architecture

When to use an Interface and when to use a concrete type

When you first start working with Inversion of Control (might have to write a blog post on that…) & unit testing you’ll probably go interface crazy! Interfaces are great, and they really make it easy to unit test and take full advantage of inversion of control. However, sometimes you don’t want to use one. Fortunately if you’re using design patterns properly, it’s easy to decide if you need to use an interface or not:

  • Is the class just data storage? If so, it should always just be a concrete type
  • Is the class a service that does something? If so it should always have an interface

The problem is when you’ve got a class that’s mostly data storage but also has some logic to it. In this case you’ve broken ‘Separation of Concerns’ and now have a problem! In this case you’ll want to expose an interface simply to make testing easier. However, ideally you want to refactor the logic out into one or more new classes.

Posted by Dan in Programming, 0 comments

Encapsulation

It’s been a while since I’ve written anything, mostly because almost any ‘how to’ has already been written. So let’s start looking into the more difficult realm of architecture of the application rather than how to do this or that.

Encapsulation is one of the basic tenants of Object Oriented programming, and is often over-looked. In short encapsulation means hiding the internal functionality away from the consumer of your class. But what does that actually mean?

It means you’ve got some difficult decisions to make with each class you build! To make my point I’m going to use a class that accesses a database. In this class we’re going to save people, think of it like a contacts list. This ‘PeopleList’ is going to save people, and then later fetch people from a database. A naive approach might have the following methods:

  • InsertPerson
  • UpdatePerson
  • DeletePerson
  • GetPerson
  • GetPeople

Where has the encapsulation been lost? It’s been lost with the Insert/Update methods, both of which are shouting that you’re using a SQL database and you’re exposing the underlying requirements of the DB to the user of your class. The users of your class doesn’t care about the database you use, just that they want to persist people and then fetch them. Differentiating between inserts and updates is not relevant to the users of the class, and just adds additional work for them.

This is one of the most important things you must do each time you design a class – consider what does the user of the class want to do? You then make that task as easy as possible. You only write the class once, but this class might be used many thousands of times over many years. A better approach would be to have the following methods instead:

  • SavePerson
  • DeletePerson
  • GetPerson
  • GetPeople

Now your class is much simpler to use. Does the user have to consider if they have already saved the person anymore? No, now all they need to do is throw a person at your class and you worry about the details. You’ve encapsulated the functionality so that the user doesn’t have to worry about logic you should be worrying about.

The great thing about doing this, is the underlying data store of this class can now be changed without any changes to the public interface of the class. We could use web service instead, and you’re still handling the logic yourself. If the web services are well designed you’ve effectively reduced the query count by one since the user of your class won’t have to check if the person exists already or not. Not only is it easier to use your new class, but it’s faster too!

Coming soon: Encapsulation Part 2!

Posted by Dan in Guides, Programming, 0 comments