Skip to main content

Making your domain less mutable

This happens regularly to me (and from my anecdotal investigation everyone involved in large / old projects). We need a new piece of functionality. I write it, it's beautiful and I win the internet. I have estimated 8 days (or 22.23 lol-points depending on how you live) and it's only taken 4 days.

Ah, but then a very small; mostly ignored and very unimportant detail rears it's cruel head. You need to make it work with the code that exists already. This is normally in the form of saving to some pre-existing entities. Oh dear. You save everything through the various management / service classes that exist already and nothing works. So begins the next couple of days of horror.

You find that you didn't set the work = true. Most of my woes in this area are caused by modifications at layer further down (or the stored procedure it finally ends up in) changing the object that I was trying to save or not saving part of the object because of some rule.

So many errors are caused by objects being used and abused and then changed or properties being altered somewhere by someone you weren't expecting. I have a couple of tips to help try and mitigate these problems. Of course, as Devs this shouldn't happen, you should test everything, other people should test everything, it should pass code review and so on and so forth. However that's all well and good but you aren't in control of the future. You don't know what the level of skill of the devs who pick up your code base in the future will have and you don't know what procedures will be added / removed.

Keep classes sealed!

Don't let your class be abused by some future fiend. Unless you are writing something specifically as a base class, the likelihood of it needing to be inherited from is slim. More likely is that someone is trying to do some good old fashioned lazy code-reuse by inheriting your lovely class instead of refactoring the functionality. Of course if a genuine reason crops up the future for the inheritence.... er, just change it! But let the need drive what you do.

Make constructors internal

Stop your object being created in the wrong assembly by making the constructor internal. This way, you can retrieve the object from the repository but you can't create a random new object for who knows what. You might not always need to do this, but I like to allow a command object or other method of instruction to create an object, this keeps the knowledge of how the object is created and what business rules need to be applied out of the calling assembly.

Control how your properties are set

Make properties private set or use public readonly fields that are set using the constructor. If you can at all, try to make changing an object once it exists, as difficult as possible unless your intention is for the property to change for a specific reason. The reason I love F# is that you have to specifically call a value mutable if you need it to change and it's discouraged.

Use an interface to control mutating an object

I stopped using this a couple of years ago as it seemed overkill but then recently we ran into problems of abuse again and although you can help people when you work somewhere and you can leave documentation and coding conventions you need to think about your legacy. Explicitly making the object be cast using the interface (object as IEditableObject) means you can control how the object is updated. If you make the interface internal to the correct assembly too you can stop people just getting an object out of the database, saving it and bypassing any logic that should have been applied.

From the above, if we now try to use some of the functionality from a calling assembly (for example the website or application assembly). We are very limited to how we can interact with the object. In this case, we are limited to pulling objects out of the repository as readonly objects and we have to use a command object if we want something to happen. Obviously the command object very well could be a "service" or whatever method you fancy using.


Popular posts from this blog

Creating star ratings in HTML and Javascript

I'd searched around a little for some shortcuts to help in doing this but I couldn't find anything satisfactory that included the ability to pull the rating off again for saving. I'd ended up coming up with this rather cheeky solution. Hopefully it helps you too! This is my first post in a while (I stopped blogging properly about 8 years ago!) It's strange coming back to it. Blogger feels very crusty and old by todays standards too.

Make your objects immutable by default

More about the Good Dojo In my post last week , I discussed creating objects that are instantiated safely. Please go back and read if you are interested. At the end of the post, I mentioned that I'd also written the class so it was immutable when instantiated. This is important!!! I feel like a broken record in repeating this but I am sure at the time of writing your code, you aren't modifying your object all over the place and so are safe in the belief that protecting against mutability is overkill. Please remember though, your code could be around for a hell of a long time. You aren't writing your code for now... you are writing for the next fool that comes along (including you) . Nothing is more upsetting that coming back to fix a bug on some wonderfully crafted code to say "Who has butchered my code?!", but often you were involved at the start of the process. You made the code easy to modify, allowing objects to be used / reused / modified without thi

An instantiated object should be "ok"

I've been QA'ing quite a bit of work recently and one common theme I've noticed across both Java and C# projects I have been looking at is that we occasionally open ourselves up unessacarily to Exceptions by the way objects are being created. My general rule of thumb (which I have seen mentioned in a Pluralsight video recently but also always re-iterate in various Robust Software talks I have done) is that you shouldn't be able to create an object and then call a method or access a property that then throws an exception. At worst, it should return null (I'm not going to moan about that now). I've created an example below. We have two Dojos, one is good and one is bad. The bad dojo looks very familiar though. It's a little class written in the style that seems often encouraged. In fact, many classes start life as something like this. Then as years go on, you and other colleagues add more features to the class and it's instantiation becomes a second