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

Motorola MC65

We have a new PDA in town now. As a replacement for the army of MC9000 and MC70s that are in the field and are being discontinued, we now are moving up to the Motorola MC65. I have had the new handheld for about a week now and have been impressed so far. It's a great improvement over the MC70. I have no idea how the numbering system of the Symbol / Motorola devices works. I assume there must be several ranges such as the 50s 60s and 70s.? Anyway the?PDA?has windows mobile 6.5.3, a better touch screen and is faster. Much faster. The skin that has been put on the OS has also applied to our software and I think it makes it look much cooler. We had several problems in adjusting our software so it would work with the new MC65. First was the change in resolution. The MC70 has a much lower resolution than the MC65s and as some of our screens were not using the auto scale settings in the form and some of the buttons on our forms were created at run time rather than design time, this posed

Accessing the UI Thread with Tasks in F#

I have a Windows Forms program written in F# that can deploy a code base to n number of sites at once (you select the sites you would like to deploy to and it goes off and completes a number of tasks (backing up current sites, various unpacking and moving of files etc... ). Once you start it, it begins it's merry journey and begins to update the UI with what has happened. At the moment this method of updating the UI is not pretty because the threads I am doing the work on can't update the UI so I perform some fiendery to make that happen (don't ask). I knew there was a better way using some newer .NET features but I just hadn't got round to having a fiddle yet. I have now found that if you use the built in Task class but break your code up in a nicer way and then chain the tasks together you can then pass the correct context into the task that you want to talk to the UI. Here's a little script to give you a feel for it. You can press the "start" butt

Cab Control

Received another call today from a company interested in my  Cab Control Software . Basically it's taxi management . The software needs a re-write to get it from Windows Forms onto the web. I have great hopes for the software. It really just needs to time and ingenuity pouring into it. I have loads of ideas for it but just have so little time.  It currently has this functionality which I'll need to get across:  Add drivers and Taxis and keep track of their contact details, addresses, licence details, CRB checks and eligibility to work in the UK. Basic account management functions, such as creating a customer account and putting the account on hold.  Add Bookings for drivers and customers Creating reports for customer accounts that could be exported as a CSV file for billing purposes.  Creating reports for drivers to know how many pickups the drivers had made. Query the bookings for enquiries and police check up reports. Provide management tools to check MOT and Service details