|
Fantastic post
Great points and a perfect analogy / example.
There are challenges in this type of dev that are so painful that it only makes sense in some instances
Also, the life of software (rewritten so often) that putting this much time into it can be questionable too since the final dream as rarely realized.
|
|
|
|
|
Define "high-level class".
|
|
|
|
|
That’s actually a very good question
It is a bit difficult to even explain that but think of any class that calls another to do work
The PDF that I mentioned uses the example of a WebController (MVC Controller) as being the high level class that would call other classes to do work
And high level class is basically saying “break apart all functionality (single responsibility principle)”
Controller here is just calling other things to do work.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that that seems to be the only reasonable way to interpret it. As in a layered architecture.
Yet you can also look at it the other way -- a "high-level" class has derived classes descending from it.
Possibly, a better term would be "top-level" -- "high" doesn't necessarily indicate "top".
I think the use of the term simply indicates that the author is addressing only a very narrow scope of software architecture.
I might invert the definition though and say that a "high-level" class is one which depends only on interfaces.
|
|
|
|
|
We try to follow this principle. Even if you do something like:
IProvider thing = new RealProvider();
It makes you plan in terms of the consumer. If you end up with multiple providers later, switching to IOC is really easy. Or substituting a mock for testing, or writing tests based on IProvider, or etc
And of course, all the high level code that is calling the interfaces is “real” code.
If your IDE can’t show you all of the implementors of the interface in milliseconds, then try a better IDE.
|
|
|
|
|
englebart: If your IDE can’t show you all of the implementors of the interface in milliseconds, then try a better IDE.
Truth! Part of our problem is that we are using VS 2013 
|
|
|
|
|
|
englebart wrote: If you end up with multiple providers later,
That however is the problem.
First of course it assumes that that is realistically even possible.
Second it assumes that the generalized interface will actually be abstract. So a different provider can be put in.
Databases are an excellent example of this. They do in fact change on occasion. But excluding very simple usages I have never seen this go smoothly or quickly.
I saw one company that specifically claimed (marketing) that their product was database agnostic and yet I saw the following
1. The product could not meet performance goals by probably at least an order of magnitude.
2. Their 'schema' was obviously generated in such a way that it would make any DBA tasked with supporting it not happy at all (as the DBA I talked to reported.)
3. They spent months on site trying to get it to work correctly and fast enough to be even possible for the company to use it. Still working on it when I left the company.
|
|
|
|
|
I stopped reading at “(marketing)”. 😊
Marketing still received their bonus?
Database compatibility layers are a whole different ball of yarn. Rarely do I ever have a second implementation, but I still like designing to the interface. (and keeping all dependency graphs one way)
|
|
|
|
|
Sadly I was confronted with legacy code where the developer thought it was a good idea to always use interfaces, which led to hundreds of extra files for very simple classes. Needless to say I was not amused.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd balk at the word "All".
While I do use lots of interfaces, even for classes that rarely get a second implementation, I don't use an interface for everything.
It's simply impossible now to say all your future "high-level classes" (whatever that means) need an interface or need to be injected.
And if you use an interface, do it right.
I've seen software that used interfaces like this:
public interface ISomething { ... }
public class Something : ISomething { ... }
ISomething something = new Something();
public Whatever DoSomeCalculations(Something something) { ... }Their idea was that you could now easily write a Something2 and replace all new Something() with new Something2() if that was ever necessary.
If that's how you're going to "use" interfaces, you might as well not.
And then the occassional idiot saying everything needs an interface.
So with interfaces it's like with many things in life: it depends.
|
|
|
|
|
Fantastic post! Great points and right along the lines as what I was thinking.
Thanks for the interesting discussion on this 
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: All high-level classes must depend only on Interfaces
That's one of the tenets of dependency injection because it makes for a testable and extensible design. We follow that guideline at my shop.
(Apologies if I misunderstood your comment.)
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Ravi Bhavnani wrote: That's one of the tenets of dependency injection because it makes for a testable and extensible design
Yep, the devs who know about this know it really is like that. It's a foundational idea of DI.
Thanks for commenting. I'm curious about :
1. how many developers really know that concept
2. how many developers / shops actually use it.
3. how devs who work at shops where it is used, like or dislike it.
The comments so far have been very interesting.
Have you, by chance, read that MS Unity PDF that I referenced in my original post?
It has some great info on DI, but it's so old and further along the examples just jump into extreme details of using the Unity container. Oy! they should've made smaller set of examples.
That's actually what I was trying with my latest article.
Thanks again for the conversation.
|
|
|
|
|
Our latest “fresh” developers think OOP is microservices… Cannot even refactor simple code:
Original code did X 5 times, why does the new code do X 4 times?
Even some of the more experienced group is too reliant on full solutions on StackOverflow, etc. They cannot take two topics and synthesize a unique solution.
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: how many developers really know that concept
I would have assumed devs with some experience would be aware of this. In our shop it's a given because you can't write a unit test with a mocked dependency without using this paradigm.  It's also one of our pre-interview phone screen questions.
There's another subtle aspect to this, though: when using MEF, you can encounter a run-time failure (error constructing a service class) when any dependency in the chain fails to construct because of a missing [Export] attribute on a class in the dependency hierarchy. I didn't want our devs to have to manually check for this so I wrote a tool that reflects the codebase and identifies these broken classes.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Article? Or owned by the employer?
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, the code is owned by my company so can't be shared. 
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
"because you can't write a unit test with a mocked dependency without using this paradigm."
An alternative is to use generic programming aka "static polymorphism", and inject dependencies via template parameters. No need for interfaces. Not saying this is a good choice, but it is certainly a choice.
|
|
|
|
|
That can leading to run time errors because you have to ensure you call the correct overload with the correctly mocked dependency for every method you want to test. It's safer to inject the required mocks (once) into a non-overloaded constructor of the system being tested, because those mocks are guaranteed to be used for all the methods being tested.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
The compiler takes care of calling the correct overload. I really don't understand the problem.
Pros of the generic solution: - no virtual function overhead
Con: - the interface contract is more implicit
Other than that, both approaches are about equally as complex and difficult to debug. Better if mocking is not used unless necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
hpcoder2 wrote: Better if mocking is not used unless necessary.
How would you unit test a service without mocking its dependencies?
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Quite easily. Options include:
1. Black box testing - test the assembled class with its dependencies, based on whatever attributes are publicly visible. 90% of the time this is all that is needed.
2. White box testing - test the assembled class with its dependencies, but also declare internal state as protected, and have the test fixture inherit from the class being tested.
3. White box testing - instead of declaring the internal attributes protected, declare an internal class Test and make it friends with the class being tested. The actual implementation of the test class can be deferred to the unit test code.
All of the above I have used in a unit testing environment, and are way simpler to understand, debug and otherwise maintain than dependency injected/mocked code.
The only time mocking is really needed is when it is impractical to instantiate the dependency in the CI environment. Examples might include a full database, or something that depends on network resources.
|
|
|
|
|
IMHO, a member friendship violates Liskov.
hpcoder2 wrote: The only time mocking is really needed is when it is impractical to instantiate the dependency in the CI environment. Examples might include a full database, or something that depends on network resources.
And that's often the case when testing enterprise systems that include several cooperating independent subsystems. That's the case at my shop.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
I have no problem with the independent subsystems being mocked. There are relatively few of these.
In examples I've seen, every single class implements an interface, and every interacting class is mocked, leading to triple the number of classes, and a nightmare to read and/or debug the code. Way too much!
Re friendship violating Liskov, then so much the worse for Liskov. Friendship has its place and uses, but shouldn't be overused - just like global variables, mutable members and dependency injection.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
