Responsibility Driven Design


Published on

Published in: Technology

Responsibility Driven Design

  1. 1. Harsh Jegadeesan’s CLASSROOM GRASP: DESIGNING OBJECTS WITH RESPONSIBILITIES BITS Pilani Off-Campus Work-Integrated Learning Programmes
  2. 2. USE-CASE REALIZATION How a particular use-case is realized in the design model in terms of collaborating objects? Use-Case suggests system operations Domain-Layer interaction diagrams illustrate use-case realization 2
  3. 3. GRASP : DESIGN OBJECTS WITH RESPONSIBILITIES GRASP patterns are a learning aid to help one understand essential object design, and apply design reasoning in a methodical, rational,explainable way. 3
  4. 4. DESIGN ACTIVITIES During design and coding we apply various OO design principles, among them software design patterns such as the GRASP and GoF (Gang of Four) patterns. Our metaphor is Responsibility Driven Design (RDD), because our chief design emphasis is on assigning responsibilities to objects. 4
  5. 5. RESPONSIBILITIES AND METHODS Responsibilities are realized as methods Approach to understanding and using design principles is based on patterns of assigning responsibilities. Definition of Responsibility: “A contract or obligation of a classifier” Responsibilities are of the following types: Knowing Doing 5
  6. 6. DOING Doing responsibilities of an object include : Doing something itself , such as creating an object or doing a calculation Initialing action in other objects Controlling and coordinating activities in other objects 6
  7. 7. KNOWING Knowing responsibilities of object include : Knowing about private encapsulated data Knowing about related objects Knowing about things it can derive or calculate 7
  8. 8. RESPONSIBILITIES AND INTERACTION DIAGRAMS Interaction diagrams show choices in assigning responsibilities to objects. When these diagrams are created, decisions in responsibility assignment are reflected in the messages sent to different classes of objects. 8
  9. 9. PATTERNS Principles and idioms codified in a structured format describing the problem, solution, and given a name are called patterns. A “New Pattern” is an oxymoron. Patterns are tried and true, established ways of doing things. They are not new things or new ways of doing things. 9
  10. 10. DEFINITION OF PATTERN Pattern is a named problem/solution pair that can be applied in new contexts,with advice on how to apply it in novel situations and discussion of its trade-offs. 10
  11. 11. NAMING PATTERNS All Patterns have suggestive names. Naming a pattern, technique, or a principle has the following advantages : It supports chunking and incorporating that concept into our understanding and memory It facilitates communication . 11
  12. 12. CHANGING EMPHASIS Throughout analysis, we have referred to analyzing the problem domain, and postponing consideration of the solution domain. We emphasized domain objects over software objects . That changes in design. We are now concerned with software objects and the solution domain. 12
  13. 13. GRASP The GRASP name was chosen to suggest the importance of grasping these principles to successfully design object-oriented software. It is an acronym for General Responsibility Assignment Software Patterns. They describe the fundamental principles of object design and responsibility assignment, expressed as patterns. 13
  14. 14. FIVE BASIC GRASP PATTERNS : Information Expert Creator High Cohesion Low Coupling Controller 14
  15. 15. UML CLASS DIAGRAM NOTATION Three sections: Class Name Third section is for methods attributes methods 15
  16. 16. CREATOR Problem: Who should be responsible for creating a new instance of some class ? The creation of objects is one of the most common activities in an object-oriented system. It is useful to have a general principle for assignment of creation responsibilities. Assigned well, the design can support low coupling increased clarity, encapsulation, and reusability. 16
  17. 17. MONOPOLY CONCEPTS (CANDIDATES) Monopoly Game Player Piece Die Board Square 17
  18. 18. SOLUTION Assign class B the responsibility to create an instance of class A if one or more of the following is true : B aggregates A objects . B contains A objects. B records instances of A objects. B closely uses A objects. B has the initializing data that will be passed to A when it is created B is a creator of A objects. 18
  19. 19. DISCUSSION The basic intent of the Creator pattern is to find a creator that needs to be connected to the created object in any event. Aggregator aggregates Part Container contains Content Recorder records. Sometimes a creator is found by looking for the class that has the initializing data that will be passed in during creation. 19
  20. 20. CONTRAINDICATIONS Often creation requires significant complexity, such as: using recycled instances for performance reasons, conditionally creating an instance from one of a family of similar classes based upon some external property value In these instances, another pattern principle might be preferred (factory?) 20
  21. 21. MONOPOLY EXAMPLE In the monopoly example, who will create the Squares? Since the game board contains the squares where activities take place, a Board software object is a logical place to create Square software objects. 21
  22. 22. INFORMATION EXPERT By Information expert we should look for the class of objects that has all the information needed Problem : What is a general principle of assigning responsibilities to objects? Solution: Assign a responsibility to the information expert – a class that has the information necessary to fulfill the responsibility. 22
  23. 23. DISCUSSION Information Expert is a basic guiding principle used continuously in object design. Expert is not meant to be obscure or fancy idea; it expresses the common “intuition” that objects do things related to information they have. Fulfillment of a responsibility often requires information that is spread across different classes of objects. Whenever information is spread across different objects , they will need to interact via messages to 23 share the work.
  24. 24. CONTRAINDICATIONS There are situations where the solution suggested by expert is undesirable, usually because of problems in coupling and cohesion. Keep the application logic in one place, database in another place and so forth, rather than intermingling different system concerns in the same component. 24
  25. 25. BENEFITS Information encapsulation is maintained, since objects use their own information to fulfill tasks. This usually supports low coupling, which leads to more robust and maintainable systems. Behavior is distributed across the classes that have the required information, encouraging more cohesive “lightweight” class definitions that are easier to understand and maintain. High cohesion is usually supported. 25
  26. 26. MONOPOLY EXAMPLE If you want to retrieve information about the squares on the board, who does it? The Board software object is also a good choice, as it was for creating the Square objects. Note that the information is retrieved from the Squares. 26
  27. 27. LOW COUPLING Coupling is a measure of how strongly one element is connected to, has knowledge of, or relies on other element. 27
  28. 28. LOW COUPLING PATTERN Problem: How to support a low dependency, low change impact ,and increased reuse? Solution: Assign a responsibility so that coupling remains low. 28
  29. 29. DISCUSSION Low Coupling is a principle to keep in mind during all design decisions It is an underlying goal to continually consider. It is evaluative principle that a designer applies while evaluating all design decisions. 29
  30. 30. CONTRAINDICATIONS & BENEFITS (High coupling to stable elements and to pervasive elements is seldom a problem.) Benefits: Objects are not affected by changes in other components Objects are simple to understand in isolation Objects are convenient to reuse 30
  31. 31. MONOPOLY EXAMPLE If we created an arbitrary other class to retrieve information from the Squares instead of assigning the responsibility to the Board object, then our other class would have to retrieve information from both Board and Square, increasing the number of connections (and thus the coupling.) 31
  32. 32. CONNECTIONS BETWEEN PATTERNS Information Expert supports Low Coupling. This is a natural result of identifying patterns from practices that have developed over years of experience. You often get the same result by starting with a different idea, because the ideas (patterns) support each other. 32
  33. 33. HIGH COHESION Cohesion is a measure of how strongly related and focused are the responsibilities of an element. High Cohesion: An element with highly related responsibilities, and which does not do a tremendous amount of work, has high cohesion. 33
  34. 34. HIGH COHESION PATTERN Problem: How can complexity be kept manageable? Solution: Assign responsibility so that cohesion remains high. 34
  35. 35. DISCUSSION Like Low Coupling, High Cohesion is a principle to keep in mind during all design decisions; it is an underlying goal to consider contantly. 35
  36. 36. MONOPOLY EXAMPLE Assuming, from the previous Monopoly slide, that :MonopolyGame is the controller: If :MonopolyGame performs most of the game functions within the software object, you have low cohesion. If the functions are delegated to other software objects, you have high cohesion. 36
  37. 37. BACK TO RELATIONSHIPS Low Coupling and High Cohesion go together naturally. One usually leads to the other. Both are outcomes of the OO principle of “chunking,” breaking up a large problem into manageable pieces. If the pieces are too simple there will be too many of them. If the pieces are too complex, each will not be understandable. 37
  38. 38. COHESION EXAMPLES Some scenarios illustrating varying degrees of varying degrees of functional cohesion: Very Low Cohesion – A class is solely responsible for many different functional areas. Low Cohesion – A class has sole responsibility for a complex task in one functional area. 38
  39. 39. Moderate Cohesion – A class has light weight and sole responsibilities in a few different areas that are logically related to the class concept, but not to each other. High Cohesion – A class has moderate responsibilities in one functional area and collaborates with other classes to fulfill tasks. 39
  40. 40. CONTRAINDICATIONS Grouping of responsibilities or code into one class or component to simplify maintenance by one person. (Such grouping may also make maintenance much more difficult.) Distributed server objects. It is sometimes desirable to create fewer and larger, less cohesive server objects that provide an interface for many operations, due to overhead and performance needs associated with remote objects and remote communication. 40
  41. 41. BENEFITS Clarity and ease of comprehension of design is increased. Maintenance and enhancements are simplified Low coupling is often supported. 41
  42. 42. CONTROLLER A Controller is a non–user interface object responsible for receiving or handling a system event. It defines methods for system operation. 42
  43. 43. PROBLEM : Who should be responsible for handling an input system event? Note that this assumes the Model-View- Controller architectural (not software) pattern that separates the user interface (Views) from the functionality of the rest of the system and uses controllers to access other functionality (Models). 43
  44. 44. SOLUTION Assign the responsibility for receiving or handling a system event message to a class representing one of the following choices: Represent the overall system, device, or subsystem Represents a use case scenario within which the system event occurs 44
  45. 45. DISCUSSION Controller pattern provides guidance for generally accepted, suitable choices. It is often desirable to use the same controller class for all the system events of one use case so that it is possible to maintain information about the state of the use case in the controller. 45
  46. 46. MONOPOLY EXAMPLE The first system message is “Play Game.” What object should receive this message? The author suggests that :MonopolyGame might be a suitable object if there are a limited number of system operations. Otherwise, we would have to consider High Cohesion if there are many operations. 46
  47. 47. FACADE CONTROLLER Suitable when there are not “too many” system events ,or it is not possible for the user interface (UI) to redirect system event messages to alternating controllers,such as in message processing system. 47
  48. 48. USE–CASE CONTROLLER When placing the responsibilities in a façade controller leads to design with low cohesion or high coupling, Use Case Controller is preferred as an alternative. When there are many system events across different processes, it factors their handling into manageable separate classes. 48
  49. 49. AN OBJECT CLASSIFICATION SCHEMA The following analysis class types are used by Ivar Jacobsen in Objectory: Boundary objects are abstractions of interfaces Entity objects are application-independent domain software objects Control objects are use case handlers Jacobsen was a contributor to UML, and the controller pattern reflects his approach. 49
  50. 50. VISIBILITY Visibility is the ability of one object to “see” or have reference to another object Visibility is required for one object to message another Attribute visibility: Y is an attribute of Class X Parameter visibility: Y is parameter of Method X Local Visibility: Y is a local object in a method of Class X Global Visibility: Y is globally dependent 50
  51. 51. OTHER GRASP PATTERNS Polymorphism Pure Fabrication Indirection Protected Variation 51
  52. 52. POLYMORPHISM Problem: How to handle alternatives based on types? (conditional themes) How to design pluggable software components? Solution: when the related alternatives or behaviors vary by type, assign responsibilities for the behavior using polymorphic operations 52
  53. 53. BENEFITS Extensions required for new variations are easy to add New implementation can be introduced without affecting clients 53
  54. 54. PURE FABRICATION Problem: What object should have the responsibility, when you do not want to violate High Cohesion and Low Coupling, or other goals, but solutions offered by Expert are not appropriate? Assigning responsibilities to only domain layer software classes leads to problems in terms of poor cohesion or coupling – low reuse! 54
  55. 55. PURE FABRICATION (2) Solution: Assign a highly cohesive set of responsibilities to an artificial or convenience class that does not represent a problem domain concept Design of objects is divided into: Representational decomposition Behavioral decomposition Benefits: High-Cohesion Reuse potential 55
  56. 56. INDIRECTION Problem: Where to assign a responsibility to avoid direct coupling between two (or more) things? How to de-couple objects so that low coupling is supported and reuse potential remains high? Solution: Assign the responsibility to an intermediary object to mediate between other components or services so that they are not directly coupled. 56
  57. 57. PROTECTED VARIATIONS Problem: How to design objects, subsystems so that the variations or instability in these elements does not have an undesirable impact on other elements? Solution: Identify points of predicated variation or instability, assign responsibility to create a stable interface around them. 57
  58. 58. SUMMARY The skillful assignment of responsibilities is extremely important in object design. Determining the assignment of responsibilities often occurs during the creation of interaction diagrams , and certainly during programming. Patterns are named problem/solution pairs that codify good advice and principles often related to assignment of responsibilities. 58