Software Rockstar

The Dependency Inversion Principle deals with how to correctly design classes such that their dependency on one another causes the least amount of work in case of a change. Uncle Bob’s definition of DIP states:

• High-level modules should not depend on low-level modules. Both should depend on abstractions.
• Abstractions should not depend on details. Details should depend on abstractions.

Essentially what this principle means is that in a tiered design, higher level modules and lower level modules should not directly depend on each other; instead they should only depend on abstractions. Moreover, abstractions should not have any knowledge of details (other classes in the system).

This principle closely relates to some of the other design principles I discussed previously in that it yields a design that is highly decoupled ensuring that minor changes in one part of the application do not cause a domino effect in other parts of the application. Moreover such a design is extensible — as new business entities are added, usually such as design scales well by requiring only new code to be added rather than existing code to be modified. ASP.NET 2.0′s Provider Model is a great example of such a design that provides a default implementation for various sub-systems such as Membership, Personalization, Navigation, etc. but also allows developers to modify the default behavior by extending certain classes.

The Liskov Substitution Principle dictates when and where it is correct to derive a subtype from an existing supertype. As defined by Barbara Liskov and Jeannette Wing, it essentially states that:

Let q(x) be a property provable about objects x of type T. Then q(y) should be true for objects y of type S where S is a subtype of T.

What it means is that if S is a subtype of T, then a function q(x) must behave in the same manner irrespective of the type of x whether it be S or T. In other words, if a piece of code behaves differently for a subtype than a supertype, then that code violates the LSP (and consequently the OCP).

Let’s say that we work for a bank and that we have a simple teller application. Currently the teller application works with checking and savings account types.

public abstract class Account
{
    public abstract double CurrentBalance { get; }
    public abstract void Deposit(double amount);
}

public class CheckingAccount : Account
{
    private double _currentBalance;

    public override double CurrentBalance
    {
        get { return _currentBalance; }
    }

    public override void Deposit(double amount)
    {
        _currentBalance += amount;
    }
}

public class SavingsAccount : Account
{
    /* Savings account implementation */
}

Our bank just entered the mortgage business so we need to modify our teller application to support this new account type. During the short analysis phase we decide that since mortgage account is type of an account (IS-A relationship), we can simply create a new mortgage class deriving from the Account abstract class, override a method and a property, and we should be in business. We add a new class as follows:

public class MortgageAccount : Account
{
    private double _currentBalance;

    public override double CurrentBalance
    {
        get { return _currentBalance; }
    }

    public override void Deposit(double amount)
    {
        _currentBalance -= amount;
    }
}

Everything sounds logical, that is until we come across this code in the teller application:

public class Bank
{
    public void ReceiveMoney(Account account, double amount)
    {
        double oldBalance = account.CurrentBalance;
        account.Deposit(amount);
        Debug.Assert(account.CurrentBalance = oldBalance + amount);
    }
}

Based on our pre-existing code, the ReceiveMoney() method is making a reasonable assumption that the new balance should be equal to the old balance plus the newly deposited amount. This assumption is, however, violated if we pass an instance of the Mortgage class to this method. This is a clear violation of the LSP.

For Agile methodologies to really work with the promised increase in efficiency, it’s important that all participating team members be generalists rather than specialists.

For some companies migrating to Agile from other traditional methodologies, this may not be the case. I have worked with companies that have well-defined and assigned roles for Business Analysts, Database Administrators, Front-end Developers, Back-end Developers, etc. When such companies move towards Agile, they face a problem of optimal resource allocation and utilization.

As an example, a developer may not be productive while a DBA is creating new tables in the database and writing stored procedures. Once the DBA is done with his tasks, he may not have enough to do until the start of the next iteration. Since Agile is iterative, and iterations can’t overlap, this may result in poor resource utilization and may adversely effect the overall efficiency.

Before starting to implement an Agile methodology within your organization, it is important to make sure that your IT human-resource infrastructure actually supports it. While Agile may work in companies with specialized IT roles, it is definitely not designed and optimized for those scenarios.

Another fundemental principle of object-oriented software design is the Open-Closed Principle. According to Uncle Bob (Robert Martin), this principle states that:

Software entities (classes, modules, functions, etc.) should be
open for extension, but closed for modification.

Essentially, what this means is that software’s design should be such that it’s behavior can be modified by extending the existing source code rather than modifying it. Consider the following example:

public class CheckingAccount
{
    private double _currentBalance;

    public void ProcessDeposit(double amount)
    {
        _currentBalance += amount;
    }
}

public class MortgageAccount
{
    private double _currentBalance;

    public void ProcessPayment(double amount)
    {
        _currentBalance -= amount;
    }
}

public class Bank
{
    public void ReceiveMoney(object account, double amount)
    {
        if (account.GetType() == typeof(CheckingAccount))
        {
            CheckingAccount checkingAccount = (CheckingAccount)account;
            checkingAccount.ProcessDeposit(amount);
        }
        else if (account.GetType() == typeof(MortgageAccount))
        {
            MortgageAccount mortgageAccount = (MortgageAccount)account;
            mortgageAccount.ProcessPayment(amount);
        }
    }
}

Notice that the ReceiveMoney() method of the Bank class has to determine the type of account passed in. Only based on that information it can perform the appropriate business logic. Later if we add another account type then we may need to modify this code in order for it to work properly. The above code is, hence, in violation of the Open-Closed principle.

So how can we revise our code to conform to the Open-Closed Principle? Abstraction is the answer. Let’s take a look:

public abstract class Account
{
    public abstract void Deposit(double amount);
}

public class CheckingAccount : Account
{
    private double _currentBalance;

    public override void Deposit(double amount)
    {
        _currentBalance += amount;
    }
}

public class MortgageAccount : Account
{
    private double _currentBalance;

    public override void Deposit(double amount)
    {
        _currentBalance -= amount;
    }
}

public class Bank
{
    public void ReceiveMoney(Account account, double amount)
    {
        account.Deposit(amount);
    }
}

Notice how we got rid of all conditional logic in the ReceiveMoney() method. Also notice that if we later add a new account type, the ReceiveMoney() method will work without any modifications. The revised version of our code above, hence, conforms to the Open-Closed Principle.

Let’s now consider what happens to our code if a new business rule is added that requires an e-mail notification to be sent to the account holder whenever a deposit is made. Obviously, we’ll have to modify the ReceiveMoney() method to perform that logic. Since we can’t account for all possible scenarios, we can never acheive perfect closure. With that in mind, design the simplest software that will do the job, and conform to OCP or other such design principles where you see the need.