I'm building a system that uses a lot of small classes to do data processing (each class does a different processing step, nice & SRP like). I initialize each class with some parameters then call an execute() method on the class, which then uses other private methods to do some of the data calculations.
My question is: if I'm not accessing any of the parameters outside of the class, should I just use the instance variables in the private methods? Or define an attr_reader?
For example, here's a bit of contrived code that I whipped up:
class Car
attr_reader :make
def initialize(make, model)
#make = make
#model = model
end
def execute
apply_paint
rotate_tires
end
private
def apply_paint
if make == "Toyota"
Painter.paint(self, "red")
else
Painter.paint(self, "green")
end
end
def rotate_tires
if #model == "Sequoia"
set_tire_size(:large)
else
set_tire_size(:normal)
end
end
end
So which is better? How I handled "make" or how I handled "model"?
If I know that I'm not using either of those variables outside of this class at all, should I just stick with instance variables? Or is it nicer to use the attr_reader because then I could convert them into actual methods without changing the rest of the code... i.e. since apply_paint uses make instead of #make, I could change make to be a local method if need be and not change the apply_paint method.
I keep waffling back-n-forth and can't figure out which is better. Maybe this is just a preference thing, but I wanted to see what thoughts others had on this issue.
Use attr_ methods. You can (and probably should) make them private if you're not accessing them outside of the class. Why use them? You improve readability by stating your intentions towards how it should be used. An attr_reader should be interpreted as "this variable should only be read".
Related
Some open source code I'm integrating in my application has some classes that include code to that effect:
class SomeClass < SomeParentClass
def self.new(options = {})
super().tap { |o|
# do something with `o` according to `options`
}
end
def initialize(options = {})
# initialize some data according to `options`
end
end
As far as I understand, both self.new and initialize do the same thing - the latter one "during construction" and the former one "after construction", and it looks to me like a horrible pattern to use - why split up the object initialization into two parts where one is obviously "The Wrong Think(tm)"?
Ideally, I'd like to see what is inside the super().tap { |o| block, because although this looks like bad practice, just maybe there is some interaction required before or after initialize is called.
Without context, it is possible that you are just looking at something that works but is not considered good practice in Ruby.
However, maybe the approach of separate self.new and initialize methods allows the framework designer to implement a subclass-able part of the framework and still ensure setup required for the framework is completed without slightly awkward documentation that requires a specific use of super(). It would be a slightly easier to document and cleaner-looking API if the end user gets functionality they expect with just the subclass class MyClass < FrameworkClass and without some additional note like:
When you implement the subclass initialize, remember to put super at the start, otherwise the magic won't work
. . . personally I'd find that design questionable, but I think there would at least be a clear motivation.
There might be deeper Ruby language reasons to have code run in a custom self.new block - for instance it may allow constructor to switch or alter the specific object (even returning an object of a different class) before returning it. However, I have very rarely seen such things done in practice, there is nearly always some other way of achieving the goals of such code without customising new.
Examples of custom/different Class.new methods raised in the comments:
Struct.new which can optionally take a class name and return objects of that dynamically created class.
In-table inheritance for ActiveRecord, which allows end user to load an object of unknown class from a table and receive the right object.
The latter one could possibly be avoided with a different ORM design for inheritance (although all such schemes have pros/cons).
The first one (Structs) is core to the language, so has to work like that now (although the designers could have chosen a different method name).
It's impossible to tell why that code is there without seeing the rest of the code.
However, there is something in your question I want to address:
As far as I understand, both self.new and initialize do the same thing - the latter one "during construction" and the former one "after construction"
They do not do the same thing.
Object construction in Ruby is performed in two steps: Class#allocate allocates a new empty object from the object space and sets its internal class pointer to self. Then, you initialize the empty object with some default values. Customarily, this initialization is performed by a method called initialize, but that is just a convention; the method can be called anything you like.
There is an additional helper method called Class#new which does nothing but perform the two steps in sequence, for the programmer's convenience:
class Class
def new(*args, &block)
obj = allocate
obj.send(:initialize, *args, &block)
obj
end
def allocate
obj = __MagicVM__.__allocate_an_empty_object_from_the_object_space__
obj.__set_internal_class_pointer__(self)
obj
end
end
class BasicObject
private def initialize(*) end
end
The constructor new has to be a class method since you start from where there is no instance; you can't be calling that method on a particular instance. On the other hand, an initialization routine initialize is better defined as an instance method because you want to do something specifically with a certain instance. Hence, Ruby is designed to internally call the instance method initialize on a new instance right after its creation by the class method new.
This is not specific to Ruby, but I happen to be using Ruby at the moment.
Here is a class that provides text printing functionality.
class Printer
# some static methods
def self.fancy_print(text)
# do fancy formatting
end
def self.print(text)
fancy_print(text)
end
# some instance methods
def initialize(text)
#text = text
end
def print
#somehow call fancy_print(#text)
end
end
Is it bad design to provide both instance and static methods in a class?
Sometimes I would like to keep several instances of Printer lying around. Other times, I just need to say Printer.print(text) and just grab that text without bothering to store it for later, hence resulting in a static print method and an instance print method.
No, it's not bad design.
It's completely normal–some methods are class methods, some are instance methods. I'm not sure what the perceived issue might even be. It's somewhat difficult to even find classes with only one or the other, although in Java you frequently see static utility classes.
Edit IMO the question is misleading; you're actually asking if it's bad design to have static and instance methods of the same name.
It's tricky if both are public because it isn't necessarily obvious how to use the class. In other words, is it designed to be used via the static, or instance method? Both? What's different about them? Should that difference be... differentiated by a name?
Ultimately it depends on context and usage–there's no single answer.
That's okay, I think. Here's how you would code the Printer#print method
class Printer
def print
self.class.fancy_print(#text)
end
end
There is nothing wrong with having class methods and instance methods for a specific class, as long as they make sense belonging to the class.
I.e. what does fancy_print do? Is it something specific to the Printer class. If it is, then you shouldn't worry.
On the other hand, if it is to be used for any string value, you can do something cheekier, i.e. adding this method to the string class
String.class_eval do
def fancy_print
## implementation
end
end
Now you can do "Hello".fancy_print
Hope this answer was of any use. Also write test cases!
Suppose you write a class Sup and I decide to extend it to Sub < Sup. Not only do I need to understand your published interface, but I also need to understand your private fields. Witness this failure:
class Sup
def initialize
#privateField = "from sup"
end
def getX
return #privateField
end
end
class Sub < Sup
def initialize
super()
#privateField = "i really hope Sup does not use this field"
end
end
obj = Sub.new
print obj.getX # prints "i really hope Sup does not use this field"
The question is, what is the right way to tackle this problem? It seems a subclass should be able to use whatever fields it wants without messing up the superclass.
EDIT: The equivalent example in Java returns "from Sup", which is the answer this should produce as well.
Instance variables have nothing to do with inheritance, they are created on first usage, not by some defining mechanism, therefore there is no special access control for them in language and they can not be shadowed.
Not only do I need to understand your
published interface, but I also need
to understand your private fields.
Actually this is an "official" position. Excerpt from "The Ruby Programming Language" book (where Matz is one of the authors):
... this is another reason why it is only safe to extend Ruby
classes when you are familiar with
(and in control of) the implementation
of the superclass.
If you don't know it inside and out you're on your own. Sad but true.
Don't subclass it!
Use composition instead of inheritance.
Edit: Rather than MyObject subclassing ExistingObject, see if my_object having an instance variable referring to existing_object would be more appropriate.
Instance variables belong to instances (ie objects). They're not determined by the classes themselves.
unlike java/C#, in ruby private variables are always visible to the inheriting classes. There is no way to hide the private variables.
Ruby and Java don't treat 'private' property the same way. In Ruby if you mark something as private it only means that it can't be called with receiver, i.e.:
class Sub
private
def foo; end
end
sub.foo => error accessing private method with caller
but you can always access it if you change who is self like:
sub.instance_eval { foo } #instance_eval changes self to receiver, 'sub' in this example
Conclusion: Don't rely that you can hide or protect something from outer space! Or with great power comes great responsibility!
EDIT:
Yes, I know question was for fields but it's the same thing. You can always do:
sub.instance_eval { #my_private_field = 'something else' }
puts sub.instance_eval { #my_private_field }
Is there any way to make instance variables "private"(C++ or Java definition) in ruby? In other words I want following code to result in an error.
class Base
def initialize()
#x = 10
end
end
class Derived < Base
def x
#x = 20
end
end
d = Derived.new
Like most things in Ruby, instance variables aren't truly "private" and can be accessed by anyone with d.instance_variable_get :#x.
Unlike in Java/C++, though, instance variables in Ruby are always private. They are never part of the public API like methods are, since they can only be accessed with that verbose getter. So if there's any sanity in your API, you don't have to worry about someone abusing your instance variables, since they'll be using the methods instead. (Of course, if someone wants to go wild and access private methods or instance variables, there isn’t a way to stop them.)
The only concern is if someone accidentally overwrites an instance variable when they extend your class. That can be avoided by using unlikely names, perhaps calling it #base_x in your example.
Never use instance variables directly. Only ever use accessors. You can define the reader as public and the writer private by:
class Foo
attr_reader :bar
private
attr_writer :bar
end
However, keep in mind that private and protected do not mean what you think they mean. Public methods can be called against any receiver: named, self, or implicit (x.baz, self.baz, or baz). Protected methods may only be called with a receiver of self or implicitly (self.baz, baz). Private methods may only be called with an implicit receiver (baz).
Long story short, you're approaching the problem from a non-Ruby point of view. Always use accessors instead of instance variables. Use public/protected/private to document your intent, and assume consumers of your API are responsible adults.
It is possible (but inadvisable) to do exactly what you are asking.
There are two different elements of the desired behavior. The first is storing x in a read-only value, and the second is protecting the getter from being altered in subclasses.
Read-only value
It is possible in Ruby to store read-only values at initialization time. To do this, we use the closure behavior of Ruby blocks.
class Foo
def initialize (x)
define_singleton_method(:x) { x }
end
end
The initial value of x is now locked up inside the block we used to define the getter #x and can never be accessed except by calling foo.x, and it can never be altered.
foo = Foo.new(2)
foo.x # => 2
foo.instance_variable_get(:#x) # => nil
Note that it is not stored as the instance variable #x, yet it is still available via the getter we created using define_singleton_method.
Protecting the getter
In Ruby, almost any method of any class can be overwritten at runtime. There is a way to prevent this using the method_added hook.
class Foo
def self.method_added (name)
raise(NameError, "cannot change x getter") if name == :x
end
end
class Bar < Foo
def x
20
end
end
# => NameError: cannot change x getter
This is a very heavy-handed method of protecting the getter.
It requires that we add each protected getter to the method_added hook individually, and even then, you will need to add another level of method_added protection to Foo and its subclasses to prevent a coder from overwriting the method_added method itself.
Better to come to terms with the fact that code replacement at runtime is a fact of life when using Ruby.
Unlike methods having different levels of visibility, Ruby instance variables are always private (from outside of objects). However, inside objects instance variables are always accessible, either from parent, child class, or included modules.
Since there probably is no way to alter how Ruby access #x, I don't think you could have any control over it. Writing #x would just directly pick that instance variable, and since Ruby doesn't provide visibility control over variables, live with it I guess.
As #marcgg says, if you don't want derived classes to touch your instance variables, don't use it at all or find a clever way to hide it from seeing by derived classes.
It isn't possible to do what you want, because instance variables aren't defined by the class, but by the object.
If you use composition rather than inheritance, then you won't have to worry about overwriting instance variables.
If you want protection against accidental modification. I think attr_accessor can be a good fit.
class Data
attr_accessor :id
private :id
end
That will disable writing of id but would be readable. You can however use public attr_reader and private attr_writer syntax as well. Like so:
class Data
attr_reader :id
private
attr_writer :id
end
I know this is old, but I ran into a case where I didn't as much want to prevent access to #x, I did want to exclude it from any methods that use reflection for serialization. Specifically I use YAML::dump often for debug purposes, and in my case #x was of class Class, which YAML::dump refuses to dump.
In this case I had considered several options
Addressing this just for yaml by redefining "to_yaml_properties"
def to_yaml_properties
super-["#x"]
end
but this would have worked just for yaml and if other dumpers (to_xml ?) would not be happy
Addressing for all reflection users by redefining "instance_variables"
def instance_variables
super-["#x"]
end
Also, I found this in one of my searches, but have not tested it as the above seem simpler for my needs
So while these may not be exactly what the OP said he needed, if others find this posting while looking for the variable to be excluded from listing, rather than access - then these options may be of value.
I have been a Java programmer for a while and I am trying to switch to ruby for a while. I was just trying to develop a small test program in ruby and my intention is something like following.
I want to create a simple linked list type of an object in ruby; where an instance variable in class points to another instance of same type.
I want to populate and link all nodes; before the constructor is called and only once. Something that we'd usually do in Java Static block.
Initialize method is a constructor signature in ruby. Are there any rules around them? Like in Java you cannot call another constructor from a constructor if its not the first line (or after calling the class code?)
Thanks for the help.
-Priyank
I want to create a simple linked list type of an object in ruby; where an instance variable in class points to another instance of same type.
Just a quick note: the word type is a very dangerous word in Ruby, especially if you come from Java. Due to an historic accident, the word is used both in dynamic typing and in static typing to mean two only superficially related, but very different things.
In dynamic typing, a type is a label that gets attached to a value (not a reference).
Also, in Ruby the concept of type is much broader than in Java. In Java programmer's minds, "type" means the same thing as "class" (although that's not true, since Interfaces and primitives are also types). In Ruby, "type" means "what can I do with it".
Example: in Java, when I say something is of type String, I mean it is a direct instance of the String class. In Ruby, when I say something is of type String, I mean it is either
a direct instance of the String class or
an instance of a subclass of the String class or
an object which responds to the #to_str method or
an object which behaves indistinguishably from a String.
I want to populate and link all nodes; before the constructor is called and only once. Something that we'd usually do in Java Static block.
In Ruby, everything is executable. In particular, there is no such thing as a "class declaration": a class body is just exectuable code, just like any other. If you have a list of method definitions in your class body, those are not declarations that are read by the compiler and then turned into a class object. Those are expressions that get executed by the evaluator one by one.
So, you can put any code you like into a class body, and that code will be evaluated when the class is created. Within the context of a class body, self is bound to the class (remember, classes are just objects like any other).
Initialize method is a constructor signature in ruby. Are there any rules around them? Like in Java you cannot call another constructor from a constructor if its not the first line (or after calling the class code?)
Ruby doesn't have constructors. Constructors are just factory methods (with stupid restrictions); there is no reason to have them in a well-designed language, if you can just use a (more powerful) factory method instead.
Object construction in Ruby works like this: object construction is split into two phases, allocation and initialization. Allocation is done by a public class method called allocate, which is defined as an instance method of class Class and is generally never overriden. It just allocates the memory space for the object and sets up a few pointers, however, the object is not really usable at this point.
That's where the initializer comes in: it is an instance method called initialize, which sets up the object's internal state and brings it into a consistent, fully defined state which can be used by other objects.
So, in order to fully create a new object, what you need to do is this:
x = X.allocate
x.initialize
[Note: Objective-C programmers may recognize this.]
However, because it is too easy to forget to call initialize and as a general rule an object should be fully valid after construction, there is a convenience factory method called Class#new, which does all that work for you and looks something like this:
class Class
def new(*args, &block)
obj = alloc
obj.initialize(*args, &block)
return obj
end
end
[Note: actually, initialize is private, so reflection has to be used to circumvent the access restrictions like this: obj.send(:initialize, *args, &block)]
That, by the way, is the reason why to construct an object you call a public class method Foo.new but you implement a private instance method Foo#initialize, which seems to trip up a lot of newcomers.
To answer your question: since an initializer method is just a method like any other, there are absolutely no restrictions as to what you can do whithin an initializer, in particular you can call super whenever, wherever, however and how often you want.
BTW: since initialize and new are just normal methods, there is no reason why they need to be called initialize and new. That's only a convention, although a pretty strong one, since it is embodied in the core library. In your case, you want to write a collection class, and it is quite customary for a collection class to offer an alternative factory method called [], so that I can call List[1, 2, 3] instead of List.new(1, 2, 3).
Just as a side note: one obvious advantage of using normal methods for object construction is that you can construct instances of anonymous classes. This is not possible in Java, for absolutely no sensible reason whatsoever. The only reason why it doesn't work is that the constructor has the same name as the class, and anonymous classes don't have a name, ergo there cannot be a constructor.
Although I am not quite sure why you would need to run anything before object creation. Unless I am missing something, shouldn't a list basically be
class List
def initialize(head=nil, *tail)
#head = head
#tail = List.new(*tail) unless tail.empty?
end
end
for a Lisp-style cons-list or
class List
def initialize(*elems)
elems.map! {|el| Element.new(el)}
elems.zip(elems.drop(1)) {|prv, nxt| prv.instance_variable_set(:#next, nxt)}
#head = elems.first
end
class Element
def initialize(this)
#this = this
end
end
end
for a simple linked list?
You can simply initialize your class variables in the class body, outside of any method declaration. It will behave like a static initializer in Java:
class Klass
##foo = "bar"
def sayFoo
puts ##foo
end
def self.sayFoo
puts ##foo
end
end
The class field ##foo is here initialized to "bar".
In ruby object creation works like this
class Class
def new(*args)
obj= self.allocate # get some memory
obj.send(:initialize) # call the private method initialize
end
end
Object#initialize is just an ordinary private method.
If you wan't something to happen before Object#initialize you have to write your own Class#new. But I see no reason why you would want to do that.
This is basically the same answer paradigmatic gave back in '09.
Here I want to illustrate that the "static initializer" can call other code. I'm simulating a scenario of loading a special user once, upon class initialization.
class Foo
def user
"Thomas"
end
end
class Bar
##my_user = Foo.new.user
def my_statically_defined_user
##my_user
end
end
b = Bar.new
puts b.my_statically_defined_user # ==> Thomas