non-static members are used, "this" pointer remains unused. Passing additional parameter on the stack or in CPU register takes a time which can be saved by declaring such method as static.
"My understanding is that static will be instantiated once at execution time."
Both static and non-static methods exist only once in the program code. Only non-staic data members are duplicated, when there are different class instances. Non-static class method works with specific instance using class reference (hidden parameter). Code itself is never duplicated.
As you said, when a method is marked as static, it is instantiated once, the first time it is used. Whenever subsequent calls are made, the runtime environment doesn't need to validate it, because it is guaranteed to exist. Here is the Microsoft doc for it: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms245046%28v=vs.80%29.aspx
Here's some more guidance: Method can be made static, but should it?
I'm having a hard time getting my head around what seems like an obvious pattern problem/limitation when it comes to typical constructor dependency injection. For example purposes, lets say I have an ASP.NET MVC3 controller that looks like:
Public Class MyController
Inherits Controller
Private ReadOnly mServiceA As IServiceA
Private ReadOnly mServiceB As IServiceB
Private ReadOnly mServiceC As IServiceC
Public Sub New(serviceA As IServiceA, serviceB As IServiceB, serviceC As IServiceC)
Me.mServiceA = serviceA
Me.mServiceB = serviceB
Me.mServiceC = serviceC
End Sub
Public Function ActionA() As ActionResult
' Do something with Me.mServiceA and Me.mServiceB
End Function
Public Function ActionB() As ActionResult
' Do something with Me.mServiceB and Me.mServiceC
End Function
End Class
The thing I'm having a hard time getting over is the fact that the DI container was asked to instantiate all three dependencies when at any given time only a subset of the dependencies may be required by the action methods on this controller.
It's seems assumed that object construction is dirt-cheep and there are no side effects from object construction OR all dependencies are consistently utilized. What if object construction wasn't cheep or there were side effects? For example, if constructing IServiceA involved opening a connection or allocating other significant resources, then that would be completely wasted time/resources when ActionB is called.
If these action methods used a service location pattern (or other similar pattern), then there would never be the chance to unnecessarily construct an object instance that will go unused, of course using this pattern has other issues attached making it unattractive.
Does using the canonical constructor injection + interfaces pattern of DI basically lock the developer into a "limitation" of sorts that implementations of the dependency must be cheep to instantiate or the instance must be significantly utilized? I know all patterns have their pros and cons, is this just one of DI's cons? I've never seen it mentioned before, which I find curious.
If you have a lot of fields that aren't being used by every member this means that the class' cohesion is low. This is a general programming concept - Constructor Injection just makes it more visible. It's usually a pretty good indicator that the Single Responsibility Principle is being violated.
If that's the case then refactor (e.g. to Facade Services).
You don't have to worry about performance when creating object graphs.
When it comes to side effects, (DI) constructors should be simple and not have side effects.
Generally speaking, there should be no major costs or side effects of object construction. This is a general statement that I believe applies to most (not all) objects, but is especially true for services that you would inject via DI. In other words, constructing a service class automatically makes a database/service call, or changes the state of your system in a way that would have side effects is (at least) a code smell.
Regarding instances that go unused: it's hard to create a system that has perfect utilization of instances within dependent classes, regardless of whether you use DI or not. I'm not sure achieving this is very important, as long as you are adhering to the Single Responsibility Principle. If you find that your class has too many services injected, or that utilization is really uneven, it might be a sign that your class is doing too much and needs to be split into two or more smaller classes with more focused responsibilities.
No you are not tied to the limitations you have listed. As of .net 4 you do have Lazy(Of T) at your disposal, which will allow you to defer instantiation of your dependencies until required.
It is not assumed that object construction is dirt-cheap and consequently some DI containers support Lazy(Of T) out of the box. Whilst Unity 2.0 supports lazy initialization out of the box through automatic factories, there is a good article here on an extension supporting Lazy(Of T) the author has on MSDN.
Isn't your controller a singleton though? That is the normal way to do it in Java. There is only one instance created. Also you could split the controller into multiple controllers if the roles of the actions is so distinct.