A Ruby module used for logging is being used almost in every class as a mixin. Therefore it must contain as low public methods as possible to avoid name collisions.
The problem is that each public method uses the same helper methods and they become class members after mixing in. These helper methods are candidates for name collisions.
How to keep helper methods in module but hide them from mixin target class?
Converting them to private makes them completely unreachable.
Sounds like you're ignoring the single responsibility principle. Consider refactoring to use dependency injection for this kind of stuff.
Basically something along the lines of:
module LoggerModule
def notice(m)
#logger.notice(m)
end
end
class Logger
def notice(m)
...
end
def internal(arg)
...
end
end
class Foo
include LoggerModule
def initialize(logger)
#logger = logger
end
end
Foo.new(Logger.new)
Tip: look into delegation, and possibly Module#prepend, for cleaner ways to write the above. (My Ruby is a bit rusty.)
Related
I'm reading my ruby book. Looking at the code below,
module Destroy
def destroy(anyObject)
#anyObject = anyObject
puts "I will destroy the object: #{anyObject}"
end
end
class User
include Destroy
attr_accessor :name, :email
def initialize(name,email)
#name = name
#email = email
end
end
my_info = User.new("Bob","Bob#example.com")
puts "So your name is: #{my_info.name} and you have email #{my_info.email}"
user = User.new("john","john#example.com")
user.destroy("blah")
I could've just created another method inside my class. Why would I want to do this? Why would I want to use a module? It's not like embedding this into other classes is any easier than just using normal inheritance.
You can think of a module and the methods and constants inside of it as more of providing utility functions and actions that you can include to other objects as you see fit. For example, if you wanted to use destroy function in the objects Foo and Bar you would do similarly:
class Foo
include Destroy
# other code below
end
class Bar
include Destroy
# other code below
end
Now any Foo or Bar object has access to all the methods or constants inside of destroy.
Modules define a namespace, a sandbox in which your methods and constants can play without having to worry about being stepped on by other methods and constants. The ruby docs goes into more depth about this and includes a good example practical of when you would want to use it as seen below:
module Debug
def whoAmI?
"#{self.type.name} (\##{self.id}): #{self.to_s}"
end
end
class Phonograph
include Debug
# ...
end
class EightTrack
include Debug
# ...
end
ph = Phonograph.new("West End Blues")
et = EightTrack.new("Surrealistic Pillow")
ph.whoAmI? » "Phonograph (#537766170): West End Blues"
et.whoAmI? » "EightTrack (#537765860): Surrealistic Pillow"
In this example, every class that includes Debug has access to the method whoAmI? and other methods and constants that Debug includes without having to redefine it for every class.
Some programming languages such as C++, Perl, and Python allow one class to inherit from multiple other classes; that is called multiple inheritance. Ruby does not support multiple inheritance. That means each class can only inherit from one other class. However, there are cases where a class would benefit by acquiring methods defined within multiple other classes. That is made possible by using a construct called module.
A module is somewhat similar to a class, except it does not support inheritance, nor instantiating. It is mostly used as a container for storing multiple methods. One way to use a module is to employ an include or extend statement within a class. That way, the class gains access to all methods and objects defined within the module. It is said that the module is mixed in the class. So, a mixin is just a module included in a class. A single module can be mixed in multiple classes, and a single class can mix in multiple modules; thus, any limitations imposed by Ruby's single inheritance model are eliminated by the mixin feature.
Modules can also be used for namespacing. That is explained in this post at the Practicing Ruby website.
You are writing a module in the same file as the class, but not necessarily inside the class, but anyway.
For me there are 3 reasons to use a module(more details here):
Modules provide a namespace and prevent name clashes.
Modules implement the mixin facility.
When you have a very complex and dense class, you can split it into
modules and include them into the main class.
Your example is fairly simple, it would indeed make more sense to write the method in the class itself, but try to imagine a complex scenario.
Let's say I have a bunch of related functions that have no persistent state, say various operations in a string differencing package. I can either define them in a class or module (using self) and they can be accessed the exact same way:
class Diff
def self.diff ...
def self.patch ...
end
or
module Diff
def self.diff ...
def self.patch ...
end
I can then do Diff.patch(...). Which is 'better' (or 'correct')?
The main reason I need to group them up is namespace issues, common function names are all used elsewhere.
Edit: Changed example from matrix to diff. Matrix is a terrible example as it does have state and everyone started explaining why it's better to write them as methods rather than answer the actual question. :(
In your two examples, you are not actually defining methods in a Class or a Module; you are defining singleton methods on an object which happens to be a Class or a Module, but could be just about any object. Here's an example with a String:
Diff = "Use me to access really cool methods"
def Diff.patch
# ...
end
You can do any of these and that will work, but the best way to group related methods is in a Module as normal instance methods (i.e. without self.):
module Diff
extend self # This makes the instance methods available to the Diff module itself
def diff ... # no self.
def patch ...
end
Now you can:
use this functionality from within any Class (with include Diff) or from any object (with extend Diff)
an example of this use is the extend self line which makes it possible to call Diff.patch.
even use these methods in the global namespace
For example, in irb:
class Foo
include Diff
end
Foo.new.patch # => calls the patch method
Diff.patch # => also calls Diff.patch
include Diff # => now you can call methods directly:
patch # => also calls the patch method
Note: the extend self will "modify" the Diff module object itself but it won't have any effect on inclusions of the module. Same thing happens for a def self.foo, the foo won't be available to any class including it. In short, only instance methods of Diff are imported with an include (or an extend), not the singleton methods. Only subclassing a class will provide inheritance of both instance and singleton methods.
When you actually want the inclusion of a module to provide both instance methods and singleton methods, it's not completely easy. You have to use the self.included hook:
module Foo
def some_instance_method; end
module ClassMethods
def some_singleton_method; end
end
def self.included(base)
base.send :extend, ClassMethods
end
def self.will_not_be_included_in_any_way; end
end
class Bar
include Foo
end
# Bar has now instance methods:
Bar.new.some_instance_method # => nil
# and singleton methods:
Bar.some_singleton_method # => nil
The main difference between modules and classes is that you can not instantiate a module; you can't do obj = MyModule.new. The assumption of your question is that you don't want to instantiate anything, so I recommend just using a module.
Still you should reconsider your approach: rather than using arrays of arrays or whatever you are doing to represent a Matrix, it would be more elegant to make your own class to represent a matrix, or find a good class that someone else has already written.
Ruby Modules are used to specify behaviour, pieces of related functionality.
Ruby Classes are used to specify both state and behaviour, a singular entity.
There is a maxim in software design that says that code is a liability, so use the less code possible. In the case of Ruby, the difference in code lines is cero. So you can use either way (if you don't need to save state)
If you want to be a purist, then use a Module, since you won't be using the State functionality. But I wouldn't say that using a class is wrong.
As a trivia info: In Ruby a Class is a kind of Module.
http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-1.9.3/Class.html
The following also works
Matrix = Object.new
def Matrix.add ...
def Matrix.equals ...
That's because so-called "class methods" are just methods added to a single object, and it doesn't really matter what that object class is.
As a matter of form, the Module is more correct. You can still create instances of the class, even if it has only class methods. You can think of a module here as a static class of C# or Java. Classes also always have the instance related methods (new, allocate, etc.). Use the Module. Class methods usually have something to do with objects (creating them, manipulating them).
I'm new to ruby metaprogramming, and I see people metaprogramming code in different places, like class Object, class Module, module Kernel and "nothing" (ie, out of a class/module definition block).
E.g.: I'm creating a c_attr_accessor method to access class variables, and I'm not sure where I must put the code, since it works in any of those cases.
How to decide what place is more appropriate to put a new global code?
Each of these examples fall into different cases.
If you are writing methods that apply to all objects, then you open the Object class so all objects can access it. If you are writing methods that apply to all modules, then you open Module. Whenever you open a class to add methods, the methods should apply to all instances of the class and nothing else.
Extending the Kernel module is different: people do this to add methods that should be available to every scope, but not really as methods to be explicitly called on an object, by making them private.
When you are outside of any class or module statement, you are in the scope of the main object, and methods you define default to being private methods of Object. This is fine for small or simple programs, but you will eventually want to use proper modules as namespaces to organize your methods.
As a final note on the subject, you always need to be sure that you really want methods you add to built-in classes and modules to be available to everything in your application, including external inclusions because they all share the built-ins.
Now to apply this to answer your question. Because you are defining a method that creates accessors for class variables, you should put it in the class Class as it applies to all classes and nothing else. Finally, you will likely only use it in class definitions (within a class statement), so we should make it private:
class Class
private
def c_attr_accessor(name)
# ...
end
end
class User
c_attr_accessor :class_variable_name
# ...
end
If you don't really need it in every class (maybe just a few), then create a "mixin module" to extend every class that needs this feature:
module ClassVariableAccessor
private
def c_attr_accessor(name)
# ...
end
end
class User
extend ClassVariableAccessor
c_attr_accessor :class_variable_name
# ...
end
Note that you are using Object#extend to add c_attr_accessor only to the object User (remember that classes are objects; you will hear that a lot if you are new to Ruby metaprogramming).
There is another way to implement the last example, which works by explicitly extending its base class through the Module#included(base_class) "hook method" called whenever the module included, and the base class is passed to base_class:
module ClassVariableAccessor
def included(base_class)
base_class.extend ClassMethods
end
module ClassMethods
def c_attr_accessor(name)
# ...
end
end
end
class User
include ClassVariableAccessor
c_attr_accessor :class_variable_name
# ...
end
I recommend this last solution because it is the most general and uses a simple interface that should not need to be updated. I hope this is not too much!
Have you tried looking up where the normal attribute accessors are defined? I'd either define it in the same class/module, or create my own module in which all my new methods go.
I am currently working through the Gregory Brown Ruby Best Practices book. Early on, he is talking about refactoring some functionality from helper methods on a related class, to some methods on module, then had the module extend self.
Hadn't seen that before, after a quick google, found out that extend self on a module lets methods defined on the module see each other, which makes sense.
Now, my question is when would you do something like this
module StyleParser
extend self
def process(text)
...
end
def style_tag?(text)
...
end
end
and then refer to it in tests with
#parser = Prawn::Document::Text::StyleParser
as opposed to something like this?
class StyleParser
def self.process(text)
...
end
def self.style_tag?(text)
...
end
end
is it so that you can use it as a mixin? or are there other reasons I'm not seeing?
A class should be used for functionality that will require instantiation or that needs to keep track of state. A module can be used either as a way to mix functionality into multiple classes, or as a way to provide one-off features that don't need to be instantiated or to keep track of state. A class method could also be used for the latter.
With that in mind, I think the distinction lies in whether or not you really need a class. A class method seems more appropriate when you have an existing class that needs some singleton functionality. If what you're making consists only of singleton methods, it makes more sense to implement it as a module and access it through the module directly.
In this particular case I would probably user neither a class nor a module.
A class is a factory for objects (note the plural). If you don't want to create multiple instances of the class, there is no need for it to exist.
A module is a container for methods, shared among multiple objects. If you don't mix in the module into multiple objects, there is no need for it to exist.
In this case, it looks like you just want an object. So use one:
def (StyleParser = Object.new).process(text)
...
end
def StyleParser.style_tag?(text)
...
end
Or alternatively:
class << (StyleParser = Object.new)
def process(text)
...
end
def style_tag?(text)
...
end
end
But as #Azeem already wrote: for a proper decision, you need more context. I am not familiar enough with the internals of Prawn to know why Gregory made that particular decision.
If it's something you want to instantiate, use a class. The rest of your question needs more context to make sense.
In Ruby, since you can include multiple mixins but only extend one class, it seems like mixins would be preferred over inheritance.
My question: if you're writing code which must be extended/included to be useful, why would you ever make it a class? Or put another way, why wouldn't you always make it a module?
I can only think of one reason why you'd want a class, and that is if you need to instantiate the class. In the case of ActiveRecord::Base, however, you never instantiate it directly. So shouldn't it have been a module instead?
I just read about this topic in The Well-Grounded Rubyist (great book, by the way). The author does a better job of explaining than I would so I'll quote him:
No single rule or formula always results in the right design. But it’s useful to keep a
couple of considerations in mind when you’re making class-versus-module decisions:
Modules don’t have instances. It follows that entities or things are generally best
modeled in classes, and characteristics or properties of entities or things are
best encapsulated in modules. Correspondingly, as noted in section 4.1.1, class
names tend to be nouns, whereas module names are often adjectives (Stack
versus Stacklike).
A class can have only one superclass, but it can mix in as many modules as it wants. If
you’re using inheritance, give priority to creating a sensible superclass/subclass
relationship. Don’t use up a class’s one and only superclass relationship to
endow the class with what might turn out to be just one of several sets of characteristics.
Summing up these rules in one example, here is what you should not do:
module Vehicle
...
class SelfPropelling
...
class Truck < SelfPropelling
include Vehicle
...
Rather, you should do this:
module SelfPropelling
...
class Vehicle
include SelfPropelling
...
class Truck < Vehicle
...
The second version models the entities and properties much more neatly. Truck
descends from Vehicle (which makes sense), whereas SelfPropelling is a characteristic of vehicles (at least, all those we care about in this model of the world)—a characteristic that is passed on to trucks by virtue of Truck being a descendant, or specialized
form, of Vehicle.
I think mixins are a great idea, but there's another problem here that nobody has mentioned: namespace collisions. Consider:
module A
HELLO = "hi"
def sayhi
puts HELLO
end
end
module B
HELLO = "you stink"
def sayhi
puts HELLO
end
end
class C
include A
include B
end
c = C.new
c.sayhi
Which one wins? In Ruby, it turns out the be the latter, module B, because you included it after module A. Now, it's easy to avoid this problem: make sure all of module A and module B's constants and methods are in unlikely namespaces. The problem is that the compiler doesn't warn you at all when collisions happen.
I argue that this behavior does not scale to large teams of programmers-- you shouldn't assume that the person implementing class C knows about every name in scope. Ruby will even let you override a constant or method of a different type. I'm not sure that could ever be considered correct behavior.
My take: Modules are for sharing behavior, while classes are for modeling relationships between objects. You technically could just make everything an instance of Object and mix in whatever modules you want to get the desired set of behaviors, but that would be a poor, haphazard and rather unreadable design.
The answer to your question is largely contextual. Distilling pubb's observation, the choice is primarily driven by the domain under consideration.
And yes, ActiveRecord should have been included rather than extended by a subclass. Another ORM - datamapper - precisely achieves that!
I like Andy Gaskell's answer very much - just wanted to add that yes, ActiveRecord should not use inheritance, but rather include a module to add the behavior (mostly persistence) to a model/class. ActiveRecord is simply using the wrong paradigm.
For the same reason, I very much like MongoId over MongoMapper, because it leaves the developer the chance to use inheritance as a way of modelling something meaningful in the problem domain.
It's sad that pretty much nobody in the Rails community is using "Ruby inheritance" the way it's supposed to be used - to define class hierarchies, not just to add behavior.
The best way I understand mixins are as virtual classes. Mixins are "virtual classes" that have been injected in a class's or module's ancestor chain.
When we use "include" and pass it a module, it adds the module to the ancestor chain right before the class that we are inheriting from:
class Parent
end
module M
end
class Child < Parent
include M
end
Child.ancestors
=> [Child, M, Parent, Object ...
Every object in Ruby also has a singleton class. Methods added to this singleton class can be directly called on the object and so they act as "class" methods. When we use "extend" on an object and pass the object a module, we are adding the methods of the module to the singleton class of the object:
module M
def m
puts 'm'
end
end
class Test
end
Test.extend M
Test.m
We can access the singleton class with the singleton_class method:
Test.singleton_class.ancestors
=> [#<Class:Test>, M, #<Class:Object>, ...
Ruby provides some hooks for modules when they are being mixed into classes/modules. included is a hook method provided by Ruby which gets called whenever you include a module in some module or class. Just like included, there is an associated extended hook for extend. It will be called when a module is extended by another module or class.
module M
def self.included(target)
puts "included into #{target}"
end
def self.extended(target)
puts "extended into #{target}"
end
end
class MyClass
include M
end
class MyClass2
extend M
end
This creates an interesting pattern that developers could use:
module M
def self.included(target)
target.send(:include, InstanceMethods)
target.extend ClassMethods
target.class_eval do
a_class_method
end
end
module InstanceMethods
def an_instance_method
end
end
module ClassMethods
def a_class_method
puts "a_class_method called"
end
end
end
class MyClass
include M
# a_class_method called
end
As you can see, this single module is adding instance methods, "class" methods, and acting directly on the target class (calling a_class_method() in this case).
ActiveSupport::Concern encapsulates this pattern. Here's the same module rewritten to use ActiveSupport::Concern:
module M
extend ActiveSupport::Concern
included do
a_class_method
end
def an_instance_method
end
module ClassMethods
def a_class_method
puts "a_class_method called"
end
end
end
Right now, I'm thinking about the template design pattern. It just wouldn't feel right with a module.