Check: http://checkstyle.sourceforge.net/config_design.html#DesignForExtension
False positives: Checkstyle "Method Not Designed For Extension" error being incorrectly issued?
checkstyle Method is not designed for extension - needs to be abstract, final or empty
https://sourceforge.net/p/checkstyle/bugs/688/
Look like all switch that Check off in their configurations.
Does anybody could show real code example where this Check is useful ?
Is it useful for developers in practice, not in theory?
The documentation you linked to already explains the rationale behind the check. This can be useful in some situations. In practice, I've never turned it on, mostly because it is too cumbersome to administer, and you certainly don't want it for all your classes.
But you asked for a code example. Consider these two classes (YourSuperClass is part of the API you provide, and TheirSubClass is provided by the users of your API):
public abstract class YourSuperClass
{
public final void execute() {
doStuff();
hook();
doStuff();
}
private void doStuff() {
calculateStuff();
// do lots of stuff
}
protected abstract void hook();
protected final void calculateStuff() {
// perform your calculation of stuff
}
}
public class TheirSubClass extends YourSuperClass
{
protected void hook() {
// do whatever the hook needs to do as part of execute(), e.g.:
calculateStuff();
}
public static void main(final String[] args) {
TheirSubClass cmd = new TheirSubClass();
cmd.execute();
}
}
In this example, TheirSubClass cannot change the way execute works (do stuff, call hook, do stuff again). It also cannot change the calculateStuff() method. Thus, YourSuperClass is "designed for extension", because TheirSubClass cannot break the way it operates (like it could, if, say, execute() wasn't final). The designer of YourSuperClass remains in control, providing only specific hooks for subclasses to use. If the hook is abstract, TheirSubClass is forced to provide an implementation. If it is simply an empty method, TheirSubClass can choose to not use the hook.
Checkstyle's Check is a real-life example of a class designed for extension. Ironically, it would still fail the check, because getAcceptableTokens() is public but not final.
I have this rule enabled for all of my Spring-based projects. It's a royal PITA at first because it does represent a lot of code cleanup. But I've learned to love the principle of this rule. I find the rule to be useful at enforcing everyone to be consistent and clear in their thinking about which classes should be designed for extension and which shouldn't. In the code-bases that I've worked with, there are in reality, only a handful of classes that should be open to extension. Most are just asking for bugs by allowing extension. Maybe not today, but down the road when the current engineer is long-gone or that section of code is forgotten about and a quick change needs to come in to fix "X customer is complaining about Y and they just need Z".
Consider:
It's too easy to subclass anything in Java willy-nilly and therefore behavior can change over time through different extended classes. New programmers may get OOP happy and everything then extends something generic just because they can.
Overly-extended class-depth is difficult to reason about, and while you might be an amazing developer who'd never do something as atrocious as that ... I've worked in code-bases where that was the norm. And those deeply nested HTML Form generators were awful to work with and reason about what would actually happen So, this rule would, in theory, make the original engineer think twice about writing something so awful for their peers.
By enforcing the final rule or documenting a class designed for extension the possible bugs that could occur through inadvertent extension of a class may be avoided. I don't personally like the idea that some subclass could alter the behavior of my application because that could cause unintended side-effects in weird ways (especially large and partially tested applications). And, it's in these extended classes where complex behavior is hidden that the hard-to-solve bugs exist.
The DesignForExtension rule forces conversations amongst developers whenever something might be extended as an initial choice to get a quick-fix out the door when really what should happen is that the developers need to meet up and discuss what's changing, and discuss why extension might be appropriate. Many times, modifications to the main class are more appropriate and additional tests would be written given the new circumstances. This promotion of conversations is healthy for long-term code quality and intra-organizational knowledge sharing.
That being said, I do add to my checkstyle-suppressions.xml in my code for Spring-specific classes that cannot be declared final. Because, frameworks.
<suppress checks="DesignForExtension" files=".*Configuration\.java"/>
As I always understood it, any change to the programs state (or anything to do with IO) is a side effect. It does not matter, whether the change occurs in a global variable or in a private field of the object the method is called on. It follows that all methods which do not return anything either do nothing at all or have a side effect. My confusion comes from one of our university's instructors (who is still a student and thus not omniscient yet;) ) telling me setters don't have side effects.
Your instructor is mistaken. With apologies to the SO editors for not pasting the entire article here, this is what Wikipedia has to say:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side_effect_(computer_science)
Money Quote #1:
In computer science, a function or expression is said to have a side effect if, in addition to producing a value, it also modifies some state or has an observable interaction with calling functions or the outside world.
Money Quote #2:
In the presence of side effects, a program's behavior depends on past history; that is, the order of evaluation matters.
Non-NOP Setters always satisfy that criteria.
Getters and setters are just syntactic sugar for get_ and set_ methods. They can absolutely have side effects (though it's probably a bad idea to start tweaking lots of fields when all the caller wanted was to increment a counter or something).
First of all: I am aware of the language agnostic tag! "runako" answered the question quite correctly. But often you want to apply your knowledge to the real world so I think I would be nice to also provide an answer that addresses this problem in a more pragmatic way.
When dealing with real world languages like c++,c# or java then even a nop function has actual side effects which can cause code to be executed!
Just think about static-constructors. Even though the specs don't always specify the time a static constructor is ran for a class, most of the time it will be the point in time where a method or member of the class is first accessed.
Example in C#:
class NotSoObvious
{
static NotSoObvious()
{
CauseSomeSideEffects();
}
// calling this can cause the constructor to run first!
public static void DoNothing()
{
return;
}
}
What's more is that even a method that isn't being called at all can cause side effects!
Think of reflection (the ability of a program to query information about its own structure).
When a method is present but not being called it can still be detected by reflection.
A method with no calls to it surely has a side effect on a program that outputs the number of methods inside!
It all boils down to this: If you want to know about the actual side effects of a method, you first have to determine what you even consider to be a "side effect".
This is quite a controversial topic, and before you say "no", is it really, really needed?
I have been programming for about 10 years, and I can't honestly say that I can recall a time where inheritance solved a problem that couldn't be solved another way. On the other hand I can recall many times when I used inheritance, because I felt like I had to or because I though I was clever and ended up paying for it.
I can't really see any circumstances where, from an implementation stand point, aggregation or another technique could not be used instead of inheritance.
My only caveat to this is that we would still allow inheritance of interfaces.
(Update)
Let's give an example of why it's needed instead of saying, "sometimes it's just needed." That really isn't helpful at all. Where is your proof?
(Update 2 Code Example)
Here's the classic shape example, more powerful, and more explicit IMO, without inheritance. It is almost never the case in the real world that something really "Is a" of something else. Almost always "Is Implemented in Terms of" is more accurate.
public interface IShape
{
void Draw();
}
public class BasicShape : IShape
{
public void Draw()
{
// All shapes in this system have a dot in the middle except squares.
DrawDotInMiddle();
}
}
public class Circle : IShape
{
private BasicShape _basicShape;
public void Draw()
{
// Draw the circle part
DrawCircle();
_basicShape.Draw();
}
}
public class Square : IShape
{
private BasicShape _basicShape;
public void Draw()
{
// Draw the circle part
DrawSquare();
}
}
I blogged about this as a wacky idea a while ago.
I don't think it should be removed, but I think classes should be sealed by default to discourage inheritance when it's not appropriate. It's a powerful tool to have available, but it's like a chain-saw - you really don't want to use it unless it's the perfect tool for the job. Otherwise you might start losing limbs.
The are potential language features such as mix-ins which would make it easier to live without, IMO.
Inheritance can be rather useful in situations where your base class has a number of methods with the same implementation for each derived class, to save every single derived class from having to implement boiler-plate code. Take the .NET Stream class for example which defines the following methods:
public virtual int Read(byte[] buffer, int index, int count)
{
}
public int ReadByte()
{
// note: this is only an approximation to the real implementation
var buffer = new byte[1];
if (this.Read(buffer, 0, 1) == 1)
{
return buffer[0];
}
return -1;
}
Because inheritance is available the base class can implement the ReadByte method for all implementations without them having to worry about it. There are a number of other methods like this on the class which have default or fixed implementations. So in this type of situation it's a very valuable thing to have, compared with an interface where your options are either to make everyone re-implement everything, or to create a StreamUtil type class which they can call (yuk!).
To clarify, with inheritance all I need to write to create a DerivedStream class is something like:
public class DerivedStream : Stream
{
public override int Read(byte[] buffer, int index, int count)
{
// my read implementation
}
}
Whereas if we're using interfaces and a default implementation of the methods in StreamUtil I have to write a bunch more code:
public class DerivedStream : IStream
{
public int Read(byte[] buffer, int index, int count)
{
// my read implementation
}
public int ReadByte()
{
return StreamUtil.ReadByte(this);
}
}
}
So it's not a huge amount more code, but multiply this by a few more methods on the class and it's just unnecessary boiler plate stuff which the compiler could handle instead. Why make things more painful to implement than necessary? I don't think inheritance is the be-all and end-all, but it can be very useful when used correctly.
Of course you can write great programs happily without objects and inheritance; functional programmers do it all the time. But let us not be hasty. Anybody interested in this topic should check out the slides from Xavier Leroy's invited lecture about classes vs modules in Objective Caml. Xavier does a beautiful job laying out what inheritance does well and does not do well in the context of different kinds of software evolution.
All languages are Turing-complete, so of course inheritance isn't necessary. But as an argument for the value of inheritance, I present the Smalltalk blue book, especially the Collection hierarchy and the Number hierarchy. I'm very impressed that a skilled specialist can add an entirely new kind of number (or collection) without perturbing the existing system.
I will also remind questioner of the "killer app" for inheritance: the GUI toolkit. A well-designed toolkit (if you can find one) makes it very, very easy to add new kinds of graphical interaction widgets.
Having said all that, I think that inheritance has innate weaknesses (your program logic is smeared out over a large set of classes) and that it should be used rarely and only by skilled professionals. A person graduating with a bachelor's degree in computer science barely knows anything about inheritance---such persons should be permitted to inherit from other classes at need, but should never, ever write code from which other programmers inherit. That job should be reserved for master programmers who really know what they're doing. And they should do it reluctantly!
For an interesting take on solving similar problems using a completely different mechanism, people might want to check out Haskell type classes.
I wish languages would provide some mechanisms to make it easier to delegate to member variables. For example, suppose interface I has 10 methods, and class C1 implements this interface. Suppose I want to implement class C2 that is just like a C1 but with method m1() overridden. Without using inheritance, I would do this as follows (in Java):
public class C2 implements I {
private I c1;
public C2() {
c1 = new C1();
}
public void m1() {
// This is the method C2 is overriding.
}
public void m2() {
c1.m2();
}
public void m3() {
c1.m3();
}
...
public void m10() {
c1.m10();
}
}
In other words, I have to explicitly write code to delegate the behavior of methods m2..m10 to the member variable m1. That's a bit of a pain. It also clutters the code up so that it's harder to see the real logic in class C2. It also means that whenever new methods are added to interface I, I have to explicitly add more code to C1 just to delegate these new methods to C1.
I wish languages would allow me to say: C1 implements I, but if C1 is missing some method from I, automatically delegate to member variable c1. That would cut down the size of C1 to just
public class C2 implements I(delegate to c1) {
private I c1;
public C2() {
c1 = new C1();
}
public void m1() {
// This is the method C2 is overriding.
}
}
If languages allowed us to do this, it would be much easier to avoid use of inheritance.
Here's a blog article I wrote about automatic delegation.
Inheritance is one of those tools that can be used, and of course can be abused, but I think languages have to have more changes before class-based inheritance could be removed.
Let's take my world at the moment, which is mainly C# development.
For Microsoft to take away class-based inheritance, they would have to build in much stronger support for handling interfaces. Things like aggregation, where I need to add lots of boiler-plate code just to wire up an interface to an internal object. This really should be done anyway, but would be a requirement in such a case.
In other words, the following code:
public interface IPerson { ... }
public interface IEmployee : IPerson { ... }
public class Employee : IEmployee
{
private Person _Person;
...
public String FirstName
{
get { return _Person.FirstName; }
set { _Person.FirstName = value; }
}
}
This would basically have to be a lot shorter, otherwise I'd have lots of these properties just to make my class mimic a person good enough, something like this:
public class Employee : IEmployee
{
private Person _Person implements IPerson;
...
}
this could auto-create the code necessary, instead of me having to write it. Just returning the internal reference if I cast my object to an IPerson would do no good.
So things would have to be better supported before class-based inheritance could be taken off the table.
Also, you would remove things like visibility. An interface really just have two visibility settings: There, and not-there. In some cases you would be, or so I think, forced to expose more of your internal data just so that someone else can more easily use your class.
For class-based inheritance, you can usually expose some access points that a descendant can use, but outside code can't, and you would generally have to just remove those access points, or make them open to everyone. Not sure I like either alternative.
My biggest question would be what specifically the point of removing such functionality would be, even if the plan would be to, as an example, build D#, a new language, like C#, but without the class-based inheritance. In other words, even if you plan on building a whole new language, I still am not entirely sure what the ultimate goal would be.
Is the goal to remove something that can be abused if not in the right hands? If so, I have a list a mile long for various programming languages that I would really like to see addresses first.
At the top of that list: The with keyword in Delphi. That keyword is not just like shooting yourself in the foot, it's like the compiler buys the shotgun, comes to your house and takes aim for you.
Personally I like class-based inheritance. Sure, you can write yourself into a corner. But we can all do that. Remove class-based inheritance, I'll just find a new way of shooting myself in the foot with.
Now where did I put that shotgun...
Have fun implementing ISystemObject on all of your classes so that you have access to ToString() and GetHashcode().
Additionally, good luck with the ISystemWebUIPage interface.
If you don't like inheritance, my suggestion is to stop using .NET all together. There are way too many scenarios where it saves time (see DRY: don't repeat yourself).
If using inheritance is blowing up your code, then you need to take a step back and rethink your design.
I prefer interfaces, but they aren't a silver bullet.
For production code I almost never use inheritance. I go with using interfaces for everything (this helps with testing and improves readability i.e. you can just look at the interface to read the public methods and see what is going on because of well-named methods and class names). Pretty much the only time I would use inheritance would be because a third party library demands it. Using interfaces, I would get the same effect but I would mimic inheritance by using 'delegation'.
For me, not only is this more readable but it is much more testable and also makes refactoring a whole lot easier.
The only time I can think of that I would use inheritance in testing would be to create my own specific TestCases used to differentiate between types of tests I have in my system.
So I probably wouldn't get rid of it but I choose not to use it as much as possible for the reasons mentioned above.
No. Sometimes you need inheritance. And for those times where you don't -- don't use it. You can always "just" use interfaces (in languages that have them) and ADPs without data work like interfaces in those languages that don't have them. But I see no reason to remove what is sometimes a necessary feature just because you feel it isn't always needed.
No. Just because it's not often needed, doesn't mean it's never needed. Like any other tool in a toolkit, it can (and has been, and will be) misused. However, that doesn't mean it should never be used. In fact, in some languages (C++), there is no such thing as an 'interface' at the language level, so without a major change, you couldn't prohibit it.
No, it is not needed, but that does not mean it does not provide an overall benefit, which I think is more important than worrying about whether it is absolutely necessary.
In the end, almost all modern software language constructs amount to syntactic sugar - we could all be writing assembly code (or using punch cards, or working with vacuum tubes) if we really had to.
I find inheritance immensely useful those times that I truly want to express an "is-a" relationship. Inheritance seems to be the clearest means of expressing that intent. If I used delegation for all implementation re-use, I lose that expressiveness.
Does this allow for abuse? Of course it does. I often see questions asking how the developer can inherit from a class but hide a method because that method should not exist on the subclass. That person obviously misses the point of inheritance, and should be pointed toward delegation instead.
I don't use inheritance because it is needed, I use it because it is sometimes the best tool for the job.
I guess I have to play the devil's advocate. If we didn't have inheritance then we wouldn't be able to inherit abstract classes that uses the template method pattern. There are lots of examples where this is used in frameworks such as .NET and Java. Thread in Java is such an example:
// Alternative 1:
public class MyThread extends Thread {
// Abstract method to implement from Thread
// aka. "template method" (GoF design pattern)
public void run() {
// ...
}
}
// Usage:
MyThread t = new MyThread();
t.start();
The alternative is, in my meaning, verbose when you have to use it. Visual clutteer complexity goes up. This is because you need to create the Thread before you can actually use it.
// Alternative 2:
public class MyThread implements Runnable {
// Method to implement from Runnable:
public void run() {
// ...
}
}
// Usage:
MyThread m = new MyThread();
Thread t = new Thread(m);
t.start();
// …or if you have a curious perversion towards one-liners
Thread t = new Thread(new MyThread());
t.start();
Having my devil's advocate hat off I guess you could argue that the gain in the second implementation is dependency injection or seperation of concerns which helps designing testable classes. Depending on your definition of what an interface is (I've heard of at least three) an abstract class could be regarded as an interface.
Needed? No. You can write any program in C, for example, which doesn't have any sort of inheritance or objects. You could write it in assembly language, although it would be less portable. You could write it in a Turing machine and have it emulated. Somebody designed a computer language with exactly one instruction (something like subtract and branch if not zero), and you could write your program in that.
So, if you're going to ask if a given language feature is necessary (like inheritance, or objects, or recursion, or functions), the answer is no. (There are exceptions - you have to be able to loop and do things conditionally, although these need not be supported as explicit concepts in the language.)
Therefore, I find questions of this sort useless.
Questions like "When should we use inheritance" or "When shouldn't we" are a lot more useful.
a lot of the time I find myself choosing a base class over an interface just because I have some standard functionality. in C#, I can now use extension methods to achieve that, but it still doesn't achieve the same thing for several situations.
Is inheritance really needed? Depends what you mean by "really". You could go back to punch cards or flicking toggle switches in theory, but it's a terrible way to develop software.
In procedural languages, yes, class inheritance is a definite boon. It gives you a way to elegantly organise your code in certain circumstances. It should not be overused, as any other feature should not be overused.
For example, take the case of digiarnie in this thread. He/she uses interfaces for nearly everything, which is just as bad as (possibly worse than) using lots of inheritance.
Some of his points :
this helps with testing and improves readability
It doesn't do either thing. You never actually test an interface, you always test an object, that is, an instantiation of a class. And having to look at a completely different bit of code helps you understand the structure of a class? I don't think so.
Ditto for deep inheritance hierarchies though. You ideally want to look in one place only.
Using interfaces, I would get the same effect but I would mimic inheritance by using
'delegation'.
Delegation is a very good idea, and should often be used instead of inheritance (for example, the Strategy pattern is all about doing exactly this). But interfaces have zero to do with delegation, because you cannot specify any behaviour at all in an interface.
also makes refactoring a whole lot easier.
Early commitment to interfaces usually makes refactoring harder, not easier, because there are then more places to change. Overusing inheritance early is better (well, less bad) than overusing interfaces, as pulling out delegate classes is easier if the classes being modified do not implement any interfaces. And it's quite often from those delegates than you get useful interfaces.
So overuse of inheritance is a bad thing. Overuse of interfaces is a bad thing. And ideally, a class will neither inherit from anything (except maybe "object" or the language equivalent), nor implement any interfaces. But that doesn't mean either feature should be removed from a language.
If there is a framework class that does almost exactly what you want, but a particular function of its interface throws a NotSupported exception or for some other reason you only want to override one method to do something specific to your implementation, it's much easier to write a subclass and override that one method rather than write a brand new class and write pass-throughs for each of the other 27 methods in the class.
Similarly, What about Java, for example, where every object inherits from Object, and therefore automatically has implementations of equals, hashcode, etc. I don't have to re-implement them, and it "just works" when I want to use the object as a key in a hashtable. I don't have to write a default passthrough to a Hashtable.hashcode(Object o) method, which frankly seems like it's moving away from object orientation.
My initial thought was, You're crazy. But after thinking about it a while I kinda agree with you. I'm not saying remove Class Inheritance fully (abstract classes with partial implementation for example can be useful), but I have often inherited (pun intended) badly written OO code with multi level class inheritance that added nothing, other than bloat, to the code.
Note that inheritance means it is no longer possible to supply the base class functionality by dependency injection, in order to unit test a derived class in isolation of its parent.
So if you're deadly serious about dependency injection (which I'm not, but I do wonder whether I should be), you can't get much use out of inheritance anyway.
Here's a nice view at the topic:
IS-STRICTLY-EQUIVALENT-TO-A by Reg Braithwaite
I believe a better mechanism for code re-use which is sometimes achieved through inheritance are traits. Check this link (pdf) for a great discussion on this, including the distinction between traits and mixins, and why traits are favored.
There's some research that introduces traits into C# (pdf).
Perl has traits through Moose::Roles. Scala traits are like mixins, as in Ruby.
The question is, "Should inheritance (of non-interface types) be removed from programming languages?"
I say, "No", as it will break a hell of a lot of existing code.
That aside, should you use inheritance, other than inheritance of interfaces? I'm predominantly a C++ programmer and I follow a strict object model of multiple inheritance of interfaces followed by a chain of single inheritance of classes. The concrete classes are a "secret" of a component and it's friends, so what goes on there is nobodies business.
To help implement interfaces, I use template mixins. This allows the interface designer to provide snippets of code to help implement the interface for common scenarios. As a component developer I feel like I can go mixin shopping to get the reusable bits without being encumbered by how the interface designer thought I should build my class.
Having said that, the mixin paradigm is pretty much unique to C++. Without this, I expect that inheritance is very attractive to the pragmatic programmer.
I was confused when I first started to see anti-singleton commentary. I have used the singleton pattern in some recent projects, and it was working out beautifully. So much so, in fact, that I have used it many, many times.
Now, after running into some problems, reading this SO question, and especially this blog post, I understand the evil that I have brought into the world.
So: How do I go about removing singletons from existing code?
For example:
In a retail store management program, I used the MVC pattern. My Model objects describe the store, the user interface is the View, and I have a set of Controllers that act as liason between the two. Great. Except that I made the Store into a singleton (since the application only ever manages one store at a time), and I also made most of my Controller classes into singletons (one mainWindow, one menuBar, one productEditor...). Now, most of my Controller classes get access the other singletons like this:
Store managedStore = Store::getInstance();
managedStore.doSomething();
managedStore.doSomethingElse();
//etc.
Should I instead:
Create one instance of each object and pass references to every object that needs access to them?
Use globals?
Something else?
Globals would still be bad, but at least they wouldn't be pretending.
I see #1 quickly leading to horribly inflated constructor calls:
someVar = SomeControllerClass(managedStore, menuBar, editor, sasquatch, ...)
Has anyone else been through this yet? What is the OO way to give many individual classes acces to a common variable without it being a global or a singleton?
Dependency Injection is your friend.
Take a look at these posts on the excellent Google Testing Blog:
Singletons are pathologic liars (but you probably already understand this if you are asking this question)
A talk on Dependency Injection
Guide to Writing Testable Code
Hopefully someone has made a DI framework/container for the C++ world? Looks like Google has released a C++ Testing Framework and a C++ Mocking Framework, which might help you out.
It's not the Singleton-ness that is the problem. It's fine to have an object that there will only ever be one instance of. The problem is the global access. Your classes that use Store should receive a Store instance in the constructor (or have a Store property / data member that can be set) and they can all receive the same instance. Store can even keep logic within it to ensure that only one instance is ever created.
My way to avoid singletons derives from the idea that "application global" doesn't mean "VM global" (i.e. static). Therefore I introduce a ApplicationContext class which holds much former static singleton information that should be application global, like the configuration store. This context is passed into all structures. If you use any IOC container or service manager, you can use this to get access to the context.
There's nothing wrong with using a global or a singleton in your program. Don't let anyone get dogmatic on you about that kind of crap. Rules and patterns are nice rules of thumb. But in the end it's your project and you should make your own judgments about how to handle situations involving global data.
Unrestrained use of globals is bad news. But as long as you are diligent, they aren't going to kill your project. Some objects in a system deserve to be singleton. The standard input and outputs. Your log system. In a game, your graphics, sound, and input subsystems, as well as the database of game entities. In a GUI, your window and major panel components. Your configuration data, your plugin manager, your web server data. All these things are more or less inherently global to your application. I think your Store class would pass for it as well.
It's clear what the cost of using globals is. Any part of your application could be modifying it. Tracking down bugs is hard when every line of code is a suspect in the investigation.
But what about the cost of NOT using globals? Like everything else in programming, it's a trade off. If you avoid using globals, you end up having to pass those stateful objects as function parameters. Alternatively, you can pass them to a constructor and save them as a member variable. When you have multiple such objects, the situation worsens. You are now threading your state. In some cases, this isn't a problem. If you know only two or three functions need to handle that stateful Store object, it's the better solution.
But in practice, that's not always the case. If every part of your app touches your Store, you will be threading it to a dozen functions. On top of that, some of those functions may have complicated business logic. When you break that business logic up with helper functions, you have to -- thread your state some more! Say for instance you realize that a deeply nested function needs some configuration data from the Store object. Suddenly, you have to edit 3 or 4 function declarations to include that store parameter. Then you have to go back and add the store as an actual parameter to everywhere one of those functions is called. It may be that the only use a function has for a Store is to pass it to some subfunction that needs it.
Patterns are just rules of thumb. Do you always use your turn signals before making a lane change in your car? If you're the average person, you'll usually follow the rule, but if you are driving at 4am on an empty high way, who gives a crap, right? Sometimes it'll bite you in the butt, but that's a managed risk.
Regarding your inflated constructor call problem, you could introduce parameter classes or factory methods to leverage this problem for you.
A parameter class moves some of the parameter data to it's own class, e.g. like this:
var parameterClass1 = new MenuParameter(menuBar, editor);
var parameterClass2 = new StuffParameters(sasquatch, ...);
var ctrl = new MyControllerClass(managedStore, parameterClass1, parameterClass2);
It sort of just moves the problem elsewhere though. You might want to housekeep your constructor instead. Only keep parameters that are important when constructing/initiating the class in question and do the rest with getter/setter methods (or properties if you're doing .NET).
A factory method is a method that creates all instances you need of a class and have the benefit of encapsulating creation of the said objects. They are also quite easy to refactor towards from Singleton, because they're similar to getInstance methods that you see in Singleton patterns. Say we have the following non-threadsafe simple singleton example:
// The Rather Unfortunate Singleton Class
public class SingletonStore {
private static SingletonStore _singleton
= new MyUnfortunateSingleton();
private SingletonStore() {
// Do some privatised constructing in here...
}
public static SingletonStore getInstance() {
return _singleton;
}
// Some methods and stuff to be down here
}
// Usage:
// var singleInstanceOfStore = SingletonStore.getInstance();
It is easy to refactor this towards a factory method. The solution is to remove the static reference:
public class StoreWithFactory {
public StoreWithFactory() {
// If the constructor is private or public doesn't matter
// unless you do TDD, in which you need to have a public
// constructor to create the object so you can test it.
}
// The method returning an instance of Singleton is now a
// factory method.
public static StoreWithFactory getInstance() {
return new StoreWithFactory();
}
}
// Usage:
// var myStore = StoreWithFactory.getInstance();
Usage is still the same, but you're not bogged down with having a single instance. Naturally you would move this factory method to it's own class as the Store class shouldn't concern itself with creation of itself (and coincidentally follow the Single Responsibility Principle as an effect of moving the factory method out).
From here you have many choices, but I'll leave that as an exercise for yourself. It is easy to over-engineer (or overheat) on patterns here. My tip is to only apply a pattern when there is a need for it.
Okay, first of all, the "singletons are always evil" notion is wrong. You use a Singleton whenever you have a resource which won't or can't ever be duplicated. No problem.
That said, in your example, there's an obvious degree of freedom in the application: someone could come along and say "but I want two stores."
There are several solutions. The one that occurs first of all is to build a factory class; when you ask for a Store, it gives you one named with some universal name (eg, a URI.) Inside that store, you need to be sure that multiple copies don't step on one another, via critical regions or some method of ensuring atomicity of transactions.
Miško Hevery has a nice article series on testability, among other things the singleton, where he isn't only talking about the problems, but also how you might solve it (see 'Fixing the flaw').
I like to encourage the use of singletons where necessary while discouraging the use of the Singleton pattern. Note the difference in the case of the word. The singleton (lower case) is used wherever you only need one instance of something. It is created at the start of your program and is passed to the constructor of the classes that need it.
class Log
{
void logmessage(...)
{ // do some stuff
}
};
int main()
{
Log log;
// do some more stuff
}
class Database
{
Log &_log;
Database(Log &log) : _log(log) {}
void Open(...)
{
_log.logmessage(whatever);
}
};
Using a singleton gives all of the capabilities of the Singleton anti-pattern but it makes your code more easily extensible, and it makes it testable (in the sense of the word defined in the Google testing blog). For example, we may decide that we need the ability to log to a web-service at some times as well, using the singleton we can easily do that without significant changes to the code.
By comparison, the Singleton pattern is another name for a global variable. It is never used in production code.