Bloated Domain Objects And CQRS (Command, Query Responsibility Segregation)
 

Problem of Bloated Domain objects

In business software applications, the domain objects (entities) are used to represent the business domain. As the application grows and adds more business logic, the service layer, mappers and other patterns gets applied. Often this leads to domain object becomes bloated and the related components become huge & un-maintainable.

CQRS solves the common problem of having a bloated Domain objects. The domain objects get bloated largely because of bounded context. The series of contexts which makes developers think that a single domain object is sufficient to handle all the related things. For example, a large Invoice object for handling Invoice, Shipment and handling change of address for customer . But in reality, these contexts (invoicing, shipment and change) need not be related to same Invoice entity.

What is Command, Query Responsibility segregation (CQRS)?

In order to simplify the Domain objects, CQRS proposes to have two types of domain entities.

  • those serving the command (ordering/assertion services)  – For example, SaveCustomer, CreateInvoice, ShipProduct etc
  • those serving a Query (request) – examples include GetCustomerAddress, SearchCustomer etc

With this separation, the complexity (number of fields, methods) of entities used becomes simplified. And hence the Data mapper layers & the service layers becomes more simplified.

Where can I use CQRS?

  • Largely complex system: Applying CQRS on a simple CRUD operation based system is a over kill. When there is a domain heavy system, like banking and financing systems, LOB applications where business logic, lots of boundary conditions are heavy. Where it makes DDD (Domain driven design) provides high value.
  • Situations where you will apply Microservices, Eventual consistency and Event Sourcing. When we have separation of concerns using CQRS, the microservices becomes much simpler to design and maintain. With Event sourcing we are focused on getting the data (query) from other related sources and is what CQRS propagates.

Final words

CQRS is a carefully thought out pattern for simplifying large and complex systems. And it should not be applied for simple green field applications. Do let me know what you think.

50 Web Performance Tips and Tricks
 

I came across the below video on the web performance improvement tips and tricks. This is fantastic.

http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Build/2012/3-132

In this video, Jatinder talks about Six fundamental principles for improving web application performance. He also talks a lot about how we go about Decreasing CPU time and increasing parallelism on the client machine to achieve faster web performance.

While I went through the video, I captured all the tricks he talks about. And thought will be useful for others while they watch it. Please find below the tricks.

Quickly respond to network request

  • Avoid 3XX Redirections (63% of top websites use redirect)
  • Avoid Meta refresh
  • Minimize Server time for Requests
  • Use Content distribution Networks (CDN)
  • Maximize concurrent connections.
  • Reuse connections – don’t sent connection close.
  • Know your other servers – you are only fast as your weakest link
  • Understand your network timing

Minimize bytes downloaded

  • GZIP Compression Network traffic
  • Persist application resources locally (Windows 8 applications)
  • Cache dynamic resources in the application Cache (html5 app cache)
  • Provide cacheable content
  • Send Conditional request
  • Cache Data requests (jQuery AJAX calls)
  • Standardize File name capitalization convention.

Efficiently structure markup

  • Load pages in latest browser mode
  • Use http header to specify legacy IE mode
  • Link CSS in the top of the page header, never on the bottom.
  • Avoid using @import of hierarchical styles
  • avoid embedded and inline CSS
  • Only include necessary styles in the page.
  • Always link JS at the end of the page.
  • Avoid linking JS in the header (use the defer & async attribute)
  • Avoid Inline JS
  • Remove Duplicate code (52% of the web have duplicate code
  • Standardize on a single framework

Optimize your media usage

  • Avoid death by too many images
  • If possible use Image Sprites
  • Use png image file format
  • Use Native image resolutions
  • Replace Images with CSS3 Gradients, border Radius
  • Leverage CSS3 Transforms
  • Use Data URI’s for Small Single view images
  • Avoid complex SVG paths
  • Video : Use preview images
  • Minimize media plugin usage
  • Proactively download Future media

Write Fast JavaScript

  • Stick to Integer math (Math.Floor)
  • Minify your JavaScript
  • Initialize JavaScript on Demand
  • Minimize your DOM Interactions
  • Built in DOM methods always more efficient (firstchild, nextsibling methods are faster)
  • Use Selectors for Collection access (document.querySelectorAll)
  • Use .innerHTML to construct your page
  • Batch your markup changes
  • Maintain smaller DOM (less than 1000 elements)
  • Json always faster than XML
  • Use Native Json methods
  • Use regular expressions Sparingly

Know what your app is doing

  • Understand JavaScript Timers (setTimeout, SetInterval)
  • Combine Application Timers
  • Ensure dormant timers are not running
  • Align timers to display Frame (16.7)
  • Use window.requestAminationFrame(renderLoop) for Animations
  • Know when your application is visible (document.hidden, Visibilitychange (event))

Conclusion

The web optimization is not easy and needs exhaustive deep look and hopefully this check list helps while optimizing your pages. Enjoy coding high performing applications. If you have more tips please provide them in the comments.

 

BDD (Behavior Driven Development)
 

In the previous article we looked at how to do Test Driven Development (TDD) while doing the XP (Extreme Programming). In XP, the implementation of the tasks are done in the steering phase of the iteration planning. One of the tenets of the steering phase is “functional tests are run”. In this article we will see how to create functional tests using Behavior driven development (BDD) and its benefits.

Following are the some of the benefits of automated functional tests.

  • Functionality experienced by the User is tested
  • Saves testing time for the developers
  • Test in every environment (Dev, QA, Stage) without much effort
  • Generates confidence in every stake holder

Tools required for doing BDD in .Net

There are various tools available to do BDD in .Net. I have listed few of them below

SpecFlow is one of the most popular tools used in the .Net/C# community. And in this blog lets use the same. The tool comes as a Visual Studio Extension and can be downloaded directly from VS.

Creating a SpecFlow Project

Once SpecFlow extension is installed, the template required for doing BDD will be installed.

  • Create a simple “Class Library” Project in Visual studio
  • In the project, create a SpecFlow Feature file

Selecting the test framework

Before we Create/execute the scenario, we need to wire the SpecFlow with a compatible test framework. To do that we need to make changes to the app.Config file of the project.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<configuration>
  <configSections>
    <section name="specFlow" type="TechTalk.SpecFlow.Configuration.ConfigurationSectionHandler, TechTalk.SpecFlow" />
  </configSections>
  <specFlow>
    <!-- For additional details on SpecFlow configuration options see http://go.specflow.org/doc-config -->
  <!-- For additional details on SpecFlow configuration options see http://go.specflow.org/doc-config -->
    <unitTestProvider name="xUnit" />
  </specFlow>
</configuration>

In this example we are using XUnit as the testing framework. SpecFlow supports a series of testing frameworks and more details can be found here.

Creating the Behavior

Now, let us look at how to create a functional test using behavior driven approach. Let’s consider the following story while creating a POS (point of sale) application for a super market.

“As a Supermarket POS app developer,  i would like the API to Give the total amount while billing so that I can wire up API against the UI.

Let’s write the Behavior required in order to implement the above API requirement .

Feature: SuperMarketProductsAPI
	As a Supermarket Biller 
	i would like the API to
	Give the total amount while billing
@SmokeTest
Scenario: Find the total amount while billing
	Given Shopping cart is filled with all the items required by consumer
	And Campaign information for the month is available in the system
	When I pass the cart to create bill API
	Then the total bill amount should be calculated

The above specification is written using the custom language (testing DSL) create by the specflow.org. (Please read about what is DSL here.)

There are 2 parts to the above Specflow specification

  • Feature – Denotes bigger context (description/story) of the application
  • Scenario – Specific workflow or behavior of the system under the feature. Each scenario has the following sub-parts
    • Given, And – describes what we already assumed available
    • When – The specific action which will trigger the workflow/behavior
    • Then  – expected behavior

 

Creating step definitions

When we run the unit test corresponding to the above test we it will fail as there are no definitions corresponding to the above scenarios.

Now Right Click on the feature file and select “Generate step Definitions”

You will see the pop-up like below, select “Generate” and then “Save” the file.

The file will have the details about “what SpecFlow should do when test is executed”.

using System;
using TechTalk.SpecFlow;

namespace SuperMarketFunctionalTests
{
    [Binding]
    public class SuperMarketProductsAPISteps
    {
        [Given(@"Shopping cart is filled with all the items required by consumer")]
        public void GivenShoppingCartIsFilledWithAllTheItemsRequiredByConsumer()
        {
            ScenarioContext.Current.Pending();
        }
        
        [Given(@"Campaign information for the month is available in the system")]
        public void GivenCampaignInformationForTheMonthIsAvailableInTheSystem()
        {
            ScenarioContext.Current.Pending();
        }
        
        [When(@"I pass the cart to create bill API")]
        public void WhenIPassTheCartToCreateBillAPI()
        {
            ScenarioContext.Current.Pending();
        }
        
        [Then(@"the total bill amount should be calculated")]
        public void ThenTheTotalBillAmountShouldBeCalculated()
        {
            ScenarioContext.Current.Pending();
        }
    }
}

When you build the project and execute the test corresponding to this, it will fail. This is because none of the parts of the test (given, when, then) are having implementation.

Writing code to make it work

Now that the behavior has been created, we are good to validate that with the team and implement the code/functionality corresponding to the requirement. Of course using best coding practices like TDD 🙂

Making the behavior test pass

In order to make the behavior test pass we need to write the implementation in the “Step Definition” file.

namespace SuperMarketFunctionalTests
{
    using Newtonsoft.Json;
    using System.Collections.Generic;
    using System.Net.Http;
    using TechTalk.SpecFlow;
    using Xunit;

    [Binding]
    public class SuperMarketProductsAPISteps
    {
        Product P1 = new Product { Name = "test1", Cost = 5 };
        Product P2 = new Product { Name = "test2", Cost = 10 };
        ShoppingCart cart;
        List<Campaign> campaign;
        Bill bill;
        [Given(@"Shopping cart is filled with all the items required by consumer")]
        public void GivenShoppingCartIsFilledWithAllTheItemsRequiredByConsumer()
        {
            cart = new ShoppingCart { Products = new List<Product> { P1, P2 } };
        }
        
        [Given(@"Campaign information for the month is available in the system")]
        public void GivenCampaignInformationForTheMonthIsAvailableInTheSystem()
        {
            campaign = new List<Campaign> { new Campaign { product = P1, discount = 1 } };
        }
        
        [When(@"I pass the cart to create bill API")]
        public void WhenIPassTheCartToCreateBillAPI()
        {
            var client = new HttpClient();
            var response = client.PostAsync("http://myapi.supermarket.com", new StringContent(JsonConvert.SerializeObject(cart))).Result;
            var output = response.Content.ReadAsStringAsync().Result;
            bill = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<Bill>(output);
        }
        
        [Then(@"the total bill amount should be calculated")]
        public void ThenTheTotalBillAmountShouldBeCalculated()
        {
            Assert.True(bill.totalAmount == 14);
        }
    }
}

Once the code is there we can see the behavior test pass.

Conclusion

BDD is very powerful way of ensuring high code quality in conjunction with business requirement. In Extreme programming (XP) , BDD is considered to be a very important practice where functional tests are mandated to run at least once during the iteration.  Is BDD/Functional tests helping your team/business in achieving success or not ? Do let us know your thoughts.

TDD (Test Driven development)
 

There are lots of practices that need to be followed while doing XP as an agile methodology. And one of them is automated testing. However, there is lots of confusion in the tech industry if you want to test the behavior of the system or the subunits/parts of the system. First, lets us understand these terminologies. In this post, we will talk about Test driven development.

TDD (Test Driven development)

TDD or Test Driven development is an approach in which unit tests drive the development of the code. That is, when there is a new feature that needs to be developed, the unit tests corresponding to the feature is developed first before the actual code need to create the feature is coded.

Let’s take an example. Let’s say at a point of sale system, we need to calculate the bill based on the list of products picked by the consumer. Let’s write unit test corresponding to this code. (I have used C# based XUnit as the unit testing framework)

        [Fact(DisplayName = "SimpleBiller Should Calculate Total bill Amount")]
        public void SimpleBillShouldCalculate()
        {
            //Given
            var ProductsList = new List();
            ProductsList.Add(new Product { Name = "test Product1", Price = 5 });
            ProductsList.Add(new Product { Name = "test Product2", Price = 5 });
            var simpleBill = new SimpleBiller();

            //When
            var bill = simpleBill.GenerateBill(ProductsList);

            //then
            Assert.Equal(10, bill.TotalCost);
        }

In the above Unit test, we have 3 parts.

  • Given
  • When
  • Then

Given

This is the known part of the problem. i.e in mathematical terms, it’s part of the problem. In the example, we have initialized the variables and known things corresponding to the products (selected by the consumer) and the Biller object.

When

This is the business action based on which we are writing the code. In this case its GenerateBill action/method.

Then

The purpose of the tests is to ensure that the code/action does it properly as per the plan. In order to do that, we are asserting the assumptions/result of the method we are testing. In our case, we are asserting the total amount that the bill will have to be generated for.

Running the test

There are three stages of running the test.

  • Red – When we run the test now, it will fail as there is no code corresponding to the calculate bill functionality.
  • Green – In order to fix the above test, let’s write the real code corresponding to the above unit test/requirement.
        public Bill GenerateBill(IEnumerable products)
        {
            var bill = new Bill { Products = products };
            foreach (var product in bill.Products)
            {
                bill.TotalCost += product.Price;
            }

            return bill;
        }

Now, when we call GenerateBill method from the test, it will return the Bill with the total amount.

  • Refactor – With the above code written corresponding to the test, we are sure the functionality is correct as per the requirement. But the code is not optimal, as the foreach loop can be reduced to a simple C# LINQ  expression.
        public Bill GenerateBill(IEnumerable products)
        {
            var bill = new Bill { Products = products };
            bill.TotalCost = bill.Products.Sum(x => x.Price);
            return bill;
        }

Conclusion

TDD is a foolproof approach to developing software as per the requirement. The test also provides confidence to the developers on the edge conditions and other possibilities in the code. However, there is an alternative thought that TDD could waste developer time. Do you think, TDD is the right approach to software development? Please provide your comments.

Contextual Friendship Framework
 

Recently one of my colleague,  Rahul Rathore and I were on a conversation on object-oriented techniques and we both agree that it has lots of inspiration from the real world. Below is the background of our conversation and what emerged out of that.

Background:

The object-oriented languages like C#, Java are more close to real world. We can mimic the real world behaviors in these languages easily. Scenarios are well captured because of their object-oriented abilities. Inheritance, polymorphism, and encapsulation are principles derived from the real world. In the real world, there are more concepts which are applicable to humans but are not well mimicked in the computer world. One of them is Friendship (between objects).

For better code re-usage, Object-oriented programming languages like C++ have a feature called Friend classes. A class in C++ allows access to all the private & protected members to its friend classes.

But in the real world, we share only a few things with our friends based on the context we are in. We have complete control over what we want to share with our friends and families. This is not the case with C++ friend classes; it shares all the private & protected members to its friends. This poses a threat to the object-oriented theory of encapsulation.

Because of this threat, advanced programming languages like C# and Java have completely removed friendship between objects. But friendship can significantly increase code re-usage and cohesion in objects than breaking them. We wanted to have friendship in C# and Java but still, follow other object-oriented principles.

We observe that C# is very easy to use and highly extendable. So we embraced C# and extended it with the custom module which will enable friendship between classes.

Contextual Friendship Framework:

The framework extends the Microsoft.Net framework to enable friendship among classes. This Friendship framework allows developers to add attributes to classes and its members to enable friendship. There are 2 attributes available.

  1. FriendOf – for classes
  2. AvailableToFriends – for members
  3. FriendOf attribute can be applied to a class whose private and protected members need to be made available to specific friend classes. It takes an array of .Net Types as a parameter. AvailableToFriends attribute can be applied to a class member to allow its access to specific friends only.

A Friend class can access a private/protected member of its friend class by using the ‘MakeFriendlyCall’ extension method exposed by the friendship framework. MakeFriendlyCall method is an extension method that internally uses .Net Reflection to reach to private and protected members. MakeFriendlyCall will allow making calls to private/protected members with AvailableToFriends attribute.

Friendship enables selective sharing of members with friend class based on the class definition. The module provides facility to decorate members of a class for granting access to its friend. Let’s understand this using the below example

 
    [FriendOf(typeof(World))]
    public class Hello
    {
        public string Name { get; private set; }
 
        public void HelloPub()
        {
            Console.WriteLine("Public Hello");
        }
 
        [AvailableToFriends(typeof(World))]
        private string PrivateMethodsAvlToFriends(string name)
        {
            Name = name;
            Console.WriteLine("Private Hello : " + Name);
            return Name;
        }
 
        private void PrivateMethod(string d)
        {
            Console.WriteLine("Private method" + d);
        }
    }
 

    public class World
    {
        private void DoSomething()
        {
            var h = new Hello();
            h.MakeFriendlyCall("PrivateMethodAvlToFriends", "John");
        }
    } 

Here we have 2 classes, Hello and World. The Hello class has two private methods “PrivateMethodsAvlToFriends” and “PrivateMethod”. PrivateMethodsAvlToFriends is decorated with AvailableToFriends attribute. Now the Friend class “World” can make a call to this private method. This can be done by using the ‘MakeFriendlyCall’ extension method exposed generically.

Class Diagram Of the dependencies:

FriendshipFramework

Alternative solutions:

  • Friend class in C++
  • C# has Friend Assemblies which allow all internals of a class visible to another assembly using InternalsVisibleTo attribute. This is more generic than the C++ friend class and does not allow selective access.

Comparison of C++ Friend class Vs Friendship Framework:

Criteria C++ Friend Class Friendship Framework
Security All members are available to friends Granular control over what is available to Friends
Encapsulation Breaks Encapsulation Enhances Encapsulation
Re-Usability Part of the C++ library, so re-usable Fully re-usable as the framework is shipped as a package.
Design Pattern Access Modifier Decorator pattern is used. Also, can be implemented using Access Modifier

Future scope:

We have enabled friendship between classes without breaking encapsulation and security. However, this design can be extended to objects of classes, which makes it closer to the real world. After all, we are not sharing our car with a friend all the times.

Also, the Friendship attributes ‘FriendOf’ and ‘AvailableToFriends’ can be converted to new access modifiers like Public, private, protected. This could be done using Roslyn which is a complier extension to .Net. The Friend framework is available in .Net, but can be implemented to Java framework as well.

 

 

Perspective Designing
 

Recently, I was working with a colleague in refactoring one of our projects. As we added tests, we found few code issues and continued refactoring. Was feeling happy as our unit tests were rearing benefits. However, we know TDD or unit testing does not guarantee clean code. As we progressed, the naming conventions consumed a lot of our time. And eventually, it brought us to a discussion about why specific naming conventions can create a better design. Thought I will share our discussions and practices here.

While we design classes for application, we often think of it as a different subject than ourselves (programmer). When I say different subject, we think of it as a different object and not as a person. When a programmer considers classes/interfaces as personalities and thinks from the perspective of the class, design can change drastically. This is what we call “Perspective designing”. Let’s take an Example:

    public interface ITotalTaxCalculator
    {
        decimal Calculate(IEnumerable products);
    }

    public class TotalTaxCalculator : ITotalTaxCalculator
    {
        public decimal Calculate(IEnumerable products)
        {
            decimal total = 0.0;
            //add total of products etc....
            foreach (var product in products)
        	{
                using(var dbContext = new ProductContext())
                {
                    var productInDb = dbContext.FistOrDefault(prod => prod.Id == product.Id)
                    total += (total * productInDb.taxRate);
                }
        	}
            return total;
        }
    }

In the above example, the name of the class and interface are perfectly fine. But they are impersonal and it’s very hard to think of it as a person and bring in perspective thinking with these names. So we refactored them to ‘ICanCalculateTotalTax’ and  ‘TotalTaxMan’.

public interface ICanCalculateTotalTax
{
    decimal Calculate(IEnumerable products);
}

public class TotalTaxMan : ICanCalculatorTotalTax
{
    public decimal Calculate(IEnumerable products)
    {
        decimal total = 0.0;
        //add total of products etc....
        //blah blah blah..
        total += (total * taxRate);
        return total;
    }
}

These naming conversions have lots of inspiration from in NServiceBus for their class/Interface names. With the new class and interface names, it’s easy to think of them as personalities. However, this does not guarantee good design. So we needed refactoring. Perspective thinking comes in handy especially while we do refactoring When my colleague and I started putting ourselves in the place of each of the classes. We had very reasonable questions which triggered our object-oriented thinking.

Example1:  As ‘ICanCalculateTotalTax’ , why I am having database related behavior?

Example2: As ‘ICanCalculateTax’, why I am having logic to find which language it needs to be presented?

These questions helped us to refactor the code to follow good design principles. When we implement these interfaces/abstract classes, we have clarity on what the class is capable of doing. So we generalized these naming conventions & questioning attitude and derived below two rules to do Perspective designing (think like a class).

  • Give personality to the names of  classes/interfaces (example: ICanCalculateTax)
  • Use the Agile User Stories way of articulating what the class should and should not do. (example: As ‘ICanCalculateTax’, I should be able to provide behavior to calculate tax)

I think, “Perspective designing” can make classes more object-oriented and best practice like SOLID principles automatically fall in line. Let me know your thoughts.

SOLID Principles
 

Many of the old programmers have adopted SOLID principles and it is taught in lots of schools these days. Yet I find many people not clearly understanding SOLID principles. I think these principles are fundamental to creating good object oriented software and every developer should learn them. So I have series of posts for these principles

Single Responsibility : A piece of software always have a single responsibility!
What this basically translates into is that a piece of code should have one and only one functionality. The corollary to this would be that  a piece of code should have only a single reason to change. Some advantages of this would be to ensure minimal change to existing classes in case of a change in requirements, which avoids larger testing efforts for a larger number of classes changed, which cuts down on testing efforts and increase turnaround times, which leads to lower overall cost of ownership for the code, which saves $$.

Take the example of a logging class. As a software developer, chances are pretty high that you’ve all at some point used some form of a logger, be it log4j, its .Net port log4net, Serilog, Elmah or a number of other logging frameworks that are out there. At their core, one thing all these libraries have in common is their focus one one thing. Logging messages. Be it to a flat file, RDBMS, other or other forms of persistence. At no point do these libraries attempt to do anything more than just that. Now a lot of you have also used the same libraries to do something seemingly different, such as  sending out emails for example. The beauty of their design however is that at their core the implementations of these libraries themselves do things at a slightly higher level of abstraction. Namely, they take data, including the message level / severity, to be logged (from a source) and deliver it to a sink (which in most cases happens to be a flat file). While writing to flat files is usually the default implementation of the data sink provided by the frameworks, at their true level of abstraction, they are simply conduits for data, providing solid low level implementations for supporting different logging levels based on configuration. Even the basic things that we take for granted, such as file lock management, rolling log files etc, aren’t truly in the hands of the core framework. These auxiliary features are handled by specific implementations of the log sinks, from DMBS connectors, to file writers, and even SMTP appenders. This brings us to the second principle.

Open-Closed Principle : Software should be open for extension and closed for modification. This weird sounding principle basically attempts to convey that code should be designed such that allows its behavior to be modified without actually modifying the source code for the class itself

Now, historically, this principle has been interpreted in a few different ways, but they have all relied on inheritance to achieve the purported goal.

One interpretation of this principle suggests that a class is ‘open’ for extension if its structure enables us to add new properties or functions in addition to the existing ones provided by the structure. The ‘closed’ part of this interpretation applies when the module by itself is available for other modules for use through its publicly available interface.

The other interpretation of the open closed principle (based on a polymorphic view) refers to the use of abstractions and interfaces to provide and extend certain behaviors, while keeping other (often core) implementation details hidden, and closed to change.

The logger example from the first solid principle is a prime example of this approach, where the implementations of the data sinks (often referred to as appenders) are often supported purely through configuration without touching the core conduit between the source and the sink. The fie appender writing to flat files however, still maintains the Single Responsibility principle by assuming responsibility for only writing to flat files, while also taking care of features and issues specific to flat files such as managing file locks, and often providing out of the box support for rolling log files that prevent log files from becoming too large to manage and view using ordinary text editors.

Liskov’s Substitution Principle : Child class object can be substituted for a base class variable. This one is a slightly more theoretical concept than the others, as unlike the others, it tries more to enforce consistency of behavior between parent and child classes than the syntax of the classes themselves.

The gist of the matter is that if S is a sub type of base type T, then all instances of T in a program should be replaceable with instances of type S without altering the desirable properties of the program. Note the use of the term ‘desirable’, which has a more semantic implication than, say the easier to observe consistency of method signatures that is often associated with overriding / hiding of method implementations in class hierarchies. Without going into the technical details of the precise rules proposed under this rule, it is safe to say that if you see a method or property in a sub type behaving drastically differently from the implementation of its parent, chances are that this principle is being violated in some form.

Interface Segregation: Many interfaces (client specific) is better than the single monolithic interface.

Dependency Inversion : Just depend on abstractions and not implementations.

Learning SOLID principles have changed my programming life and the real one. We shall see each of these principles in more detail in the coming posts.

Language of the Developers
 

There are lots of people who tell me that they need to understand specific design patterns (factory, observer, chain of responsibility etc). And after we spend quite some time discussing the topic they brought up, I ask them why they wanted to understand the original topic. The answers were quite surprising to me. Most of them said, “Design patterns are the trend now”. Some of them said, “I want to write good code”. Some of the candidly accepted “I was asked about this in an interview”.

Well, Design patterns are the new trend in the software industry and are being asked in most of the senior level technical interviews. For me, these reasons don’t qualify to take steps to understand design patterns. But the answer “I want to write good code” was quite interesting. Since a person wants to write good code, he/she is finding ways to improve it by applying patterns. Of course, Design patterns are good to understand and it saves time to know about how to solve a requirement/problem. If we take a step back and see if we really need to understand Design patterns to write good software, the answer is a big NO. Good software’s have emerged even before GoF patterns were documented. So why do we need to understand Design patterns?

When we write the code required to solve the problems, when we write optimal code, when we write code which is readable, testable and maintainable, we would have already applied the correct strategies/principles to solve the problem. But we should realize that when we write code we create a document not only for the compiler but also for other developers to read. How can we explain our code to another developer in a short time? We need a language !! Christopher Alexander (father of design patterns) calls this as the Pattern Language. A language that professional designers can use to communicate designs. He defines what are patterns with respect to this language.

The elements of this language are entities called patterns. Each pattern describes a problem that occurs over and over again in our environment, and then describes the core of the solution to that problem, in such a way that you can use this solution a million times over, without ever doing it the same way twice. — Christopher Alexander

In Software terms, Design patterns are the constructs of a language, professional software developers can use to communicate their design. Until a developer needs to communicate their design/code, they need not know Design patterns! But developers communicate mostly with code. When the code communicates, patterns in the code will help the reader to quickly understand it.