Timeline for When can client code know about strategy pattern implementations?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 12, 2017 at 17:22 | comment | added | Frank Hileman | @DocBrown you are correct. | |
| Jul 12, 2017 at 6:27 | comment | added | Doc Brown | @FrankHileman: you are correct about what patterns are, nevertheless your logic is flawed. The fact a pattern is a high-level solution, or the fact the same pattern can be implemented in different variants does not prevent one to implement a pattern in a wrong way. For example, the strategy pattern has a clear desciption in the GoF book, and it has the purpose of decoupling the "context" from a concrete strategy. If I make an attempt implementation but introduce something which invalidates the decoupling, it is IMHO sensible to say "I violate the (purpose of) the pattern". | |
| Jul 12, 2017 at 1:37 | vote | accept | ÁEDÁN | ||
| Jul 11, 2017 at 23:08 | comment | added | Frank Hileman | @DocBrown patterns are supposed to be higher level structures than specific code implementations, to express things that limitations in the language etc make difficult to reuse as library constructs. So one pattern implementation is never more correct than another. That is all I meant. | |
| Jul 11, 2017 at 19:58 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackSoftEng/status/884864615053639680 | ||
| Jul 11, 2017 at 14:30 | comment | added | Doc Brown |
@FrankHileman: honestly, this sounds nitty. To my understanding, it is perfectly possible to violate the "strategy pattern by the book". I guess what you really meant is "violating a pattern is not necessarily a bad thing" (if the own solution is still a good one). However, in this case, by implementing the code for picking the right strategy subclass directly in the ConfigurationParser, not the strategy pattern itself would be "violated", but the SRP. The solution for this was already mentioned by T.C. below, namely injecting a factory into the parser.
|
|
| Jul 10, 2017 at 22:43 | comment | added | Frank Hileman | You cannot "violate a pattern", since patterns are simply ideas for creating your own custom solution. | |
| Jul 10, 2017 at 18:23 | answer | added | Tulains Córdova | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jul 10, 2017 at 17:37 | comment | added | Fuhrmanator | You can encapsulate the details in a simple factory. It's often used with strategy to insulate clients. | |
| Jul 10, 2017 at 16:40 | comment | added | Robert Harvey | You might consider weighing the pros and cons, instead of just relying on your gut. High decoupling does you no good if the system can't perform its essential functions. I consider "correctness" of secondary importance. | |
| Jul 10, 2017 at 16:39 | comment | added | ÁEDÁN | Haven't gotten that far. | |
| Jul 10, 2017 at 16:33 | comment | added | Robert Harvey | Cool. So how will you solve the problem of processing the stream properly? Or is that largely irrelevant? | |
| Jul 10, 2017 at 16:26 | comment | added | ÁEDÁN | My gut reaction is the need for a higher degree of decoupling. | |
| Jul 10, 2017 at 16:23 | comment | added | Robert Harvey | Which is more important to you: the ability to know what kind of stream it is so that you can process it properly, or the need for a higher degree of decoupling? | |
| Jul 10, 2017 at 15:44 | history | asked | ÁEDÁN | CC BY-SA 3.0 |