10 Jul
2012
10 Jul
'12
11:09 a.m.
On Jul 10, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Denis Gervalle wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Marius Dumitru Florea
<
mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
FYI the value 20 comes from checkstyle and I don't know why they picked this value but
I'm definitely sure they've had countless discussions about it ;)
But that's beyond the point :) The point is: we have a value. We suggest to change it.
We need to prove it's better. I'm not against changing it. I'm against
changing it at random (which btw is exactly your point :)).
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 8:59 PM, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
Well, it seems you are thinking about this value of 20 as the perfect
threshold to detect bad design. Could you explain why 20 is better than 25,
and why it is not worse than 15 ?
On Jul 9, 2012, at 5:36 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
> Hi devs,
>
> Short version:
>
> I'd like to increase the allowed maximum value for the Class Fan-Out
Complexity checkstyle rule from 20 to 25, since a bare component already
uses 1 to 4 imports, and the 20 rule was set before we had components.
>
>
> Long version:
>
> The Class Fan-Out Complexity metric measures how many other classes are
used
by a class. Keeping this to a small value is a good goal, since it
favors loose-coupling, small and independent classes, and makes it harder
to put more than one responsibility in a single class.
>
> However, there are several problems:
>
> One is that this counts utility classes and interfaces, such as
java.util.List, and a fairly complex class uses more than one such utility
class; they usually come in pairs (the interface and the implementation).
And more and more classes are using apache-commons utilities like
StringUtils or IOUtils, which are just shortcut helper methods that could
be implemented in a few lines of code, so we're trading one import for
reduced code complexity, which is a good thing, even though apparently it's
increasing the Fan-Out measure.
>
> Another is that a bare Initializable component implementation will
import:
> - its component role interface
> - Initializable and InitializationException
> - Logger
>
> And since good libraries also follow the "many small classes" paradigm,
barely using some of our dependencies will add a lot of imports. For
example, the LucenePlugin has 25 org.apache.lucene.* imports just for
initializing the server and sending search requests.
>
> While the current maximum, 20, is enough for the majority of our
classes and
interfaces, I've found myself often enough trying to refactor a
class to get down from 23 or even 21 imports, and usually I find myself
doing ugly tricks, keeping the actual code complexity the same or even
worse. Best case is that I extract an extra class that just contains the
non-public utility methods that were initially in the component
implementation, but that class is meaningless out of the context of its
parent class, so that is also a bad decision, IMHO.
>
> So, I propose to increase the Fan-Out limit to 25, while keeping the
requirement that classes should be kept as small as possible.
I'd like to see first an example of a class that goes beyond the
recommended
value of 20 and then decide if the problem is in the class
design or in this parameter threshold.
Re LucenePlugin; I hope you're not considering it as an example of good
design… :)
The fact that we're using components has nothing to do with this.
Whether you
use components or not is exactly the same. Quite the opposite
actually since components favor decoupling and thus reduces class fan out.
BTW if you find your code using too many components injected it's a very
bad
sign. You have a design issue. Just write some unit tests using
AbstractMockingComponentTestCase and you'll understand you have a problem
because you'll start needing to mock way too many things.
When you find yourself doing ugly tricks to reduce the class fan out
it's
because you're not thinking at the level of design. The problem has
more to do with the fact that you're usually working on fixing something
and suddenly you execute the build and you don't feel like redesigning the
code just because of a class fan out issue and thus we usually end up
adding technical debt by removing it from the checkstyle check. IMO this is
the part that we need to fix but not the threshold.
For me this checkstyle check is probably one of the best we have. Most
of the
others are syntactic sugar and are not important whereas this one is
really about design. Of course since it's about design it's also harder to
fix but that doesn't remove its value. Having a good design has always been
hard. And not having a good design generates technical debt.
Let's see the code first before doing something arbitrary.
I'm -1 ATM because I'd rather not rush blindly. Personally I've never
had any real issue with this class fan out except for old code I didn't
write and for which I brought some quick bugfix and I didn't want to spend
the time to refactor it. That doesn't make the rule bad.
I agree with Vincent. I've hit the limit myself a few times but I'm
sure it was due to bad code design. I'm -0.
If Sergiu had proposed to double it, I
would have been against of course. I think I may say that those voting +1
here has experienced a minor excess while their code design where not so
bad or may not be really better. I remember removing a call to a utility
function from apache-common, just to lower it, and this has finally nothing
to do with improving my code design.
Yes and your solution was probably bad (to remove a utility function). That's not the
way to fix a class fan out IMO.
Do you think this single line calling
a utility function, is a good measure of my code design ?
Here, all Sergui
is just proposing is to not account for the most usual imports we always do
in almost any components.
Which is exactly the same as saying we don't care about class fan out. Those imports
are as important as any import.
Again, there's no point discussing in the void; we can argue either way indefinitely.
We need a real world example and then we can have a very interesting and useful discussion
on design.
Thanks
-Vincent