Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I have a very simple task in Java, and I am not sure which structure to give to my project.
I want to create a little project in Java, that makes some statistical calculations. For example, I will need to create a method that gets an array, and returns the mean, another method gets an array, and returns a standard deviation, I will also need a method that gets two arrays, and returns the correlation coefficient.
What I want to know, is how to do this now that I have opened a new project in Eclipse ?
Should it all be in one class ? Should I have a separate class for each method, making it a static method ? At the end, I want to give this code for someone else to integrate it in his project. I need to do it as simple and efficient as possible.
Can you please guide me on how to do it ? One class, several classes ? Public / private ? I am not familiar with these things, but I can program the methods themselves.
Thank you in advance
All your methods have the following attributes:
That they don't possibly have another implementation as long as your give them specific enough names. After all mathematical doesn't change. This means you don't possibly need structure like interfaces or subclasses.
That when people use them they have tendency to use several of them or group by functionality. That means you should group your methods by usage e.g. statistical methods; signal processing methods; and so on.
That the methods don't keep internal status and all the output is returned without any side effect of other callers/threads. Thus your methods don't have to have class contain themselves or any statue variables.
That your methods essentially provider utility to the main program but the semantics of the methods doesn't vary due to the caller or calling context.
So as all the above shows, your methods should be inside 1 or several classes as grouped by their nature or usage. The methods should be static methods without any side effect. That's exactly what java.lang.Math does.
I want to create a little project in Java, that makes some statistical calculations. For example, I will need to create a method that gets an array, and returns the mean, another method gets an array, and returns a standard deviation, I will also need a method that gets two arrays, and returns the correlation coefficient.
Looks to me that you are interested in creating a utility class for statistical calculation. The scope of how to achieve is this quite broad but it is advised to follow common coding conventions and basic OOP concnepts.
Should it all be in one class ? Should I have a separate class for each method, making it a static method ?
Since each of the methods ( mean, standard deviation ...) are related to the same core background (i.e to perform some statistical calculation), it seems logical to have a single utility class with a separate static methods for each of the function that you need to create.
Of-course you will have to take care of the basic OOP concepts like (data hiding) keeping the fields private and exposing them properly public getter/setters. Also, it would be a good idea to keep your calculation methods private and just exposing a public method which calls your private functions. Something like
public class MyUtilityClass{
// A bunch of private fields
int field1; ...
private MyUtilityClass(){} // We don't want anyone to create an object of this class
// method exposed to user
public static float calcArithmeticMean(float[] arr1, float[] arr2){
return getMean(arr1, arr2);
}
// method for internal use
private float getMean(float[] f1, float[] f2){
//do your calculation here
}
// remember to expose only those fields that you want the user be able to access
// getter/setters here
}
At the end, I want to give this code for someone else to integrate it in his project.
If you follow proper OOP coding conventions, then your utility class will be portable and anyone will be able to understand and extend it in their application.
I would create a single class representing the array of numbers itself.
public class DataSet extends HashSet<Double> {
public double mean () {
// implementation
}
public double standardDeviation () {
// implementation
}
public double correlationCoefficient (DataSet other) {
// implementation
}
}
My first suggestion is to start your project using Maven. It gives you a solid project structure with a great tool to manage your jar file dependencies and build lifecycle. In addition, all major Java IDEs, including Eclipse, easily create, understand and use your Maven settings.
Secondly, for your application design, it is recommended to avoid using lots of static methods because they hurt testability of your code as for example explained here.
Regarding the number of classes and methods, it depends on your specific use case but the guideline is to try to aggregate similar methods, based on their responsibilities, in one class while separating classes if there are too many responsibilities being handled by a single class. Low coupling and high cohesion are your friends in this case.
Arrays may be slightly faster than collections but be careful with them because they are reifiable and do not mix well with generics. Generally, rely on Collections. Also, if you can use Java version 8, have a look at Streams API.
Last but not least, Java has tons of open source code out there. So, always look for a library before starting to write one. In case of Math, have a look at this and that.
Create one class with a different methods with public access for each calculation type(one method for each of mean, standard deviation and so on). These methods can internally refer to helper methods in another utility class(es) not publicly accessible, as per your convenience.
Put all these classes in a single package and export it for integrating in other projects.
Since it will be used by others as a library by others , make sure you document and comment it as much as possible.
I vote for single class. The methods should be static and the parameters that you don't want to show should be private.
It depends on many thing such as other part of project, future changes and extensions,...
I suggest to start with single-class/public-static and change it in demand when you expand the project.
Related
In an OOP program, where would I put functions for basic operations?
For example, if I had a class that, in one of the functions needed code that could invert an array, I could just make a method called invertArray() within the class.
On the other hand, I could create a whole new Functions class, where I could dump all these basic functions like inverting an array into. However, with this approach, I would have to instantiate this class in pretty much every other class I use. In addition, it isn't really an "object," but more of a conglomeration of functions that don't belong anywhere else, which kind of defeats the purpose of "object-oriented" programming.
Which implementation is better? Is there a better implementation I should use?
Thanks in advance.
Edit: Should this kind of post even belong in Stack Overflow? If not, could you please guide me to a more appropriate Stack Exchange website? Thanks.
Depending on your language it can depend where you put things.
However, given your an example, an invertArray lives on an Array class. In some languages you might make an ArrayHelper or ArrayExtension class. But the principle is "invert" is something you want to tell an array.
You will generally find all your functions will generally live somewhere on some class and there will be a logical place for them.
It's generally not a good idea to make a class that holds a mishmash of functions. You can end up with things like "Math" which is a bunch of "static" functions ( they don't work on an object ) they simply do some calculation with parameters and return a result. But they are still grouped by the idea they are common mathmatical functions
As per your question is regarding Java:
if I had a class that, in one of the functions needed code that could invert an array, I could just make a method called invertArray() within the class.
Then yes you can do this, but if you are willing to implement OOPS concept in Java the you can also do :
I could create a whole new Functions class, where I could dump all these basic functions like inverting an array into.
For this part :
I would have to instantiate this class in pretty much every other class I use.
You can also create an interface as Java provides you this functionality where in you can just declare you functions and provide its implementation in their respective classes. This is also helpful if in case you want different functionality with same function then you can choose this way and you don't have to rewrite your function definitions again and again.
And, OOPS concept comes handy when your are dealing with big projects with n number of classes. It depends whether you are learning or implementing on projects.
I have just started to learn Java and is curious is it any good practice in Java for good object decomposition? Let me describe a problem. In big software project it's always a big classes like 'core' or 'ui' that tends to have a lot of methods and are intended as a mediators between smaller classes. For example, if user clicks a button on some window, this window's class sends a message to 'ui' class. This 'ui' class catches this message and acts accordingly by doing something with application user interface ( via calling method of one of it's member objects ) or by posting message to application 'core' if it's something like 'exit application' or 'start network connection'.
Such objects is very hard to break apart since they are a mere mediators between a lots of small application objects. But having a classes in application with hundreds and thousands of methods is not very handy, event if such methods are trivial task delegation from one object to another. C# solves such problem by allowing to break class implementation into multiple source files: you can divide god object any way you choose, and it will work.
Any practices by dividing such objects in Java?
One way to begin breaking such a large object apart is to first find a good subset of fields or properties managed by the large object that are related to each other and that don't interact with other fields or properties of the object. Then, create a new, smaller object using only those fields. That is, move all logic from the large class to the new smaller class. In the original large class, create a delegation method that simply passes the request along. This is a good first step that only involves changing the big object. It doesn't reduce the number of methods, but it can greatly reduce the amount of logic needed in the large class.
After a few rounds of doing this, you can begin to remove some of the delegation by pointing other objects directly at the newer, smaller objects, rather than going through the previously-huge object that was in the middle of everything.
See Wikipedia's Delegation pattern discussion for example.
As a simple example, if you have a personnel object to represent staff at a company, then you could create a payroll object to keep track of payroll-related values, a ratings object to keep track of employee ratings, an awards object to keep track of awards that the person has won, and so on.
To wit, if you started out with one big class containing the following methods, each containing business logic, among many other methods:
...
public boolean isManagement() { ... }
public boolean isExecutive() { ... }
public int getYearsOfService() { ... }
public Date getHireDate() { ... }
public int getDepartment() { ... }
public BigDecimal getBasePay() { ... }
public BigDecimal getStockShares() { ... }
public boolean hasStockSharePlan() { ... }
...
then this big object could, in its constructor, create a newly created object StaffType and a newly created object PayInformation and a newly created object StaffInformation, and initially these methods in the big object would look like:
// Newly added variables, initialized in the constructor (or as appropriate)
private final StaffType staffType;
private final StaffInformation staffInformation;
private final PayInformation payInformation;
...
public boolean isManagement() { return staffType.isManagement(); }
public boolean isExecutive() { return staffType.isExecutive(); }
public int getYearsOfService() { return staffInformation.getYearsOfService(); }
public Date getHireDate() { return staffInformation.getHireDate(); }
public int getDepartment() { return staffInformation.getDepartment(); }
public BigDecimal getBasePay() { return payInformation.getBasePay(); }
public BigDecimal getStockShares() { return payInformation.getStockShares(); }
public boolean hasStockSharePlan() { return payInformation.hasStockSharePlan(); }
...
where the full logic that used to be in the big object has been moved to these three new smaller objects. With this change, you can break the big object into smaller parts without having to touch anything that makes use of the big object. However, as you do this over time, you'll find that some clients of the big object may only need access to one of the divisible components. For these clients, instead of them using the big object and delegating to the specific object, they can make direct use of the small object. But even if this refactoring never occurs, you've improved things by separating the business logic of unrelated items into different classes.
The next logical step may be to change the BigClass into a java package. Next create new objects for each group of related functionality (noting in each class that the object is part of the new package).
The benefits of doing this are dependency reduction and performance.
No need to import the entire
package/BigClass just to get a few
methods.
Code changes to related
functionality don't require a
recompile/redeploy of the entire
package/BigClass.
Less memory used
for allocating/deallocating objects,
since you are using smaller classes.
I've seen some cases where this is solved by inheritance: let's say class Big takes care of 5 different things, and (for various reasons) they all have to be in the same class. So you pick an arbitrary inheritance order, and define:
BigPart1 // all methods dealing with topic #1
BigPart2 extends BigPart1 // all methods dealing with topic #2
...
Big extends BigPart4 // all methods dealing with the last topic.
If you can really layer things up, so that the breakage makes sense (Part2 actually uses stuff from Part1, but not vice versa, etc.) then maybe it makes some sense.
The place where I've seen this is in WebWorks, where a single class had tons of getter/setter methods -- the setters used for dependency injection (e.g., URL args passed to the object upon execution) and the getters for making values accessible to various page templates (I think it was JSPs).
So, the breakdown grouped stuff logically, e.g., assuming the class was called MyAction, there was MyActionBasicArgs (fields and setters for basic CGI arguments), extended by MyActionAdvancedArgs (advanced-option args), extended by MyActionExposedValues (getters), extended by MyActionDependencies (setters used by Spring dependency injection, non-CGI args), extended by MyAction (which contained the actual execute() method).
Because of the way dependency injection in WebWorks works (or at least, used to work, back then), it had to be one huge class, so breaking it down this way made things more maintainable. But first, please, please, see if you can simply avoid having a single huge class; think carefully about your design.
Yes, C# provides partial classes. I assume this is what you are referring to when you say:
C# solves such problem by allowing to break class implementation into multiple source
files: you can divide god object any way you choose, and it will work.
This does help make huge classes more manageable. However, I find partial classes best used when one needs to extend code created by a code generator. When a class is as large as you're talking about, it can almost always be divided into smaller classes by proper object oriented design. Using a partial class sidesteps the more correct object oriented design, which is sometimes OK as the end goal is stable, reliable, maintainable code, and not a textbook example of OO code. However, many times, putting the code of a large object into a large number of smaller partial class instances of the same class is not the ideal solution.
If you can possibly find subsets of the properties of the "god" object that do not interact with one another, then each one of those sets would logically make a good candidate for a new object type. However, if all properties of this "god" object depend on one another, then there is not much you can do to decompose the object.
I don't know why you would ever have such a large class.
I suppose if you were using a gui builder code generation and being lazy about it, you might end up in such a situation, but codegen usually ends up nasty unless you take control yourself.
Splitting a single class arbitrarily is a terrible solution to a terrible manufactured problem. (Code reuse, for one thing will become virtually impossible)
If you have to use a GUI builder, have it build smaller components, then use the small components to build up a bigger GUI. Each component should do exactly one job and do it well.
Try not to EVER edit generated code if you can avoid it. Putting business logic into a genned "frame" is just a horrid design pattern. Most code generators aren't very helpful with this, so try to just make a single, minimal edit to get at what you need from external classes (think MVC where the genned code is your View and the code you edit should be in your Model and Controller).
Sometimes you can just expose the getComponents method from the Frame object, get all the components out by iterating through the containers and then dynamically bind them to data and code (often binding to the name property works well), I've been able to safely use form editors this way, and all the binding code tends to be very easily abstracted and reused.
If you're not talking about generated code--Well in your "God" class, does it do exactly one small job and do it well? If not, pull out a "Job", put it in it's own class, and delegate to it.
Is your GOD class fully factored? When I've seen huge classes like this, I've usually seen a lot of copy/paste/edit lines. If there is enough of a similarity to copy and past and edit some section, then there is enough to factor these lines into a single chunk of code.
If your big class is a GUI class, consider decorators--reusable and moves stuff out of your main class. A double win.
I guess the answer to your question is that in Java we just use good OO to ensure that the problem doesn't arise in the first place (or we don't--Java's certainly not immune to the problems you are talking about any more than any other language)
By now my average class contains about 500 lines of code and about 50 methods.
IDE is Eclipse, where I turned “Save Actions” so that methods are sorted in alphabetical order, first public methods, and then private methods.
To find any specific method in the code I use “Quick Outline”. If needed, “Open Call Hierarchy” shows the sequence of methods as they called one by one.
This approach gives following advantages:
I can start typing new method without thinking where to place it in the code, because after save it will be placed by Eclipse to appropriate place automatically.
I always find public methods in the upper part of the code (don’t have to search the whole class for them)
However there are some disadvantages:
When refactoring large method into smaller ones I’m not very satisfied that new private methods are placed in different parts of code and therefore it’s little bit hard to follow the code concept. To avoid that, I name them in some weird way to keep them near each one, for example: showPageFirst(), showPageSecond() instead of showFirstPage(), showSecondPage().
May be there are some better approaches?
Organize your code for its audiences. For example, a class in a library might have these audiences:
An API client who wants more detail on how a public method works.
A maintainer who wants to find the relevant method to make a small change.
A more serious maintainer who wants to do a significant refactoring or add functionality.
For clients perusing the source code, you want to introduce core concepts. First we have a class doc comment that includes a glossary of important terms and usage examples. Then we have the code related to one term, then those related to another, then those related to a third.
For maintainers, any pair of methods that are likely to have to change together should be close by. A public method and its private helper and any constants related to it only should show up together.
Both of these groups of users are aided by grouping class members into logical sections which are separately documented.
For example, a collection class might have several mostly orthogonal concerns that can't easily be broken out into separate classes but which can be broken into separate sections.
Mutators
Accessors
Iteration
Serializing and toString
Equality, comparability, hashing
Well, naming your methods so that they'll be easier to spot in your IDE is really not good. Their name should reflect what they do, nothing more.
As an answer to your question, probably the best thing to do is to split you class into multiple classes and isolate groups of methods that have something in common in each of such classes. For example , if you have
public void largeMethodThatDoesSomething() {
//do A
//do B
//do C
}
which then you've refactored such that:
public void largeMethodThatDoesSomething() {
doA();
doB();
doC();
}
private void doA() {};
private void doB() {};
private void doC() {};
you can make a class called SomethingDoer where you place all these 4 metods and then use an instance of that class in your original class.
Don't worry about physically ordering your methods inside the class, if you can't see it just use Ctrl-O and start typing the method name and you will jump straight to it.
Having self-describing method names results in more maintainable code than artificially naming them to keep them in alphabetical order.
Hint: learn your shortcut keys and you will improve your productivity
Organizing the way you described sounds better than 99% of the Java code I have seen so far. However, on the other side, please make sure your classes don't grow too much and methods are not huge.
Classes should usually be less than 1000 lines and methods less than 150.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I've got a large-ish class (40 or so methods) that is part of a package I will be submitting as course-work. Currently, the methods are pretty jumbled up in terms of utility public/private etc. and I want to order them in a sensible way. Is there a standard way of doing this? E.g. normally fields are listed before methods, the constructor(s) are listed before other methods, and getters/setters last; what about the remaining methods?
Class (static) variables: First the public class variables, then the
protected, and then the private.
Instance variables: First public, then protected, and then private.
Constructors
Methods: These methods should be grouped by functionality rather
than by scope or accessibility. For example, a private class method
can be in between two public instance methods. The goal is to make
reading and understanding the code easier.
Source: https://www.oracle.com/java/technologies/javase/codeconventions-fileorganization.html
Some conventions list all the public methods first, and then all the private ones - that means it's easy to separate the API from the implementation, even when there's no interface involved, if you see what I mean.
Another idea is to group related methods together - this makes it easier to spot seams where you could split your existing large class into several smaller, more targeted ones.
The more precise link to «Code Conventions»: «Class and Interface Declarations»
Not sure if there is universally accepted standard but my own preferences are;
constructors first
static methods next, if there is a main method, always before other static methods
non static methods next, usually in order of the significance of the method followed by any methods that it calls. This means that public methods that call other class methods appear towards the top and private methods that call no other methods usually end up towards the bottom
standard methods like toString, equals and hashcode next
getters and setters have a special place reserved right at the bottom of the class
40 methods in a single class is a bit much.
Would it make sense to move some of the functionality into other - suitably named - classes? Then it is much easier to make sense of.
When you have fewer, it is much easier to list them in a natural reading order. A frequent paradigm is to list things either before or after you need them , in the order you need them.
This usually means that main() goes on top or on bottom.
My "convention": static before instance, public before private, constructor before methods, but main method at the bottom (if present).
Also, eclipse offers the possibility to sort class members for you, if you for some reason mixed them up:
Open your class file, the go to "Source" in the main menu and select "Sort Members".
taken from here: Sorting methods in Eclipse
Are you using Eclipse? If so I would stick with the default member sort order, because that is likely to be most familiar to whoever reads your code (although it is not my favourite sort order.)
This is language agnostic, but I'm working with Java currently.
I have a class Odp that does stuff. It has two private helper methods, one of which determines the max value in an int[][], and the other returns the occurrences of a character in a String.
These aren't directly related to the task at hand, and seem like they could be reused in future projects. Where is the best place to put this code?
Make it public -- bad, because Odp's functionality is not directly related, and these private methods are an implementation detail that don't need to be in the public interface.
Move them to a different class -- but what would this class be called? MiscFunctionsWithNoOtherHome? There's no unifying theme to them.
Leave it private and copy/paste into other classes if necessary -- BAD
What else could I do?
Here's one solution:
Move the method that determines te max value in a two-dimensional int array to a public class called IntUtils and put the class to a util package.
Put the method that returns the occurrences of a character in a String to a puclic class called StringUtils and put the class to a util package.
There's nothing particularly bad about writing static helper classes in Java. But make sure that you don't reinvent the wheel; the methods that you just described might already be in some OS library, like Jakarta Commons.
Wait until you need it!
Your classes wil be better for it, as you have no idea for now how your exact future needs will be.
When you are ready, in Eclipse "Extract Method".
EDIT: I have found that test driven development give code that is easier to reuse because you think of the API up front.
A lot of people create a Utility class with a lot of such methods declared as static. Some people don't like this approach but I think it strikes a balance between design, code reuse, and practicality.
If it were me, I'd either:
create one or more Helper classes that contained the methods as static publics, naming them as precisely as possible, or
if these methods are all going to be used by classes of basically the same type, I'd create an abstract base class that includes these as protected methods.
Most of the time I end up going with 1, although the helper methods I write are usually a little more specific than the ones you've mentioned, so it's easier to come up with a class name.
I not know what the other languages do but I have the voice of experience in Java on this: Just move to the end-brace of your class and write what you need ( or nested class if you prefer as that is accepted canonical convention in Java )
Move the file scope class ( default access class right there in the file ) to it's own compilation unit ( public class in it's own file ) when the compiler moans about it.
See other's comments about nested classes of same name if differing classes have the same functionality in nested class of same name. What will happen on larger code bases is the two will diverge over time and create maintainability issues that yield to Java's Name of class as type of class typing convention that forces you to resolve the issue somehow.
What else could I do?
Be careful not to yield to beginner impulses on this. Your 1-2 punch nails it, resist temptation.
In my experience, most large projects will have some files for "general" functions, which are usually all sorts of helper functions like this one which don't have any builtin language library.
In your case, I'd create a new folder (new package for Java) called "General", then create a file to group together functions (for Java, this will just be a class with lots of static members).
For example, in your case, I'd have something like: General/ArrayUtils.java, and in that I'd throw your function and any other function you need.
Don't worry that for now this is making a new class (and package) for only one function. Like you said in the question, this will be something you'll use for the next project, and the next. Over time, this "General" package will start to grow all sorts of really great helper classes, like MathUtils, StringUtils, etc. which you can easily copy to every project you work on.
You should avoid helper classes if you can, since it creates redundant dependencies. Instead, if the classes using the helper methods are of the same type (as kbrasee wrote), create an abstract superclass containing the methods.
If you do choose to make a separate class do consider making it package local, or at least the methods, since it may not make sense for smaller projects. If your helper methods are something you will use between projects, then a library-like approach is the nicest to code in, as mentioned by Edan Maor.
You could make a separate project called utils or something, where you add the classes needed, and attach them as a library to the project you are working on. Then you can easily make inter-project library updates/fixes by one modification. You could make a package for these tools, even though they may not be that unified (java.util anyone?).
Option 2 is probably your best bet in Java, despite being unsatisfying. Java is unsatisfying, so no surprise there.
Another option might be to use the C Preprocessor as a part of your build process. You could put some private static functions into file with no class, and then include that file somewhere inside a class you want to use it in. This may have an effect on the size of your class files if you go overboard with it, of course.