Skip to main content

A Lotta Architecture - A Reply to "A Little Architecture"

A recent post about architecture from Uncle Bob got me thinking and talking about a typical day in the life of a developer. It's well worth a read. In fact at the time of writing this reply there are 347 retweets and 288 likes - of which I was one of those statistics.

The advice is practical and advice that I agree with. Except this is not the full story. While deferring architectural decisions as late as possible is a good thing, such details actually tend to be the most important, costly and difficult parts of an application.

In the example the BusinessRuleGateway allows the business logic to be coded in pure isolation, using a stub or fake. This is fantastic and provides numerous benefits. Sadly the actual implementation of the gateway requires knowledge of MySql. This may be obvious but the decision of what database to use cannot be deferred or ignored forever.

Once chosen you will require intricate knowledge of how it works and is implemented. When things go wrong and you are staring at a one hundred line stack trace, you better hope you understand how the DB is configured.

Additionally the gateway interface demonstrates another common problem, leaky abstractions. This particular interface while coded without an implementation in mind, is tightly coupled to a relational database. If we opted for a file system or document database the use of transactions is now incorrect.

From my experience such implementation details end up taking the majority of your time and effort - see the 80/20 rule. From small to large systems, this tends to be a common running theme.

  • One project was tightly coupled to the web framework. Making a code change required detailed knowledge of the inner workings of the page request/response lifecycle.
  • Another required deep knowledge, awareness and fear of the legacy database schema. Code changes were easy. Plugging in a legacy database took horrific amounts of effort.
  • A current project is working with an asynchronous, distributed system. In order to be productive a solid understanding of the mechanics of message queues and distributed computing is required.

In some of these cases, the advice offered around abstracting implementation details was actually used. Rarely is the problem ever pure business logic. In a typical week I would bet a large sum of money the majority of developers find themselves fighting with integration, or third party dependencies, over faulty domain logic.

Deferring decisions is a sign of good architecture, but the act of deferral or hiding behind interfaces only gets you so far. The sad state of affairs is that any implementation detail left unchecked can swallow applications in complexity.


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…