Skip to main content

Header Interfaces vs Role Interfaces

In some languages such as C++ you must define header interfaces. These constructs define how a public type is exposed in terms of its public interface. Other languages take a different route. C# or Java do not require headers but they are still very much in circulation. This unfortunately brings along some unwanted side effects.

Header Interfaces

Header interfaces are a one to one mapping of public methods that match the type it is defining. In other words, they are recreating the overhead of headers in languages that do not need them.

  • Header interfaces tend to break the Interface Segregation Principle.
  • Harder to switch objects via DI as you are forced to implement all members even if you do not use the whole interface.
  • Prone to breakages as the one to one mapping means any change is breaking.

Role Interfaces

Role interfaces define the role an object plays. Due to various roles having different responsibilities they are usually grouped by functionality. Role interfaces are usually combined with composition or interface inheritance.

The role of a Developer has now been introduced. This is a separate concept from the rest of the object.

  • Easier to follow the Interface Segregation Principle.
  • Closely related to the Liskov Substitution Principle - no need for partial implementations.
  • Less chance of breaking changes - interfaces can be removed or added easily.
  • Reduced scope - anything that fulfils the role of Developer can be provided as an argument.
  • DI frameworks may take more configuration if role interfaces are used. This may explain the bias towards header interfaces.

More

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Constant Object Anti Pattern

Most constants are used to remove magic numbers or variables that lack context. A classic example would be code littered with the number 7. What does this refer to exactly? If this was replaced with DaysInWeek or similar, much clarity is provided. You can determine that code performing offsets would be adding days, rather than a mysterious number seven.Sadly a common pattern which uses constants is the use of a single constant file or object. The beauty of constants is clarity, and the obvious fact such variables are fixed. When a constant container is used, constants are simply lumped together. These can grow in size and often become a dumping ground for all values within the application.A disadvantage of this pattern is the actual value is hidden. While a friendly variable name is great, there will come a time where you will want to know the actual value. This forces you to navigate, if only to peek at the value within the constant object. A solution is to simple perform a refactor …

Three Steps to Code Quality via TDD

Common complaints and problems that I've both encountered and hear other developers raise when it comes to the practice of Test Driven Development are: Impossible to refactor without all the tests breakingMinor changes require hours of changes to test codeTest setup is huge, slow to write and difficult to understandThe use of test doubles (mocks, stubs and fakes is confusing)Over the next three posts I will demonstrate three easy steps that can resolve the problems above. In turn this will allow developers to gain one of the benefits that TDD promises - the ability to refactor your code mercifully in order to improve code quality.StepsStop Making Everything PublicLimit the Amount of Dependencies you Use A Unit is Not Always a Method or ClassCode quality is a tricky subject and highly subjective, however if you follow the three guidelines above you should have the ability to radically change implementation details and therefore improve code quality when needed.

DRY vs DAMP in Tests

In the previous post I mentioned that duplication in tests is not always bad. Sometimes duplication becomes a problem. Tests can become large or virtually identically excluding a few lines. Changes to these tests can take a while and increase the maintenance overhead. At this point, DRY violations need to be resolved.SolutionsTest HelpersA common solution is to extract common functionality into setup methods or other helper utilities. While this will remove and reduce duplication this can make tests a bit harder to read as the test is now split amongst unrelated components. There is a limit to how useful such extractions can help as each test may need to do something slightly differently.DAMP - Descriptive and Meaningful PhrasesDescriptive and Meaningful Phrases is the alter ego of DRY. DAMP tests often use the builder pattern to construct the System Under Test. This allows calls to be chained in a fluent API style, similar to the Page Object Pattern. Internally the implementation wil…