Is Inversion of Control just a fancy name for other well known patterns?

I've recently come upon a lot of content on the web in regards to the inversion of control pattern. One of the best articles in this regard is Martin Fowler's Inversion of Control Containers and the Dependency Injection pattern article. After reading the article and playing around with a couple of the frameworks (see Castle Project & Spring.Net) available that aim to ease the use of an Inversion of Control Container a thought popped into my head: Isn't Inversion of Control just a fancy name for the "abstract factory" or "strategy" pattern thoroughly explained by Gamma in his famous design pattern book? Being a pattern fanatic I had to explore a bit more and this post is basically what I have surmised on this interesting subject.

To start I want to make one thing very clear: the phrase "Inversion of Control" is being overused/misused (like so many other phrases) and Martin Fowler's distinction on what is Inversion of Control (the general definition) and what he calls Dependency Injection, which is what we would be discussing, is very clear and to clarify the issue please read the section titled "Inversion of Control" in his article.

In order for us to start comparing dependency injection with other patterns let's get a clear definition of dependency injection first. My explanation here will be brief in order to provide a general overview and the major points in relation to dependency injection for a thorough definition either read Martin Fowler's article or just do a little search on "Inversion of Control" you can't miss the vast array of detailed explanations that are out there! J

One major problem that causes coupling and headaches in software design is when a designer creates a class A and then his/her class needs to use class B in one way or the other and he/she creates an instance of class B directly. For example:

class A {
  B myB = new B();
  void f() {
    //do something with myB
  }
}
class B {
  //implementation of class B 
}

The problem with the above design is that class A is dependent on class B in such a way that if for any reason (testing, future expansion, etc.) we need to replace B's implementation with something else (something that supports the same interface, but has a different implementation) we need to rewrite code. Dependency injection is the simple concept of creating class A in such a way so that we can later on "inject" its dependency on the "right" class not a fixed implementation. In other words what if we could create class A that would use an instance of B but the actual implementation of that was instantiated would be left for later on. So A could use B1 or B2 or any other class that implemented the B interface. Sounds too abstract? Let's talk about concrete examples:

Suppose we are going to use ADO.net to access a SQL server database and you write this code in your DAL layer components:

SqlDataAdapter a = new SqlDataAdapter(…);
//other lines of code that use the data adapter

The problem with the above code is that we have made ourselves dependent on the Sql implementation of ADO.net and in the future when our program needs to do the same exact thing with the Oracle classes we have to rewrite code. Now some people might be jumping up and down at this point screaming "use OleDbDataAdapter or use OdbcDataAdapter since they are vendor neutral ways of accessing data." Yes we could do that but that misses the whole point of this exercise: we are trying to create a DAL component that can be injected with the right dependency to use either Sql or Oracle or some other connection mechanism, we don't want to use a general method such as OleDbDataAdapter since it is too general and we will lose some of the features of native connectivity (i.e. performance). Anyhow let's not get bogged down on the specifics of the example and just assume that in developing the above mentioned DAL layer components we want our components to be independent of any specific implementation and allow us to inject (I love using this term!) them with the right implementation.

OK first things first: we need to make sure our DAL components try to use something a little more abstract than just SqlDataAdapter. Obviously this is necessary to make sure that we can later on replace the SQL based implementation with something else. Fortunately the ADO.net designers had designed some general interfaces for the most common ADO.net classes and in this case we have the IDataAdapter interface. So my DAL layer code would look like this:

class DAL
{
  public IDataAdapter Adapter;
  public void Save(/* … */)
  {
    //use the Adapter variable to do the saving
  }
  //other functions with similar implementations
}

The issue here is how to initialize the Adapter member variable so that it can be used by the DAL class. Here is where dependency injection (or Inversion of Control or IoC) comes into play.

The dependency injection pattern states that an outside component sometimes known as the Inversion of Control Container will take care of making sure the Adapter field (in this example) is filled with the right object (implementation) before it's used. How it does that is based on three variations of the pattern:

Type 1 IoC (or what Martin Fowler calls interface injection): you make sure that the DAL class implements an interface that has an "inject" method for assigning the Adapter property. Then during the application configuration or a similar phase based on some configuration we would inject into the DAL class the "right" implementation of the IDataAdapter that we need. For example if the config file says SQL Server based then our configuration code would create a SqlDataAdapter and inject into the DAL using the interface:

interface IAdapterInjectable {
  void InjectAdapter(IDataAdapter a);
}
class DAL : IAdapterInjectable {
  public void InjectAdapter(IDataAdapter a) {
    Adapter = a;
  }
  private IDataAdapter Adapter;
  public void Save(/*…*/) {
    //save using the Adapter
  }
}

Type 2 IoC (or what Martin Fowler calls setter injection): your DAL class implementation has to have a property setter that the configuration code will use to "inject" (by setting the value of the property) the right adapter into the class:

class DAL {
  public IDataAdapter Adapter {
    get {
      return _Adapter;
    }
    set {
      _Adapter = value;
    }
  }
  private IDataAdapter _Adapter;
  public void Save(/*…*/) {
    //save using the Adapter
  }
}

Type 3 IoC (or what Martin Fowler calls constructor injection): I guess this would be pretty obvious. In this method the constructor of our DAL accepts an IDataAdapter and when it's created the code responsible for its creation has to pass the right adapter implementation to it.

In all three cases the dependency injection has happened by somehow assigning the right implementation to the class that is dependent of an abstract interface and it has been assumed that we can take care of this assignment in our "configuration" section very easily. The reality is that configuring these classes with the right injection can sometimes be hard and in other cases is not worth the effort so like any other design pattern IoC should only be used when it is necessary and the extensibility it provides is worthwhile. The good thing about readymade IoC frameworks such as Spring.net or Windsor class of the Castle Project is the fact that they take care of the configuration section and also provide that configuration based on an XML setting. So all you have to do is create your classes, make them dependent on an abstract interface and allow the framework to fill in the blanks (or inject the dependencies) based on some XML configuration. For a very good example of this please see this article in MSDN.

 

The Big Question:

Now let's get back to the issue of this post: Is the IoC or dependency injection pattern just another fancy name for already existent patterns? Let's see what we can compare the IoC to or better yet if we didn't know about IoC how would we go about designing to cover for the above problem?

Before being exposed to Inversion of Control, whenever I had to deal with flexibility requirements such as the above I would either design my classes using Abstract Factory or the Strategy pattern. Each situation had different details therefore I would pick between the two patterns based on the requirements but they where my main choices. So for example if a design got to the point where my code needed to create a concrete implementation that might change in the future or might not be known until later on AND was fixed for the duration of the program execution I would go with the Abstract Factory pattern combined with a polymorphic singleton (see here for an explanation).

If in other scenarios I needed to "configure" my code to use different methods and the programmer/designer who was using that class had the right information to make the decision in regards to which implementation to use I would go about using the Strategy pattern. The Strategy pattern provides enough flexibility so users of my code could configure it (or plug into it) the right implementation. And finally the above 3 different types of IoC would be different ways to assign the strategy implementation to the context (my code).

So what's the big deal? If the strategy, abstract factory and many other "old" patterns could take care of that level of flexibility why do we need another fancy name, other than the fact that "injecting dependency" into your code just sounds too cool?

Well if you look deeper into what the IoC is trying to achieve first of all you realize that IoC is not just a fancy name but a totally different point of view toward this problem. Although the Abstract Factory and Strategy pattern each try to resolve the problem that IoC tackles in different ways both of them are general patterns and techniques for different (although partially overlapping) problems therefore the reader sometimes loses his/her focus on the problem. Dependency injection (or IoC) will give you a better more focused pattern in regards to what we are trying to achieve (decoupled components that would otherwise be tightly coupled due to the type of usage that exists between them).

Plus the articles, documents and frameworks surrounding IoC cover a lot more than a flexible way of encapsulating creation logic. They also provide us with a very strong and flexible base set of classes and readymade components that take care of a lot of the detailed implementation issues in regards to setting up the environment necessary for achieving true configurable component independence. Therefore a lot more reuse and stability is achieved when these frameworks and the IoC concepts in general are used as opposed to designing using Abstract Factory or Strategy from scratch.

Finally this pattern, like so many other patterns, techniques and concepts, is built on top of pre-existing ideas and implementations and there is nothing wrong with that. And not only is it built on top of these existing ideas it also provides a very good encapsulation and focus on the problem and its solution as compared to the more general Abstract Factory or Strategy pattern.

Using Factory Method to Link Parallel Inheritance Hierarchies

Another interesting usage for the factory method pattern is to link parallel inheritance hierarchies. Before getting into this let's examine what parallel inheritance hierarchies are (for a general discussion of the pattern itself please read here):

During design we sometimes have to create inheritance hierarchies which are very similar and pretty much follow the same structure but are designed for different concepts. For example consider the following diagram:

 

The above diagram might be a simple and effective way of explaining the power of inheritance and polymorphism to someone who is starting to learn object oriented concepts but it's definitely poor design in a real system. Let me elaborate: One major concern for the above design is the fact that cohesion (and more specifically technology cohesion) has been ignored. We have implementation code packaged inside a class (i.e. the Circle or Rectangle) class, that although related from a domain perspective (all circle functions in one place and all rectangle functions in another class), are absolutely unrelated from a technology perspective. The technology and techniques needed to save an object to a database (the SaveToDB method) and what is required to display an object on a windows form using the Graphics class (the Draw method) are completely irrelevant to each other. So it looks like we have a design at the logical cohesion level (when unrelated code is implemented in one place due to an arbitrary reason, in this case the arbitrary reason is that they are doing work on the same problem domain concept (i.e. Circle) ).

Although the above design might be considered good from a "domain cohesion" perspective where the designer is only concerned about cohesion from a problem domain perspective, it is an absolute nightmare from a "technology cohesion" perspective. Unfortunately most designers only think in terms of "domain cohesion" and don't bother with "technology cohesion" and this causes many problems down the road. For example once they want to distribute their application on multiple servers or create other similar changes they are stuck with assemblies that don't work in other environments. Consider the fact that the above design basically means that we have got to have database related libraries, windows graphics related libraries, and any other technology that we are using in the above code all as dependencies of our assembly. And if we want to send the above objects (serialized) to some other place where these libraries aren't available we are going to have a problem. It also means that once someone involved in the maintenance of the code needs to change something related to lets say the Draw method they are basically involved in the code related to a lot of different technologies which they might be completely unfamiliar with causing problems during maintenance. And similar issues that arise when you write bad code, period! J

So how can we solve the above problem? One of the solutions that can be used to create technology cohesive design is to put the implementation that uses different technologies into separate but similar inheritance hierarchies. This is only one method to solve it, there are other methods that work a lot better in similar situations, but we are going to investigate this method because it's completely related to this posts discussion. By following this technique we have a set of core objects that contain the data and behaviour related to what the object's true nature is and then other code such as code to save it to a DB or draw it as output on a windows form will be in their own separate classes. So the above diagram becomes something like this:

 

To complete the above design each class in the secondary hierarchies is going to accept as input to it's constructor an object of the core type and will be working on that to do what ever it's expected to do. So for example the RectangleDrawer class will be something like this:

class RectangleDrawer : IDrawer
{
  private Shape WorkOn;
  public RectangleDrawer(Shape s)
  {
    WorkOn = s;
  }
  public void Draw()
  {
    //use the WorkOn object’s data to draw it.
  }
}

In other cases you might decide to pass the WorkOn object to the Draw method, you have to make a decision based on other design factors.

So once we start designing this way the only big question is how do we relate these objects to each other? If you look at the original design drawing an array of Shape objects would have been very simple:

Shape[] shapes = //loaded somehow
foreach(Shape s in shapes)
  s.Draw();

What happens in the new design? Here is where the Factory Method pattern can become useful. As mentioned one of the less known but useful uses of this pattern is to relate parallel hierarchies of inheritance. If we create abstract factory methods in the Shape class and hold each subclass accountable for the creation of the related class from the other hierarchy our problem is solved! For example the Shape & Rectangle core objects would look like this:

class Shape
{
  public abstract IDrawer CreateDrawer();
  public abstract IDBAccess CreateDBAccess();
}
class Rectangle : Shape
{
  /* rectangle related code */
  public override IDrawer CreateDrawer()
  {
    return new RectangleDrawer(this);
  }
  public override IDBAccess CreateDBAccess()
  {
    return new RectangleDBAccess(this);
  }
}

So with the above code, creating similar functionality as the above foreach loop is very easy:

Shape[] shapes = //loaded somehow
foreach(Shape s in shapes)
  s.CreateDrawer().Draw();

 

Now the above example is kind of excessive in its use of this pattern and in a similar situation (a CAD application or a Drawing app) you probably have other issues involved that would prevent such a design but it provides a good example of what parallel hierarchies of inheritance are and how to relate them.

As a final note I should mention that the above code doesn't fix the un-needed assembly reference issue mentioned as the problems with bad technology cohesion, since our core classes (Shape, Rectangle, etc.) will need to reference the assembly containing the Drawer (RectangleDrawer, …) classes & the DBAccess (RectangleDBAccess, …) classes and those assemblies would in turn access the technology related libraries. So in other words the above example has only fixed the problem from a code separation point of view (putting technology specific code in its own assembly), but it hasn't solved the dependency issue.

Solving the dependency issue can be achieved by using another pattern in between the core objects and the actual classes doing the technology related work which will eventually use reflection to load the technology specific assemblies that it needs on demand. A good example would be the prototype pattern so the core objects would only ask a general purpose prototype factory to create what they want. The prototype factory and the abstract interface (such as IDrawer & IDBAccess) would be in an independent assembly that the technology specific assemblies will use. In this solution the core objects are only dependent on some independent assemblies that can be taken anywhere and are not physically related to the technology specific assemblies. This diagram better shows the assemblies and their relations:

 

Obviously the technology specific assemblies must be present for the technology specific functions (such as Draw or Save) to work. But the good thing is that we would only have to deploy them on the hardware or location that they will actually be used. So for example the back end server doesn't need the Drawer assembly while the front end UI (client side) probably doesn't need the DBAccess assembly.

Factory Method

Factory Method is an extremely simple yet very useful design pattern. I'd rather call it a simple programming technique. A technique that might be second nature to most people designing OO these days but since it's part of Gamma's design patterns book, albeit a terse discussion, I'd rather talk about it here since I know it will come up in other discussions that I'm planning on posting down the road.

The factory method pattern is based on a simple concept: I'll call you when I need to create something. Unlike other patterns we have discussed where the client code will use the results of the pattern to do something, the factory method's client code is usually a class which extends the abstract class available in this pattern and the abstract class will call the client code whenever it needs a new object. For a simple definition please see here.

The best example (which you usually find in any discussion in regards to this pattern) is the Application framework example. For those who are familiar with MFC and have used it during their Visual C++ days or for those who had worked with Borland C++ (for Windows) this example is quite familiar. You are designing an application framework which will handle most generic application functionality. Stuff like bringing up the open dialog when the user chooses File – Open or taking care of 'Save As…', toolbars, status bar etc. But this application framework wouldn't be able to do anything useful since it's just a framework. The person responsible for the actual development of the concrete requirements would take the framework, probably inherit from it and fill in the blanks for example when the actual save happens (after the save dialog has been taken care of etc.) write the information needed to the file. Write the program logic and things like that.

This application framework can be reusable and developed independent of any specific requirement or domain due to the fact that it leaves the details out for the person doing the implementation based on the framework. One of the things that the framework needs is documents created whenever the framework needs them or in the case of the MFC framework Views were also another example. So we have some logic at the framework level that takes care of different things but this logic is unable to finish the job unless we (the class extending the framework) create the specific product that we need and hand it back to the application. This is one of the major uses of the factory method pattern. Let's take a look at all this discussion from a programming point of view:

When I'm developing the application framework I would write code like this:

abstract class Application
{
  /* complex logic in relation to how the application will work 
      during this complex logic at some points I need the document 
      class so I call CreateDocument() and use whatever is returned
  */
  protected abstract Document CreateDocument();
}
abstract class Document
{
  /* abstract and concrete methods implementing the Document class */
}

When a developer comes along and wants to use my framework to create an actual application and provide the logic for that application's specific requirements they would write this:

class MyApp : Application
{
  /* logic related to this application’s specific requirements. Some of this
      logic might be new methods and others will be overrides of the base
     classes methods.
  */
  protected override Document CreateDocument()
  {
    return new MyDoc();
  }
}
class MyDoc : Document
{
  /* implementation related to this application’s requirements */
}

It's quite obvious from the above code that this pattern is relying on a very simple concept: polymorphism. But there are a couple of interesting things in regards to the way this is used:

Use of this pattern will provide a simple alternative to other creational patterns where you need to provide future users of a class (or framework) that you develop to decide what type of a product will be created and used.

It's very important to only use this pattern in scenarios where the inheritance is natural and due to other design decisions not specifically because of the use of this pattern. In other words if in the above example I had to create a subclass of the Application class only to override the CreateDocument method it would have been too much work and wouldn't have made any sense. But if I had to do the inheritance for other reasons (i.e. needed to override other methods and extend the general functionality provided by the base class) then using this pattern to create a flexible creation mechanism is a good choice.

In every single scenario that you can use this pattern you can also use the abstract factory pattern. Obviously it's not a good choice to use the abstract factory pattern in place of this pattern every time but it's good to know that this pattern doesn't really add anything to your patterns repository except for the fact that it's a simplification of the abstract factory pattern which you can use in special occasions. Let's examine this in more detail:

What happens with this pattern is that the client code from the abstract factory pattern and the abstract factory itself are squished together to form the Abstract Creator (the Application class in the above example) of the pattern. So in every example you can do the re-design using abstract factory with this pattern by simply separating these two pieces. Let's assume that we want to take the above example and re-design it using the abstract factory pattern. Here is what we get:

class Application
{
  /* the logic related to app.
      when ever this class needs a Document
      it will call Creator.CreateDocument();
  */
  public DocumentAbstractFactory Creator = //initialized in some way that fits your problem
} 
abstract class DocumentAbstractFactory 
{
  public abstract Document CreateDocument();
}

As you can see we re-configured the Application class to call an abstract factory that we have configured into the Application object (Creator). So the person extending this framework to create specific Documents (such as MyDoc) would need to create a concrete factory class that implements the CreateDocument method and somehow configure the Application object to use that specific Concrete Factory.

To wrap things up I should add that usually the requirements of the problem we are trying to solve will point us to either the Abstract Factory pattern or the Factory Method pattern so we should be careful to analyze the requirements in detail but it's comforting to know how close these two patterns are. Just to help you decide here are my criteria for deciding between these two patterns:

1. Use the factory method pattern when you want to allow future programmers to extend a class and provide different products for the class's use. The sub-classes created should be because of other decisions and not the use of this pattern.
   
2. In scenarios where multiple products exist or multiple product families exist and there is going to be switching between the different families based on specific criteria the use of abstract factory is usually much more helpful.
   
3. If you want to map two parallel hierarchies of inheritance to one another the factory method pattern will help a lot. I will discuss this in future posts.
   
4. If you get stuck and can't decide use the abstract factory pattern. You might have to write a little bit more code but you have a whole lot more flexibility.
   

Mt. Damavand

Cool photo taken from Mt. Damavand by NASA. The summit is 5671 meters. The highest summit in the middle east. Enjoy!

Deep Copy vs. Shallow Copy

The concept of deep vs. shallow copy is one of the decisions that a designers/programmers make on a daily basis yet in my tutoring experience I've seen a lot of people who don't know it by this name or aren't familiar with all the issues & techniques that relate to this issue. This topic is also one of the issues that needs to be thought about and decided when a designer want to use the prototype design pattern.

The question of deep vs. shallow copy usually pops up when a designer has to create a copy (or clone) method for a class that he/she has designed. When creating the clone method (especially when it relates to the prototype pattern) the designer has to decide between these scenarios:

1. The clone method is only going to create an object exactly the same as the current object but no data copying happens (the simple case of the prototype pattern).
   
2. The clone method is going to create an object exactly the same as the current object and is also going to copy the current object's data into the new object.
   

The second decision will create the deep vs. shallow dilemma. To show the difference let's examine a simple example:

As the example above illustrates the car's member data are body and engine. Body has its own member data, so does engine but the Engine class is also specialized with two different sub-classes. Now suppose we have created an instance of the Car class, filled it with the right information and now we want to copy it. For example:

Car c1 = new Car();
c1.MaxSpeed = 240;
c1.body = new Body();
c1.body.NumOfDoors = 2;
c1.engine = new FastEngine();
c1.engine.CapacityInLiters = 2.0; 
Car c2 = MakeCopyOf(c);

The MakeCopyOf() method is responsible for copying the car. Or better yet if our Car class has implemented the ICloneable method then the above line of code will look like this:

Car c2 = (Car)c.Clone();

 

Now the question of how to implement the Clone (or the MakeCopyOf) method. This is where deep and shallow copies come into play. If you implement the Clone method like this:

class Car : ICloneable {
  public Body body;
  public Engine engine;
  public int MaxSpeed;

  public object Clone() {
    Car c = new Car();
    c.MaxSpeed = this.MaxSpeed;
    c.body = this.body;
    c.engine = this.engine;
    return c;
  }
}

You have implemented the shallow copy method. It's called shallow copy because your copying only makes sure that the new object has a copy of the current object's memory space. It doesn't really care what the current object's memory space is composed of and if it contains references to other objects it doesn't try to duplicate those other objects either. To explain this better, take a look at the following diagram. It shows the original Car object (c1), its memory space and the fact that the memory space is filled with data (MaxSpeed) & references (body & engine).

Now when you clone the above object and get c2 using the method described above we are only copying whatever is in the c1 memory space into the c2 memory space. This will mean that the data are being copied fresh into the new space, so are the references, but when we manipulate the data held in an object being referenced by the new c2 we are actually changing the same data that c1 is using too. So if I write this code after creating the c2 object:

c2.MaxSpeed = 300;
c2.engine.CapacityInLiters = 2.5;

The change to MaxSpeed is only a change to the c2 object but the change to the c2 engine's capacity also affects c1. The following diagram better explains this:

As can be seen in the above diagram in the case of a shallow copy the objects referenced by the first object are shared between the two objects.

Now this can be a very good thing in many situations: Imagine you have a Receipt object and that Receipt object is referencing a Customer object (for which the receipt was created for), then you make a copy of the Receipt basically to change a few items, prices, etc. and re-save it as a new receipt. In this case you don't want a separate Customer object but you want the Customer object to be shared between the two receipts. That's what the requirements and the problem domain are dictating to us so we use Shallow copy.

As most of you .net developers know there is also a an easier way to implement a shallow copy and that's to use the MemberwiseClone() method. This protected method which is implemented at the object level can be used to create an exact copy of the current object (but a shallow copy) so when all we need is a shallow copy the Clone method is usually implemented like this:

class Car : ICloneable {
  public Body body;
  public Engine engine;
  public int MaxSpeed;

  public object Clone() {
    return this.MemberwiseClone();
  }
}

Other situations do occur in design where a shallow copy will not do, we want the full graph of objects to be copied over and a new graph created so any change to any object in the graph will not affect the previous copy. Suppose in the previous example we wanted to make a copy of the receipt object with all other objects attached so we are sure that we can recover any changes made to the original objects by other pieces of code. In this case we need to perform a deep copy. The deep copy will ensure that the full graph of objects will be copied and a new object graph created.

Going back to the previous car example once we do a deep copy the second car would be a new object with a new engine etc. So changes to the direct fields of the car object or any of the objects it points to (or the objects they point to etc. etc.) are going to be separate from the original copy. So the following piece of code will only change c2's engine capacity:

c2 = c1.DeepCopy();
c2.MaxSpeed = 300;
c2.engine.CapacityInLiters = 2.5;

Now assuming that all the objects in the graph we are going to clone (using deep copy) have implemented the ICloneable interface we can implement our clone method like this:

/* Deep copy clone */
class Car : ICloneable {
  public Body body;
  public Engine engine;
  public int MaxSpeed;

  public object Clone() {
    Car c = (Car)this.MemberwiseClone(); //create a copy so everything comes across
    c.engine = (Engine)engine.Clone();  //for properties that are objects call their clones to get a deep copy
    c.body = (Body)body.Clone();   //for properties that are objects call their clones to get a deep copy
  }
}

Obviously the above code will only produce a deep copy if the clone methods of engine & body also perform a deep copy. So usually when we have related objects the decision to perform a shallow or deep copy is one that has to be made for that graph of object together. As a designer you might even face situations where you would prefer to implement both deep and shallow copy in one class and use the appropriate clone as needed.

When deciding to use deep copy there is usually a problem to consider: If the graph of objects we want to perform a deep copy on have a cycle implementing the deep copy isn't going to be easy. A cycle occurs when multiple objects reference each other so that these references create a closed circuit. This could be as simple as two objects pointing to each other or a complex path between objects which eventually turns around and points at the original object. Usually when we have two way referencing linked lists or trees we are faced with this issue or any other fairly complex data structure where direct traversal between the elements in the structure in both ways is needed. For example let's say we have a Company class which references multiple Department objects which in turn hold multiple Employee objects. But for some reason the designer has decided that each Employee should also know (directly) which company it works for. So you have a design like this:

Now if we implement a deep copy where each object is going to clone itself by calling the clone of the objects it holds reference to, we will get into a never ending loop and obviously this solution will not work.

As far as deep copy complexity is concerned the above issue also happens when you don't have a cycle but have multiple objects referencing the same object, so again in the above example suppose we had department holding a collection of its employees and the company also holding a collection of all its employees. The employee objects where referenced by the department and by the company so if we tried to clone a graph of objects starting at company we would get two sets of employees (the ones that the departments reference and the ones that the company references). Obviously this wasn't what we wanted either, we wanted one company object referenced by both the company and the department it belongs to.

In these scenarios the designer must either change the way he/she is looking at the problem and consequently the solution. In other words come up with a solution where a deep copy is not needed or we can recalculate one of the links based on some other data therefore not needing Clone across that link and breaking the infinite loop. Alternatively he/she can accept the little more complex scenario of implementing deep copies as described below:

Another more elaborate (and more costly) solution would be to pass a context object along to every clone method. The context object will hold all the original objects that have already been cloned and what they have been cloned to. This way wherever in the cycle of objects we start a clone the whole network will be cloned once and only once. A perfect context for these scenarios is the Dictionary generic collection (or the Hashtable class). So for example the clone of the above mentioned Employee class would look like this:

class Employee : ICloneable
{
  /* other properties that we don’t care about */
  public Company company;
  public object Clone()
  {
    return Clone(new Dictionary());  //create an empty context and start cloning
  }
  public Employee Clone(Dictionary context)
  {
    Employee e = this.MemberwiseClone();
    context.Add(this, e);
    If (context.ContainsKey(company))
      e.company = (Company)context[company];
    else
      e.company = (Company)this.company.Clone(context);
    return e;
  }
}

Now before I get into the other classes' code (which would be very similar to the above) let's see what happened. The original Clone basically means that a client code has called and started the clone recursive call. This original clone will create an empty context and call the clone that is context aware. The context aware clone will lookup the company object (the object that might be the cause of the infinite loop) in the context, if it doesn't exist it means that it hasn't been cloned yet, so clone it and use the newly created company in the output, otherwise just use the previously cloned object that is stored in the context. As can be seen the context will get filled by each object after it creates a shallow copy of itself (before getting into anymore clones). This is the only place where we can be sure that this object hasn't been used anywhere else (yet) and it's immediately after the new object has been created (albeit incomplete: it's still only a shallow copy) so let's add the old object (which other objects might be referencing) to the context alongside it's new version, since the reference to the new version isn't going to change it's not going to cause a problem for others and we will complete the new version's other members (such as company in this example) afterwards.

Let's take a look at the other classes:

class Company : ICloneable 
{ 
  /* other member variables */
  public List departments = new List();
  public object Clone()
  {
    return Clone(new Dictionary());
  }
  public Company Clone(Dictionary context)
  {
    Company c = this.MemberwiseClone();
    context.Add(this, c);
    c.departments = new List();
    foreach(Department d in departments)
    {
      if (context.ContainsKey(d))
        c.departments.Add((Department)context[d]);
      else
        c.departments.Add(d.Clone(context));
    }
    return c;
  }
}

class Department : ICloneable 
{ 
  /* other member variables */
  public List employees = new List();
  public object Clone()
  {
    return Clone(new Dictionary());
  }
  public Department Clone(Dictionary context)
  {
    Department d = this.MemberwiseClone();
    context.Add(this, d);
    d.employees = new List();
    foreach(Employee e in employees)
    {
      if (context.ContainsKey(e))
        d.employees.Add((Employee)context[e]);
      else
        d.employees.Add(e.Clone(context));
    }
    return d;
  }
}

The above code guarantees the fact that if you call Clone() on any object in the above graph the whole graph will get duplicated without creating any object more than once.

Let's also examine another alternative to the above deep copy problem:

Readers familiar with .net's serialization technology know that the above deep copy can also be achieved among object graphs which have serializable objects. Just serialize one of the objects in the graph and then deserializing it. In other words you can create a deep copy of objects without the need for the ICloneable interface and the time consuming implementation mentioned above by simply using the technology available (the only drawback being the fact that the serialize/deserialize technique is a lot slower than the above code.

So let's say we had the following three classes:

[Serializable]
class Company
{
  /* other fields */
  public List departments = new List();
}
[Serializable]
class Department
{
  /* other fields */
  public List employees = new List();
}
[Serializable]
Class Employee
{
  /* other fields */
  public Company company;
}

So assuming we have the above serializable classes we can create a deep copy of any graph of the above design using serialization:

 Company c = //assume we have a fully loaded company with departments and employees;
 MemoryStream ms = new MemoryStream();
 new BinaryFormatter().Serialize(ms, c);
 byte[] data = ms.ToArray();
 ms = new MemoryStream(data);
 Company c2 = (Company)new BinaryFormatter().Deserialize(ms);
 

Three problems exist with the above technique:

1. It's slow.
   
2. All objects have to be serializable.
   
3. Since we are using .net's serialization routines all attributes (or at least attributes that has been marked as serializable) will be copied while in certain custom deep copy implementations we might want to control what gets copied and what is reset in the new object.
   

Abstract Factory: Part III

In this post I'm going to address a couple of issues left out in the discussion of the abstract factory pattern. If you haven't read the earlier discussions in regards to this pattern you can see them here and here.

The abstract factory pattern is a useful and highly used pattern and sometimes we automatically pick this pattern without thinking about the consequences or without asking the question what value does the pattern add? Or does it limit the design in any way?

Like most patterns Abstract Factory also has negative aspects and concerns that have to be thought about before actually trying to use it. In most situations where we need to support multiple competing technologies (i.e. the database example in previous discussions) or we want our client code to be absolutely free of hard coded creation commands (the 'new' keyword) this pattern looks like it's doing the job perfectly but we should always consider the negative aspects too:

Abstract Factory does not support adding new products. (what I mean by support is support without the need for re-coding)

As I explained in the previous discussions one of the main features of this pattern is that adding new product families is a breeze. You just develop your new product family (in the database example I would develop the classes that would communicate with my new database technology), create a product family concrete factory (the class inheriting from AbstractFactory and in charge of the actual product creations) and your set to go. You don't need to change even a single line of code in your previous implementation and with a little help from reflection we can plug in our new family of products, change the config file to start using the new family and presto! It works.

BUT what if you wanted to add a new product? Take a look at the previous example discussed in part 1 of my abstract factory discussion, the diagram below summarizes it:

What if we needed to add a SupplierAccess as a new product how could we go about doing that? Well the pattern doesn't give you any features for adding new products and the truth is in design scenarios where adding a new product is going to happen quite often you shouldn't be using this pattern. It's just too much trouble:

In this example to add a the new SupplierAccess product we would have to change the AbstractFactory class to define a new abstract method called CreateSupplier which in turn would return an ISupplierAccess interface. We would have to create the new interface and create an implementation for the new interface for every single product family that we already have (i.e. the Oracle & SQL product families) and then change the current implementation of all our concrete factories (the SQLFactory & OracleFactory classes) to implement the new create method. This is the biggest possible mess we could have gotten ourselves into. Basically every package (or worst yet every .net assembly) in the original design has to be modified to support the change.

As I mentioned before this pattern is not suitable for situations where you have a lot of new products being added to the system, in these situations you should look into the prototype pattern or other patterns (I will hopefully get around to talk about these in later posts).

Overkill

As is the case with many design patterns you don't want to use a pattern in a situation where it's overkill. Obviously if your requirements specifically state that you are going to have only one product family why would you design it using this pattern? If you have only one product type (or have identified only one so far) why would you use this pattern (what's the use of a factory with just one single create method)? But there are also situations where the patterns use might seem to be overkill but really isn't. For example:

Suppose we are developing a system that is going to support two and only two database technologies: SQL Server & Oracle. We have 7 or 8 product types and we first think of the abstract factory pattern then turn it down on the grounds that it's overkill. It's overkill due to the fact that we are not going to support any other product families in the future. There is going to be only two product families!!! Is it overkill? Well let's see what happens if we want to implement this using specific features of each technology but not use this pattern (or any other pattern that is aimed at solving this problem). In one way or another we would end up with this kind of code:

class WarehouseAccess {
  public void Save(some data) {
    if (IsInSQLMode) {
      // SQL Server specific code
    }
    else {
      // Oralce specific code
    }
  }
  /* the rest of the code */
}

The above code has many problems one of which is logical cohesion (which is a very bad level of cohesion). We have put two completely different pieces of code in one place (the SQL and the Oracle implementation). We are also adding an extra if statement in the path of a save (although an 'if statement' might be a very inexpensive code addition, but it's still something extra). Also from a development/maintenance point of view we have two different code types which might need different programmers to work on them, they will require different assemblies to be referenced and namespaces to be imported, etc.

All the mentioned problems seem trivial but from a "clean code" perspective & a performance perspective implementing the abstract factory pattern here is worth while.

Microsoft Surface

Take a look at http://www.microsoft.com/surface and see the future of computers!
This is just too cool!
I've got to buy one of these!

Prototype

Next pattern that I want to discuss is the Prototype pattern from the Gang of Four Design Patterns. For a detailed introduction to this pattern please see here or refer to the Gang of Four Design Patterns book.

The prototype pattern is an interesting little pattern (little in the sense that it's not that complicated) which has been mostly superseded by language mechanisms available in many modern programming languages. But it still remains as a nice topic to discuss and learn since the more proficient you are at this pattern the better you can use those language specific features (which will be discussed later) and understand where they might not work out for your design and you'd have to implement the prototype pattern from scratch. As always my discussions here are going to be based on the C# language and .net features but Java programmers will also find a whole lot of features that are completely similar and will benefit from this discussion.

The prototype pattern is another pattern in the list of creational patterns. Creational patterns by definition provide a mechanism to create new objects in ways more flexible than simply using the 'new' keyword. The two patterns discussed so far Singleton & Abstract Factory are also creational patterns and they serve the same exact goal. For example when using the Abstract Factory pattern you don't use the 'new' keyword to create a product but you call the abstract factory's CreateXYZProduct() method that will create the specific product and return an interface to it. This level of indirection (calling a method that will create the object on your behalf) is how the pattern is providing the added flexibility and the ability to swap families of products without touching the client code. The prototype pattern is also considered a creational pattern because it provides the same concept. It gives you a more flexible way of creating an object.

Let's discuss the pattern by examining an example. Suppose you are building a graphic design tool in which the user gets a canvas and can pick from different drawing shapes (such as circle, rectangle, line …) and use them to design some graphics on the canvas. Now let's focus on the toolbox of shapes that we are providing for the user: Suppose one of our requirements state that alongside the x number of shapes that we are supporting built-in we are also supposed to support the ability to add new shapes in the future (without changing or re-compiling the currently deployed software). In this case the routines that are creating each shape need an added level of flexibility to be able to add any shape, even the ones that are added in the future (by someone else). This is a perfect example of where the prototype pattern can be used. But before we get into the pattern details let's address another issue with the above mentioned requirements: If a shape is created in the future how am I supposed to know how to use it: obviously to the experienced OO designer this is a trivial question since all you need to do is look at the shapes from a level of abstraction that is common between all shapes. In other words I'm going to assume that we will have a Shape class or an IShape interface that all of our shapes (even the ones built in the future) will inherit from (implement) and therefore we can talk to all of them through that common abstract interface.

OK back to our pattern discussion:

The prototype patterns general structure looks something like this:

Before getting into any discussion about the pattern let's apply the above structure to our example:

As can be seen the prototypes are our shapes (or toolbox items), they provide the functionality that we expect from each shape (i.e. to appear in the toolbox, to be drawn on the canvas, resize, etc.), but they also provide an extra piece of functionality: the ability to clone themselves and provide an exact replica of this object. Now this ability might look trivial when we know what the object's type is but when you look at this ability from an abstract level (for example the Prototype level or in this case the Shape level), it seems rather useful. What we have in the ShapeFactory class (Prototype factory) is a list of all possible shapes (prototypes). Whenever a shape is selected by the user, we calculate that shapes index based on where the user clicked on our toolbox and then ask the ShapeFactory class to provide us with that shape (the Create method). The ShapeFactory in turn finds that shape (prototype) in the list of shapes that it contains and asks it to create an exact instance of itself. Now this shape could be one of the built-in shapes or a shape added later by another programmer. The above example perfectly shows that the Clone method although trivial at the specific object type level, is extremely powerful at the abstract level and of great use to the prototype factory class.

We've had an assumption so far that must be addressed: we had assumed that the prototype factory class will somehow have a list of prototype objects. With those prototype objects it can clone them and create new ones but the question is where did it get the prototype objects in the first place. It's similar to the egg & the chicken problem: which one came first?

The context in which you use the prototype pattern greatly affects how the prototype factory will obtain the list of prototypes. A very simple example is situations where (as in the above example) throughout our entire program we only need one prototype factory that will contain a list of prototypes and reply to create requests based on that lists content. In these types of scenarios the best implementation is to make the prototype factory a singleton that when loaded will look into a config file, find a list of all the possible prototype objects (built-in ones and future ones) and the load all of them using reflection. As in this code sample:

class PrototypeFactory
{
  private PrototypeFactory()
  {
    Configure();
  }

  private List<IPrototype> Prototypes = new List<IPrototype>();

  private void Configure()
  {
    List<string> prototypeConfig = LoadConfig(); //load the prototype list from somewhere
    foreach(string config in prototypeConfig)
    {
      string[] parts = config.Split(','); //let's assume each config has a dll name followed by a class name separated by a comma
                                          //obviously we need extensive error checking and exception handling which has been omitted for the sake of brevity

      Assembly asm = Assembly.Load(parts[0]);
      IPrototype pt = (IPrototype)asm.CreateInstance(parts[1]);
      Prototypes.Add(pt);
    }
  }

  /* other methods including the singleton implementation */
}

You might ask why not use reflection to totally replace the prototype pattern? Actually that's one of the language mechanisms that I mentioned at the beginning of this post. But you have to remember that as always using reflection comes at a performance cost and in situations that speed and performance are at the utmost importance the above technique works better. As you can see we are only using reflection once and that is to load the initial list of prototypes. After that list is loaded to clone a prototype we are asking it for a clone and the prototype is using a standard 'new' keyword to replicate itself.

Another variation of the pattern which isn't supported directly by reflection is when the Clone method is used to do more than just create a new object. In some design problems we need the prototype object to replicate itself by first creating a new object and then initializing it with some data that the original prototype is carrying. Imagine a situation where creating new objects from scratch is going to be too expensive because each object once created would have to go to a DBMS or a remote network location to load some data to initialize itself with. In these scenarios the prototype pattern would be useful because the prototype factory will be holding a list of objects that have been created & initialized once and then when we ask it to create a new instance of one of the specific prototypes it will in return call that prototype's clone method and as mentioned above the clone method will create the new object and also copy the initialization information from its own copy into the new object (before returning it). This way we save on the expensive load process.

It's quite obvious that the above scenario can't be implemented using pure reflection and the prototype pattern needs to be in place. Here is a sample implementation of the above mentioned scenario:

class BigAndExpensivePrototype : IPrototype
{
  //private constructor used internally
  private BigAndExpensivePrototype(BigAndExpensivePrototype copyFrom)
  {
    //initialize this object based on the passed object’s data
  }

  //public constructor used by the prototype factory’s list creation method (should only happen once)
  public BigAndExpensivePrototype()
  {
    //initialize this object by reading it’s information from the DBMS
  }

  public IPrototype Clone()
  {
    //create new prototype object by calling the private constructor and passing this object so that it will be initialized the easy way
    return new BigAndExpensivePrototype(this);
  }
}

As the above example shows the expensive routines used to load the prototype from the DBMS are called once when the prototype object is created and added to the prototype factory's list of prototypes. After that any attempt by the factory to clone and get a new copy of the prototype would result in the private constructor initializing the new object based on the original prototypes values.

Another language mechanism that one needs to consider when using this pattern is the ICloneable interface in .net. This interface is the equivalent of the IPrototype interface in the pattern's original structure. The ICloneable interface has been so closely modeled over this pattern that even the only method available in the interface is called Clone(). So the basic interface has been standardized in the .net platform (and similarly in Java) but the major decisions regarding the usage of the pattern still remain for you as the designer to make. To summarize here are the things you have to decide on:

1. Is the usage of the pattern only going to be limited to creating new objects or are we going to create a new object and perform some sort of initialization based on the original prototype.
   
2. If we are going to copy data then is it going to be a deep copy or a shallow copy (If you don't know what a deep copy or shallow copy is I'll be discussing it soon in the next post; see here)?
   
3. If the usage of the pattern is only going to be limited to creating new objects can we afford to use reflection (is very high speed an issue: then don't use reflection)?
   
4. How will the factory select the prototype (so far we have assumed an integer index)?
   

By answering the above questions you have basically determined the variation of the prototype pattern that you need to develop.

So far we have assumed that we are going to pass an integer which will map to an item in an array when calling the create method. But in many real life scenarios this isn't the case. The abstract structure of the pattern assumes that the Create method will receive a 'key' which it can translate to an appropriate prototype. For example the prototype key might be strings (and we will look them up using a Dictionary or a Hashtable) or other types of objects. So in deciding to use the pattern one of the major concerns is that there has to be a method by which the prototype factory can select the prototype objects.

In all of the above examples we have assumed a singleton for the prototype factory but there are also other situations where this pattern is useful and you can't implement the prototype factory as a singleton. For example suppose you need to configure a sub-system with a set of prototypes to use, basically you would create the prototype factory, configure its list of prototypes and then pass the prototype factory to the sub-system. The sub-system will use the factory it receives to create the objects that it needs. What the sub-system uses and how many prototypes it gets are in the calling system's power.

Now we have already seen a code example that uses the IPrototype interface but here is one that will use reflection. In this case we don't really need a base class or interface to inherit from since we don't need a Clone method to call all we need is the prototype factory to create the objects we need using reflection. Again for simplicities sake I'm going to assume that it's a singleton but you can extend this example to situations where the factory isn't a singleton object:

class PrototypeFactoryWithReflection
{
  private PrototypeFactoryWithReflection()
  {
    Configure();
  }
  public static PrototypeFactoryWithReflection Instance
  {
    get
    {
      return _instance;
    }
  }
  private static PrototypeFactoryWithReflection _instance = new PrototypeFactoryWithReflection();

  private List Definitions = new List();
  private void Configure()
  {
    Definitions = //load the definition list from a config file or a similar location.
                            //note that we are expecting these definitions to be in the form of “dll name, class name”
  }

  public object Create(int idx) //again for simplicity we are assuming an index key but this can also be extended
  { //error checking code omitted for brevity
    string def = Definitions[idx];
    string[] parts = def.Split(‘,’);
    Assembly asm = Assembly.Load(parts[0].Trim());
    return asm.CreateInstance(parts[1].Trim());
  }
}

As mentioned before the above implementation is using reflection to simplify the whole process and it has the advantage of not having a base interface or abstract class therefore meaning you can apply it to classes that already exist and don't inherit from IPrototype (ICloneable) but as mentioned before reflection is a bit slower then directly calling the 'new' keyword and if performance is a major issue you are better off implementing this via the standard definition of the pattern.

Singleton: Ammendment 2

I've found an intersting question regarding the Singleton pattern that might be worth examining: "What if the class that is supposed to become a Singleton doesn't have parameter less constructor?"
(If you need to read explanations on the pattern read here and here)
Hmmm! No why would you have a singleton where its constructor accepts parameters? It kind of sounds useless since no one is supposed to create instances of the singleton class.
But just for the sake of argument lets assume we have a singleton class with such properties: for example we've decided to create a log helper as a singleton. It's a class that's going to be used all over our program and anyone who needs to log something will send it to this class. The log helper would take care of writing the entry to all the different log output devices. Again for argument's sake let's assume that we have created the constructor of this class so that it accepts some settings in regards to how it's supposed to behave (don't ask why!):

class LogHelper
{
  /* Logging method implementations */ 

  private LogHelper(some-configuration-value)
  {
    //use the some-configuration-value or store it somewhere
  }
  
  public static LogHelper Instance
  {
    get
    {
      return _instance;
    }
  }
  private static LogHelper _instance = new LogHelper(/*how to provide the param?*/);
}

As you can see the big question is how do we provide the parameters to the constructor. Well the issue here is a little bit of a bad design: WHY would you want to pass something to the constructor of the class your designing when no one can actually call the constructor but yourself? Weren't you better off just extracting the parameters or config values or what ever it was supposed to be passed to the constructor in the constructor itself? That would be a better implementation.

Now the above example is very simple (and stupid) but there are situations where a constructor with parameters could help a Singleton design! Surprised? Well here is a situation:
Suppose we were building a class called PrintManager, this class is going to manage the queue of documents that are waiting to be printed to a specific printer and it is also going to handle the printing operations (don't really care about that part). The only thing important about this design is that the PrintManager is going to be a multi-instance singleton meaning that multiple instances will be available, each instance managing a specific printer. Now for simplicities sake we are going to assume that all the printers are the same (one class can handle them all) but each printer is on a different port so when we create the printer object we need to tell it (via the constructor) on what port to print to.
Even in this case the code responsible for creating the PrintManager object is still part of that class so if the PrintManager object has no parameters in the constructor or has 10 parameters it doesn't really affect anyone and it's an internal thing. See the code below:

class PrintManager
{
  private int Port;
  /* printing & queue management code */

  private PrintManager(int p)
  {
    Port = p;
  }

  public static PrintManager GetInstance(int forPort)
  {
    lock(Instances)
    {
      if (Instances.ContainsKey(forPort) == false)
        Instances.Add(forPort, new PrintManager(forPort));
    }

    return Instances[forPort];
  }
  private Dictionary Instances = new Dictionary();
}

As can be seen in the above code the internal code of the PrintManager class has to deal with the constructor so again having parameters or not having them doesn't really matter.

The much debated Singleton: Part II

As I mentioned in my previous post regarding the singleton pattern I've seen a lot of talk on different blogs/forums regarding the evils of the singleton pattern. I've tried to cover the general concepts of where this pattern should be used and where it should be avoided in the previous post I made regarding this issue (read here) and in this post I'm going to quote a couple of the stuff that I've found and post my reply to them in here. So here goes: My responses in bold.

The items that I found on http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SingletonsAreEvil

• Someone had mentioned that when you use the singleton pattern you suddenly have two types of objects:
  

  "those that can be instantiated in a standard fashion and those that cannot be created at all. I would personally rather use a container which governs the number of a given object that can exist in a system and acquire the objects from the container"
  

  We already have a lot of different types of objects that can be instantiated (or not instantiated) in different ways this isn't a particular problem with the singleton pattern but quite the opposite, the singleton pattern is using one of these different types of language mechanisms to obtain what its aiming for (the fact that no one should be able to instantiate the object unless they go through the single point of access). As an example we have interfaces, abstract classes, sealed classes, protected & private constructors, static classes and a whole lot of different types of classes that some you can instantiate in the regular way (using new) and some you can't (and some you are not allowed to instantiate period; e.g. the abstract class). Anyway this isn't a really good argument against the use of the singleton pattern.
  

• Someone else had mentioned this:
  

  "Singletons usually are used to provide a single point of access to a global service. I always make the singleton separate from the class itself so the class can be used any way you want. The singleton can then use the class. The singleton also doesn't have to instantiate the object"
  

  One of the points of the singleton pattern is to prevent accidental or purposeful creation of the singleton object, that's why it has a private constructor so one can create it except for the singleton class itself which knows when and where to create it. In regards to the second part I have seen C++ code that uses the "friend" keyword to have a separate singleton factory than the singleton object itself but I really can't see any use for it. You need a single point of access you also need a class that can be instantiated in a controlled manner why are you making your design complex and the programmer using your design confused by making him deal with (and understand) two classes (albeit one being very small and simple). I guess you might come up with very rare cases where this would be useful but in general I think sticking with a singleton class that also provides the single point of access is the best way to go.
  

• A couple of people where mentioning coupling issues with singleton class names and/or polymorphism issues with the singleton:
  

  "Subsystem's coupling to Singleton's Class Name" or "Singletons aren't polymorphic"
  

  Let's make something very clear singletons are polymorphic (please read the section regarding polymorphic singletons in this post) and let's also focus on something else the whole reason we are using a singleton as opposed to a global variable (or static member) is because it allows us to deal with the single point of access issue through an object oriented fashion. It allows us to have all the OO design techniques, design patterns etc. at our disposal when we are dealing with a singleton just as we would when dealing with other classes & objects. So all general OO design techniques and features apply to a singleton.
  

  Regarding the first argument: your different subsystem's are going to be dependent on some single point of access (because you've made that design decision) now it's a lot better that you implement it using the polymorphic singleton pattern just to make sure that they are only dependant on an abstract class (the singleton being that abstract class) not on the actual implementation.
  

• An amusing one:
  

  "Doesn't a C# static class, with its static constructor, provide all the functionality you would ever need from a singleton?"
  

  OK I think this guy has missed the whole point of the singleton. If you use a static class that means all member variables/methods are static and then you might use the static constructor to initialize some of these member variables, BUT this isn't object oriented programming this is a feature simulating the procedural way of design & implementation. Why have the designers of the C# language decided to include it there? Well one reason being the fact that you will need utility classes (methods) that are pure static classes and you don't need a real object to respond to the calls (another design decision) but a utility (or pure static class) is just a bunch of methods but a singleton is a full blown object instantiated from a class the only difference being that only one instance (or a limited number of instances) exist of it.
  

  If you think this argument is correct you should try to first understand the singleton pattern and then come back and re-read what the argument is saying!
  

These items I've found on http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/co-single.html

• "There is one implementation anti-pattern that flourishes in an application with too many singletons: I know where you live anti-pattern. This occurs when, among collaborating classes, one class knows where to get instances of the other."
  

  This will be a problem when you overuse the singleton pattern, but correct usage of the pattern especially in places where there is a strong domain reason or a legitimate technical requirement backing its existence but otherwise over-use of the pattern will cause the above mentioned problem.
  

• "Where's the harm? Coupling among classes is vastly increased when classes know where to get instances of their collaborators. First, any change in how the supplier class is instantiated ripples into the client class. This violates the Liskov Substitution Principle, which states that you should allow any application the freedom to tell the client class to collaborate with any subclass of the supplier. This violation is felt by unit tests, but more importantly, it makes it difficult to enhance the supplier in a backward-compatible way. First, the unit tests cannot pass the client class a mock supplier instance for the purposes of simulating the supplier's behavior, as described above. Next, no one can enhance the supplier without changing the client code, which requires access to the supplier's source. Even when you have access to the supplier's source, do you really want to change all 178 clients of the supplier? Weren't you planning on having a nice, relaxing weekend?
  

  Collaborating classes should be built to allow the application to decide how to wire them together. This increases the flexibility of the application and makes unit testing simpler, faster, and generally more effective. Remember that the easier it is to test a class, the more likely a developer will test it."
  

  Again I think this a case of misuse of the pattern. Let's straighten one thing out the fact that a singleton is a class that by default you're not suppose to instantiate doesn't mean that it can't have sub-classes and doesn't mean that replacing it with "stub" classes for the purpose of testing would be impossible. I feel I'm repeating myself too much but a polymorphic singleton especially when it's combined with other patterns such as bridge or strategy it can give you all the flexibility in the world and doesn't affect testing or any other type of pluggable behavior. Completely loosely coupled!
  

• "To decide whether a class is truly a singleton, you must ask yourself some questions: (1) Will every application use this class exactly the same way? (exactly is the key word) (2) Will every application ever need only one instance of this class? (ever and one are the key words) (3) Should the clients of this class be unaware of the application they are part of?"
  

  I don't agree with the rules set above although they might be very helpful in situations where there is going to be only one instance of the singleton but as Gamma mentions in his book a singleton might be polymorphic (therefore question 1 is not really the case if you need a polymorphic singleton), a singleton might be designed because we need a controlled number of objects (therefore question 2 is not true) and I don't understand question 3! J
  

This item is from http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=386447

• "It's hard coupling. Singletons are essentially static functions - the difference is syntactical sugar. Whenever you reference a static symbol in your code, you make it more dependent on the context. It's really the same as with a global variable - A global variable is bad because it has a global scope. A static function is also global in scope, so it has the same problems associated. The difference between the two, which accounts for the assumption that singletons are slightly better than global variables, is that functions are more abstract than variables, and this gives you some flexibility. This flexibility can then be used to excersise some damage control. Still it can't beat narrowing the scope, which is what objects provides."
  

  Hard coupling!! First time I heard that (I think he meant tight coupling). Anyhow this description is very good, and especially relevant to misuse of the pattern. If you use a singleton as an excuse to be lazy and not think about your design, if you use a singleton as an excuse to make everything global then yes there is no difference between a singleton and static members BUT if you use the singleton where it's supposed to be used it will be a whole lot more than "syntactical sugar." Plus we are forgetting that part of using a pattern isn't just because it's implemented with for example a static member or it isn't, but it's the whole knowledge that comes packed up with a pattern and is transferred to the next person (read this post). The above comparison is like saying using functions & procedures is "syntactical sugar" to using a goto statement because they are eventually a jump to a piece of code and a jump back! But that's not the case, functions and procedures provide a higher level of abstraction, so do classes, interfaces etc. which provide an even higher level of abstraction. Patterns are pretty much the same thing they too provide a higher level of abstraction albeit being implemented using mundane "static" members or similar constructs of a lower level of abstraction.
  

Items from http://home.earthlink.net/~huston2/dp/singleton.html

• "It's relatively easy to protect Singleton against multiple instantiations because there is good language support in this area. The most complicated problem is managing a Singleton's lifetime, especially its destruction ... There are serious threading issues surrounding the pattern."
  

  Who says we don't want multiple instantiation of a singleton? There are cases that we need multiple instantiation (but controlled number of instances). I totally agree that in C++ and other languages that don't have garbage collection managing the lifetime of a Singleton or a lot of other patterns could be hard but not impossible. Yes threading could also be a serious problem to consider, but with singletons there are usually two scenarios that occur: you either have a singleton instance per thread then you have a multi-instanced singleton which returns an instance based on the calling active thread or you have on instance of the singleton replying to all threads which means the class must be thread-aware.
  

• "The Singleton design pattern is one of the most inappropriately used patterns. Singletons are intended to be used when a class must have exactly one instance, no more, no less ... frequently use Singletons in a misguided attempt to replace global variables ... A Singleton is, for intents and purposes, a global variable. The Singleton does not do away with the global; it merely renames it."
  

  One instance and no more? I don't agree and if you read Gamma's book you'll see that it's not what he intended when he created the pattern. I agree that singleton is usually misused and it is not supposed to fix global variable problems (i.e. common coupling) but the advantages it provides as opposed to using a global variable are tremendous. Read my post on this issue here & here.
  

  "When is Singleton unnecessary? Short answer: most of the time. Long answer: when it's simpler to pass an object resource as a reference to the objects that need it, rather than letting objects access the resource globally ... The real problem with Singletons is that they give you such a good excuse not to think carefully about the appropriate visibility of an object. Finding the right balance of exposure and protection for an object is critical for maintaining flexibility."
  

  I agree completely! Very well said.
  

• "Our group had a bad habit of using global data, so I did a study group on Singleton. The next thing I know Singletons appeared everywhere and none of the problems related to global data went away. The answer to the global data question is not, "Make it a Singleton." The answer is, "Why in the hell are you using global data?" Changing the name doesn't change the problem. In fact, it may make it worse because it gives you the opportunity to say, "Well I'm not doing that, I'm doing this" – even though this and that are the same thing."
  

  Very well said.

Abstract Factory: Part II

In my previous post regarding the abstract factory pattern I discussed some basic concepts regarding this pattern and we went all the way up to the combination of an abstract factory and a polymorphic singleton to achieve the best encapsulation and reuse of the abstract factory code. In order to be able to fully maximize this feature we also need to talk about how to package the different classes in the abstract factory pattern so that packaging will not hinder future growth.

My discussion here regarding packaging is going to be completely based on Microsoft .net technology but the same basic concepts can be applied to any other technology that you might be using:

At the fines grained level of packaging of the abstract factory implementation you need to place all the abstract definitions that the client code needs into one assembly (i.e. the AbstractFactory class and the product interfaces) and then each product family alongside its factory class should be packaged into its own assembly. So coming back to the data access layer example of the previous discussion we had created this design (please see the last example in my original abstract factory post for the polymorphic singleton implementation added to the AbstractFactory class):

Since in the above design we have two product families (the Oracle & the SQL Server families) then we would need three assemblies to package all these classes:

• The CommonDAL assembly will contain AbstractFactory, IWarehouseAccess, IDeliveryAccess & IProductAccess.
  
• The SQLDAL assembly will reference the CommonDAL assembly and would contain the SQLFactory, SQLWarehouseAccess, SQLDeliveryAccess & SQLProductAccess.
  
• The OracleDAL assembly will reference the CommonDAL assembly and would contain the OracleFactory, OracleWarehouseAccess, OracleDeliveryAccess & OracleProductAccess.
  

The client code would only need to reference the CommonDAL. Using that reference the client code would call the AbstractFactory (since it's a polymorphic singleton it will be our single point of access), obtaining an appropriate interface that it needs and then call that interface to do whatever is necessary:

IWarehouseAccess w = AbstractFactory.Instance.CreateWarehouse();

w.SaveWarehouse(…)

As you can see the client code only needs to physically reference the CommonDAL, obviously the assembly containing the product family that has been configured for current use must be available (either in the current execution directory or in the GAC), since the AbstractFactory's polymorphic singleton implementation is using reflection to load the configured product assembly, but the only compile-time dependency between the client code and our assemblies will be to the CommonDAL.

This will also give us a very nice feature. Once you design your software based on the above pattern (or combination of patterns) you are able to deliver only what the client needs and no more. If you have a client that will be using Oracle you don't need to deliver the SQL product family assembly at all and there will be no dependencies on it either. Once a client using Oracle for example decides to switch over to SQL you can easily send them the SQL product family assembly (SQLDAL), ask them to copy it into the runtime directory and change the configuration of the app to point to this assembly instead of the previous one. This also brings us to another neat capability: if in the future you decide to store your information in another format (for example let's say as an XML file) all you have to do is implement the XML family of products (XMLWarehouseAccess, XMLProductAccess & XMLDeliveryAccess) & create a factory for them, package them up in one assembly and ship it to the client. As you can see the original binary code available on the client's machine doesn't need to be touched at all. All you are doing is providing a pluggable new implementation that can be copied alongside the current binary implementation on the client's machine and be used immediately.

Some notes on the Abstract Factory pattern:

1. The abstract factory pattern creates an extra hierarchy of classes (the factory classes) that need to be maintained alongside the actual products. This extra hierarchy in some designs might be disliked; in other cases might be thought as the cause of extra complexity. So the use of the pattern should be justified with the need to change/replace/add product families in the future and the other features that the pattern provides.
   
2. This pattern can be easily replaced with a full reflection based implementation but is it worth it from a performance stand point? I have seen similar implementations of the pattern where the factory hierarchy was removed and replaced with one class that will create the needed product by using reflection (similar to what we are doing in the polymorphic singleton's CreateInstance method) but the main difference would be that the code that I have provided in the CreateInstance method is only called once per program execution while a reflection based implementation of the factory class would cause the reflection routines to be called every time an object is created (this could be very expensive). As a rule of thumb if your factory class is going to be called in the order of more than 50 times a second then don't go with a reflection implementation as it can impact performance a lot.
   
3. Don't ever use the abstract factory pattern in scenarios where the client code would need to create an object from product family A and then a little bit later from product family B, this pattern hasn't been designed for such a problem. I'll describe a good solution to this issue once I describe the Bridge pattern.
   
4. In some cases an abbreviated version of this pattern would work a lot better. This abbreviated version is a pattern all by itself and it's called the "Factory Method" pattern which I will describe in later posts.