I have a (design of) an application to basically work like this:
class Main, class BusinessLogic, class UserInterface
BusinessLogic and UserInterface are designed to be library-like - not on-goingly developed but used by a developer in say, class Main.
The constructor of BusinessLogic also instantiates UserInterface, which will display a text-based menu and take terminal input. Based upon that input, it will execute the relevant functionality by invoking the relevant method of its respective BusinessLogic object.
However, this is a circular reference, and there's no apparent way for UserInterface to call its respective BusinessLogic object (without the BusinessLogic object identifier hardcoded, but that's even worse practice!).
This does seem a logical design to me, but hard to implement in programming terms.
One alternative I considered is simply having UI return the input data to BusinessLogic's constructor, but I don't want BusinessLogic to handle input analysis, UI seems the sensible place for it.
Any ideas?
You should try the Model-View-Controller pattern. In your case the model and controller may end up the same. Isolating your classes from each other via interfaces and then creating those outside (from Main in your example) will simplify everyone's life.
This sounds like you may want to use an Model-View-Controller pattern.
In addition, if you want to reduce the instantiation dependencies between the parts, you may want to consider using dependency-injection, as with Spring.
Related
Service1 injects Repository1. Service2 injects Repository2.
Suppose two different scenarios:
1)
Some method of Service2 needs to retrieve data from Repository1.
Should Service2 inject Service1 or Repository1 when both of them provide respective get() method?
2) Some method of Service1 at it's end should call another method from Service2. Is it a bad practice to inject Service2 to Service1 for such needs? Is it a good practice to use event listen techniques like AOP for such needs?
There are many factors to consider here when we talked about best practices.
As a good start, try to understand the concept of SOLID principles.
Generally, it is good to have multiple classes with very focused roles that calls the other rather than combining all functionalities in one class. High reusability and least code duplication which in turn gives maintainability.
For scenario 1.)
It is perfectly fine to have a service calling another service if that business code defined in the method is the same business functionality needed by the other service. This follows the DRY principle, no redundant codes.
But it is also perfectly fine to just directly call the Dao from a service instead of calling a different service to do that for you if it is just a simple call with no further business logic. Especially if the two services are in the same module anyway, there is no strong reason to make another service a bridge class for an obvious simple single line of code unless you want to abstract it, but in your case, its just a simple get call.
For scenario 2.)
But another thing to consider is modularity and direction of dependency. If each service calls each other, there could be problem in your design, as much as possible avoid circular dependency on different modules because this could lead to spaghetti code, better to extract same code to a different class declared on common module that can be shared by many modules.
Final note, as what Robert Martin says, you won't be able to code at once the cleanest code in one round. Best codes are forged by continuous refactoring and code cleanup. To quote Robert Martin,
The Boy Scouts have a rule: "Always leave the campground cleaner than you found it."
I am not greatly experienced with this problem, but personally I would avoid coupling controllers. My first approach would be trying to create an interface that would fit all models if possible. It would then be possible to create a model that wires multiple models together to access the data you need without adding references to the controller. For instance:
Model1 implements iModel{}
Model2 implements iModel{}
ModelWrapper implements iModel{
private iModel model1;
private iModel model2;
public ModelWrapper(iModel model1, iModel model2)
{
this.model1 = model1;
this.model2 = model2;
}
public SomeDataType getSomeValue(){
SomeObject.param1 = model1.method();
SomeObject.param2 = model2.method();
return SomeObject;
}
}
I am sure there is a better way to approach the number of models passed into the constructor and also a way to search each model for the data you are looking for. If the data is not found a null reference or better a custom error could be thrown. If the implementation is consistent perhaps the wrapper could combine all models and allow access to many custom combinations. At least this way, when requirements change you can simply add an additional wrapper to get what you need without changing the current implementation.
Perhaps a more experienced developer will build on my response to provide you a better implementation, but I hope this helps.
So I have an interesting conundrum I was curious to get some feedback from other Webdriver framework architects. Currently I follow a pretty standard execution model:
baseobject
pageobject (extends baseobject)
Junit testobject (references one or multiple pageobjects)
Within my pageobjects I chose to define my findBy UI mappings as variables, and in-turn reference them within the various methods I write for that pageobject. I find this works very well. However, one item I am waffling on is how to handle method design for pages (and their respective pageobject) when there exist potentially 50 separate hyperlinks.
My inclination and design thus far has been to create methods (I think of them as services really) for each link on most pageobjects I've created so that #Test I can simply call the method I want and be done with it. This eliminates the potential for test maintenance...standard practice I know. But I am now trying to decide...does it make sense to create 50 methods, one for each link for a page object, or do I go against my wishes and pass in linktext from the test itself, feeding into a single method that builds the findBy using that passed in parameter.
On one hand there is way less code within the pageobject, but on the other, tests become more brittle. There is potential for these links to be references in hundreds of tests.
Here is a brief example of my model:
classname extends baseobject{
By someLocator = By.linkText("some text");
By someOtherLocator = By.linkText("some other text");
By andAnotherLocator = By.id("someid");
public void someLinkMethod(){
driver.findElement(someLocator).click();
}
public void someOtherLinkMethod(){
driver.findElement(someOtherLocator).click();
}
public void someidMethod(){
driver.findElement(andAnotherLocator).click();
}
}
Thus we come to the end of the question. This model works great for test design. My services (methods) are insulated and easily maintainable. But what would I do if there were 50 UI mappings for links instead of 2 as I have shown above? I toyed with the following design, but really dislike it #Test:
public void selectFromLeftBar(String barItem){
driver.findElement(by.linkText(barItem)).click();
}
Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated!
Do it in your page object class. Here are the reasons:
What does your code do if your page changes the link text? You have to go into each test and change that text, even if the link does the same thing.
What happens if your page removes that link? You are stuck with the same problem, namely, having to find each time you call that link. If its a method...then you delete the method, and your IDE notifies you of each instance that you used it.
Finally, you are providing a standard interface for the test. If you make an exception here, what would stop you from passing other things into your page?
As a side note, I would recommend only mapping elements that you are going to use. I've found that if I map out every element I could possibly ever need then I end up with a massive class filled with fluff and less time on my hands.
I have a GUI class with a menu of buttons and textfields. Depending on what choices that is made in the menu and the input, methods in the GUI class are calling methods in the Logic class to send the input and create new objects of Customer class and Account class and so on.
To be able to communicate between the GUI- and the Logic class, I first create an object of the Logic class and I do that inside the GUI class, since it's here I have my main method. It this the best way to do it? Do I need some kind of reference variable between GUI- and Logic class or just use the reference when the object was created in the beginning of the GUI class? I guess to be able to communicate with a class, it must be an object first!? Thanks!
Logic logic = new Logic();
logic.addCustomer(name, number);
Ideally you shouldn't directly create the logic class.
You should break down the functionality into a number of small classes, each of which satisfy a responsibility.
A simplistic way would be for the GUI class to create listeners which listen to the user events. In response the to the use event they fire events that your logic registers itself for. Then when the event is received the logic class can perform the functionality.
You should read about observer pattern, event driven design...
You can read about event driven programming here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event-driven_programming .
I would instantiate the Logic class outside the GUI, but pass it as an argument to the GUI constructor. It's nearly equivalent to what you are already doing, but I think it makes it clearer that the GUI uses a Logic object. Also, it's possible that Logic does some other things before/after the GUI starts/closes; it might not be the case now, but it could be true in the future if you extend your program.
Many other answers tell you to look at MVC, but that might be overkill for your project. It can decrease complexity for a large project, but increase it for a small one.
EDIT:
Logic login = new Logic();
...
MyGUI gui = new MyGUI(logic);
...
I would suggest you do some researches on the MVC architecture. Your GUI (view) shouldn't interact directly with your model (logic). Implement a controller that will get the "signals" from your view and will be in charge to create your "logic objects" and work with them.
You can create on object of type Logic in your main and store a reference of the object in your Window object - so you can access your Logic object as long as the window exists.
You should look up the Singleton design pattern for such trivial scenarios.
By default, Java uses Reference variables. Hence, if you instantiate your object in GUI class, make sure you send the object via method calls to your processing class.
Alternatively, you can look into singleton classes, which will return only one instance of the class. Inside that class, instantiate all the objects that you will need globally, and re-use that instance throughout your program.
Generally you can. If your application is very simple.
But this approach is not scalable. As your application gets more complex it became much harder for development and support. Try to consider Model–view–controller pattern to define a best way for your design. (according to your nick name I'll take a risk to propose an alternative link)
I have a number of GUI classes that is accessing the same information object which is set from its constructor.
Each GUI class displays the gui information object in a different way.
Is it better to initialise the object each time in the constructor or just add the object to memory and use it each time a GUI class requires it ? Does either method fall into a design pattern ?
Before even reading up on specific object design patterns, a good starting place is to read up on the MVC (Model View Controller) pattern. It's probably the most commonly used architecture pattern out there, and a google search will bring up tons of good material (Wikipedia would even be a good place to start in this case)
It's used to address the problem you've hinted at, where your various display logic has to frequently access the same information holding logic. In an application which uses an MVC architecture, your code is (more or less) separated into three categories, code which displays information in a UI, code which holds (or models) information, and code which controls the flow of the application and application events. MVC applications commonly use listeners and other event design patterns, like the ones mentioned above.
Take look at dependency injection, listeners and event bus.
I would suggest dependency injection, there are a lot of frameworks out there. My favorite is guice but YMMV.
How about using a strategy pattern?. Basically just define a set of classes that inherit from the same interface such as
public interface GUIBehavior {
}
//Set of classes
public behavior1 implementse GUIBehavior...
//In the clases that display the information simply set an attribute for the behavior
private GUIBehavior myCurrentBehavior;
i've started on some basic java coding with gwt, and im getting a bit concerned about the heft of my main class.
For instance - how does one compartmentalize the keyhandlers, since they trigger a number of changes to the UI, how could i move this into a separate .class file and still be able to access all the various widgets in the main class, without having to pass everything to the handler (ie. all the widgets i manipulate after the click event).
i've googled but didnt come across any particularly good examples - know of any readily legible code-bases i could read to see how it should be done? (gwt's own tuts are pretty basic, and just kitchen-sink every thing into a single file)
thanks!
I hate to say something so unimaginative, but MVC works--it's not the ultimate, but it can start getting you organized.
EDIT: While searching on a semi-related topic, I came across this which has similar ideas to mine but goes into more detail.
What that means in terms of GWT is that you should think of just laying out your GUI components in one class, put all your event handling in a second and put your object model objects separate from the other two.
One way to accomplish this is to make most or all the controls on your GUI public members. This sounds kind of lame, but their usage is encapsulated inside the controller so it's not like you have uncontrollable access--in fact your access is clearer/better defined than if all your members were private but your view code was combined with the controller.
Specific tricks:
Have listeners be their own class. You can often reuse them-- in other words, avoid anonymous inner classes. I sometimes create a listener class and instantiate a new instance for each button/control that needs to have a similar effect when pressed. If I need it to act slightly differently for a given button, I'll pass something into the constructor of the "special" handlers so that they know to act a little differently. You can also create different handler sub-classes if necessary--I'm just saying don't forget that event handlers are classes, you can use inheritance and everything if need be.
One Very Old GUI Trick I learned a long time ago, try not to have various mini-handlers modifying the GUI in different ways, instead have all the "active" buttons and controls set a state within your GUI and then call a single method that applies that state to ALL the controls on your GUI. When you get beyond a trivial GUI this can be a life-saver. If I'm not being clear, leave a comment and I'll leave an example for you.
Property sheets:
There is a special case for GUIs--the property sheet style GUI. I've done a LOT of these and they are irritating as HELL. They tend to have dozens or hundreds of controls on them, each GUI control tends to be tied to a specific field in your model and there are just hundreds of lines of copy and paste boilerplate code connecting them, each group copied and pasted with a few items changed--at minimum it's like 3 lines of code per control (Create control, copy value in and copy value out).
I always write these with a "Smart" controller--one that can intelligently bind the control to some data without any unique code. This can get tricky and if this is your problem let me know in the comments and I can give you some general advice as to some tricks you might try. I've gone from a minimal reflective solution to a full-on XML based solution. Were I to do it again, I might consider annotation-based.
Example of MVC:
Note, this is just an example, there are a MILLION ways to do MVC.
In your MAIN:
Instantiate MyView
Instantiate MyModel
Instantiate MyController(myView, myModel)
myView.setVisible(true)
in MyView
probably extends Frame
Most components are public final (public final Button b=new Button())
If public members make you nervous, use getters--same EXACT effect as public final members with a little extra syntax.
Remember that you can set final members in your constructor.
May have general methods such as reset(), but MyController may be a better place for this.
in MyController
saves references to myView and myModel
adds listeners to myView where necessary (see advice on listeners above)
configures myView based on state of myModel
when "done" button pressed, copies state from myView to myModel
notifies myModel that it's data has been updated and destroys itself.
in MyModel:
This would be a typical model class, it would contain your business logic (mostly not used as part of the GUI, that's more like GUI logic in MyController. The controller would tend to set values in your business logic then call some method like updated() to cause some business logic to take control. It should know nothing of a GUI--this is your "pure" business class.
Sometimes the GUI might call an update() or some other method to trigger some data change and then reload the GUI controls from the Model--this is a fairly good way to integrate your business logic with your GUI without your model knowing about the GUI...
Also, as I said above, I would put more work into MyController if I was working with property sheets just due to the sheer number of lines of boilerplate that you end up with if you aren't smart about it.
Note that View and Controller are nearly always paired. You can't just replace a Swing view with a web view and expect the controller to remain unmolested--but the model should not ever change for the view or controller.
You should take a look at the best practices for GWT applications first:
http://code.google.com/events/io/2009/sessions/GoogleWebToolkitBestPractices.html
One of the concepts they talk about is that of MVP (not MVC) to structure your application. There's a sample project on Google Code that you can look at to understand how to structure a GWT application in this way:
http://code.google.com/p/gwt-mvp/