Can anyone please give me any example of situation in a database-driven application where I should use Flyweight pattern?
How can I know that, I should use flyweight pattern at a point in my application?
I have learned flyweight pattern. But not able to understand an appropriate place in my database-driven business applications to use it.
Except for a very specialized database application, the Flyweight might be used by your application, but probably not for any class that represents an entity which is persisted in your database. Flyweight is used when there otherwise might be a need for so many instantiations of a class that if you instantiated one every discrete time you needed it performance would suffer. So instead, you instantiate a much smaller number of them and reuse them for each required instance by just changing data values for each use. This would be useful in a situation where, for example, you might have to instantiate thousands of such classes each second, which is generally not the case for entities persisted in a database.
You should apply any pattern when it naturally suggests itself as a solution to a concrete problem - not go looking for places in your application where you can apply a given pattern.
Flyweight's purpose is to address memory issues, so it only makes sense to apply it after you have profiled an application and determined that you have a ton of identical instances.
Colors and Brushes from the Base Class Library come to mind as examples.
Since a very important part of Flyweight is that the shared implementation is immutable, good candidates in a data-driven application would be what Domain-Driven Design refers to as Value Objects - but it only becomes relevant if you have a lot of identical values.
[Not a DB guy so this is my best guess]
The real bonus to the flyweight pattern is that you can reuse data if you need to; Another example is word processing where ideally you would have an object per "character" in your document, but that wuld eat up way too much memory so the flyweight memory lets you only store one of each unique value that you need.
A second (and perhaps simplest) way to look at it is like object pooling, only you're pooling on a "per-field" level as opposed to a "per-object" level.
In fact, now that i think about it, it's not unlike using a (comparatively small) chunk of memory in c(++) so store some raw data which you do pointer manipulation to get stuff out of.
[See this wikpedia article].
Related
I would like to know what is the difference between the Visitor pattern and using a static method to execute code in separation.
Let's take a look at an example where I might call the Visitor pattern:
new AnalyticsVisitor.accept(myClass);
and this when called in from myClass for example, would move the work into a visitor to execute. It would even garbage collect faster if it's memory intensive.
Now lets take a look at using a simple method to achieve more or less the same thing:
new AnalyticsManager.execute(myClass);
Have I achieved the same thing?
I have code separation.
I can apply this to several data structures
I can add info to legacy code without changing it.
So why use the Visitor pattern instead of just a class (unless for double dispatch)?
This question is still a little confused. I suspect you haven't understood the goal of the Visitor pattern.
As discussed here the visitor pattern is useful when you have complex data structure (such as a parse tree) that is relatively stable (in terms of development), but you want to be able to keep adding new operations on all of its elements. This is clumsy with standard OO techniques.
The technology the visitor pattern is based on is double-dispatch, so when you say "Why use the Visitor pattern unless for double-dispatch?" you are effectively saying "Why use the visitor pattern?"
Your example code only includes the client, so it isn't clear what your new technique actually offers.
The supplied code appears to be backwards for a real visitor pattern. It should be:
my_datastructure.accept(analytics_visitor);
where analytics_visitor inherits from MyDataStructureVisitor, and supplies individual methods for each of the element types that the data structure can hold.
As for the achievements:
"Code separation" is a vague term. The visitor pattern allows the data structure to be defined without all the the operations (putative methods) to be defined. Instead, they can be defined separately - with a cost of poorer encapsulation.)
It isn't clear what it means to apply a visitor pattern to several data structures. Each visitor class is associated with one data structure.
The goal isn't to add 'info' to legacy code. It is to add operations to legacy code.
I have a class that handles writing and reading data from my database. What is a proper name to call this class?
There are a couple of conventions. Assuming a Person model, you could use:
PersonDataAccessObject,
PersonDao,
PersonRepository,
PersonDataAccess,
...
It is also dependent on the technology you are using. I mean, who knows what conventions exist for the language you are using. Let us know what language and what data access framework and the answer may vary.
I used to append "Dao" because it's short and clear. But then I moved over more to Martin Fowler's vocabulary and patterns, so now I use Repository. A little more long winded, but I'm long winded by nature, so it fits my style. In the end, that's the key. It's stylistic and there is no across the board standard that I'm aware of. What's most important is that you pick something that is clear and you use it consistently. If you decide, later on, to switch to something else, have mercy on any programmers that may follow you and rename everything so that all your data access components are consistently named.
Edit: in rereading this, I realized I am assuming you are going to have multiple such classes, one for each of your model entities. Who knows what your setup is. If you aren't going to do it like that, and you're just looking for a standard name for a single point of entry to all data access, you could use:
DataMapper
Gateway
Typically, the assumption is that you are going to have several of these around, one for each of your "tables"/model entities. More than a naming convention, that is probably a standard coding convention. This way, when you change or add some aspect of how you interact with your "persons" table, you don't have to modify a class in which you have code to access the "addresses" table. Check out Martin Fowler's Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture (PofEAA), for more
PofEAA catalog of patterns (check out Data Source Architectural Patterns
and
Domain Driven Design Quickly (free pdf) esp. Ch. 3
Depending on the entity this class represents it could be for example Person. Then you design a PersonViewModel which is passed to the GUI. So the Person you got from the database is mapped to a PersonViewModel which is passed to the UI layer for being shown under some form. The view model is just a representation of the domain model you fetched from the database and containing only the necessary information that you need to display on the given UI.
I'm supporting a server for an online card game and while thinking about refactoring it into a better state I have found myself unable to decide what is a proper object model for my needs.
I have a Player class which has a lot of attributes. The first problem is just that - the class is too big. The second problem is that I don't know how to refactor it. I will list some of the attributes and issues with these.
Some attributes are very tightly bound to a player: nick, email, last login &c. These, I suppose, are to be kept directly in the player class and in the same table in the DB.
Now, some attributes are a little more difficult, like money and gold amount. The problem with these is that they are historically stored in a different table, there might be some more currencies later on and that they MUST be synched into the database at their own pace.
Third category of attributes are loosely coupled to the player, like status string, experience, achievements, statistics &c. These are stored in different tables in the DB and MUST be stored, retrieved, cached and synchronized at their own pace.
Note that one of the big problems here is that we have to implement relatively complex database synchronization schemes because we have a lot of online players and our game is soft-realtime and we have to make load on the DB as low as possible.
My questions are:
How to determine which attributes to store within a player class and which not to? Say, experience, nickname, money amount?
When one has some attributes that may be grouped together like (strength, agility, endurance, &c.) and (handItem, headItem, feetItem, weapon) when they should be grouped and when not?
What to do with complex database synchronization schemes? Make a separate model for each attribute that needs to be synched independently or make some DataManager classes to take them apart and work with them?
What to do with the need for a class to have several different "data representations" for external consumers? Like XML, Json, another XML for some external service, human-readable string, &c.
I'm sorry if my questions are bogus, I'm not really good at OOP design, I'm more an FP guy. And my English is not very good =).
There is no "limit" to what you can store in a player class. As long as it is concerning him and him only, it should be in his class. But one thing you should consider is to make several player classes. The idea is : if you don't need is, don't query it. You may have PlayerView_Small, PlayerBuying, PlayerFighting, PlayerSettings (depending on your game, they may not be fulfilling the exact same purpose)... This way for each "need" of info on a player, you only load the player data you need, and can handle it properly. Also, you may use inheritance if some class is only a more detailed version of the other.
If you are talking about the class, it may be in a sub-class PlayerAttributes of which an instance is contained into PlayerFighting and PlayerView_Detailed. In the database, it might be interesting to store it as a string (conveniently outputted by our class, and accepted in constructor), to avoid having too much fields, but you will lose the sorting ability. That's probably not a problem in our case, but might be in some others.
Blank for now, I don't understand where there is synchronization, will edit when informed.
In your PlayerViewDetailInfo(or in your PlayerAllData depending what you need), you place some methods such as ToXmlClient1(), ToJson(), ToHumanReadableString() (although that might be a bit confusing to the eye, you should consider HTML^^). The class having the method should be the class with the least (but sufficient to provide the answer) data. When requested, you load the Player... which has the method giving the correct output, and you write it directly in the response.
I'm new to Silverlight, but being dumped right into the fray - good way to learn I suppose :o)
Anyway, the webapp I'm working on has a relatively complex database structure that represents various object types that are linked to each other, and I was wondering 2 things:
1- What is the recommended approach when it comes to dataclasses? Have just one big dataclass, or try and separate it into several smaller dataclasses, keeping in mind they will need to reference each other?
2- If the recommended approach is to have several dataclasses, how do you define the inter-dataclasses references?
I'm asking because I did a small test. In my DB (simplified here, real model is more complex but that's not important), I have a table "Orders" and a table "Parameters". "Orders" has a foreign key on "Parameters". What I did is create 2 dataclasses.
The first one, ParamClass, were I dropped the "Parameters" table only, so I can have a nice "parameter" class. I then created a simple service to add basic SELECT and INSERT functionality.
The second one, OrdersClass, where I dropped both tables, so that the relation between the tables would automatically create a "EntityRef<parameter>" variable inside the "order" class. I then removed the "parameters" class that was automatically created in the OrdersClass dataclass, since the class has already been declared in the ParamClass dataclass. Again I created a small service to test it.
So far so good, it builds happily. The problem is that when I try to handle things on the application code, I added service references for both dataclasses, but it is not happy doing something like:
OrdersServiceReference.order myOrder = new OrdersServiceReference.order();
myOrder.parameter = new ParamServiceReference.parameter(); //<-PROBLEM IS HERE
It comlpains that it cannot implicitly convert from type 'MytestDC.ParamServiceReference.parameter' to 'MytestDC.OrdersServiceReference.parameter'
Do I somehow need to declare some sort of reference to ParamClass from OrdersClass, or how do I "convert" one to the other?
Is this even a recommended and efficient way of doing this?
Since it's a team-project, I initially wanted to separate the dataclasses so that they (and their services) can be easily checked out by one member without checking out the whole entire dataclass.
Any help appreciated!
PS: using Silverlight 4, in case that's important
Based on the widely accepted Single Responsability Principle (SRP), a class should always be responsible for one task, and one task only.
That pretty much invalidates your "one big dataclass" approach.
I would always recommend smaller, more manageable bits that can be combined, instead of one humonguous class that does everything (except brew coffee for you).
Resources for the SRP:
Wikipedia on SRP
OODesign: Single Responsibility Principle
ObjectMentor: list of articles on good app design - which has a few links to PDF documents, like this one on SRP written by Robert C. Martin - the "guru" on proper OO design
OK, some more research let me to this: it is not simple to separate classes from a relational model using LINQtoSQL. I ended up switching to an Entity Framework approach, which itself doesn't deal with it gracefully (see here and there, for example), but at least it solved another major problem I had with LINQtoSQL.
There are other ORMs out there that are apparently much more capable at this (NHibernate comes up often in recommendations), unfortunately, I don't have time to investigate them now, being under such a tight deadline.
As for the referencing, it was quite simple, change the line to:
myOrder.parameter = new OrderServiceReference.parameter();
even though I removed the declaration from that dataclass.
Hope this helps someone!
Suppose my WinForms application has a business entity Order, the entity is used in multiple views, each view handles a different domain or use-case in the application. As an example, one managing orders, the other one digging into one order and displaying additional data.
If I'd use nHibernate (or any other ORM) and use one session/dataContext per view (or per db action), I'd end up getting two different instances for the same Order (let's say orderId = 1). Although functionally the same entity, they are technically two different instances. Yes, I could implement Equals/GetHashcode to make them "seem" the same.
Why would you go for a single instance per entity vs private instances per view or per use-case?
Having single instances has the advantage of sharing INotifyPropertyChanged events, and sharing additional (non-persistent) data.
Having a private instance in each view would give you the flexibility of the undo functionality on a view level. In the example above, I'd allow the user to change order details, and give them the flexibility to not save the change. Here, synchronisation between the view/use-case happens on a data persistence level.
What would your argument be?
You should implement Equals/GetHashCode methods. This is a recommended practice when using ORMs.
In addition, you should typically stick with the "One View, One Session" mantra. Persist all of your objects when your view changes or loses focus. If you really need to share entities across views... well do it! Sometimes you must.
And once again, because when we are looking at the business objects from an entity and row type of perspective, we should not be concerned with "object" level equality.
I can't speak for ORM's, but I think you answered your own question - to an extent. You've provided pros and cons for both options: neither is right or wrong in absolute terms.
The options are only right or wrong depending on your situation. If sharing info makes sense use single-shared instance, but if the ability to undo is more important use multiple / private instances.
You might have other concerns which drive the decisions too: think about the NFR's (or "illities") and the context of the system. For example, if performance is a key concern and you know you're going to have large user bases then that might help suggest one option over the other, or force you to re-think it again from scratch.
Finally - you have "order", what about other entities - how are they being handled?
Or, if you don't have any, what will happen when/if you do? Would that have any imapct on your architecture?