Timeline for Do Interactors in "clean architecture" violate the Single Responsibility Principle?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 28, 2023 at 6:46 | answer | added | Jocelyn Englund | timeline score: -1 | |
| Dec 13, 2019 at 18:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackSoftEng/status/1205548107611721730 | ||
| Dec 13, 2019 at 16:00 | answer | added | Иван Годзинский | timeline score: 0 | |
| May 28, 2019 at 10:13 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| May 28, 2019 at 12:11 | |||||
| Feb 27, 2018 at 14:22 | history | edited | Thomas Owens♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Feb 18, 2018 at 19:52 | audit | Suggested edits | |||
| Feb 18, 2018 at 20:53 | |||||
| Feb 2, 2018 at 16:36 | vote | accept | schrödingcöder | ||
| Feb 1, 2018 at 4:09 | history | edited | Robert Harvey | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 17 characters in body
|
| Jan 26, 2018 at 17:19 | history | edited | schrödingcöder | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Clarification and updated in view of comments and answers
|
| Jan 26, 2018 at 15:56 | answer | added | guillaume31 | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jan 26, 2018 at 15:43 | comment | added | Filip Milovanović | Otherwise, when you take that to the extreme, you could argue that the whole program violates SRP because it "does everything" - but that's not the point of SRP. | |
| Jan 26, 2018 at 15:43 | comment | added | Filip Milovanović | I'd say its OK to separate responsibilities if you find that there's a need. But if you find that you always have to make changes in several classes that constitute the same Interactor, then perhaps the concerns should be separated in a different way (depending on what kind of change patterns show up, and what parts of code you wan't to isolate from change). P.S. "However, doesn't this push SRP violation up onto the module level?" - I'd say no, because the specific responsibilities still remain in the subcomponents. | |
| Jan 26, 2018 at 15:42 | answer | added | Robert Harvey | timeline score: 30 | |
| Jan 26, 2018 at 15:26 | comment | added | schrödingcöder | Perhaps an Interactor is essentially a three-side adaptor: Input to Domain and Domain to Output? Then it's natural for the Interactor to change once any of the three changes. With little input/output logic in the interactor (as commented by @Euphoric) SRP shouldn't matter much. With considerable (non-reducible) logic, it might be necessary to separate the responsibilities? | |
| Jan 26, 2018 at 14:54 | comment | added | schrödingcöder | There's some logic in preparing output. The main issue is that both the domain evolves (which is fine), but also formats/fields of the output data change often. The latter has caused a lot of rework in interactors. | |
| Jan 26, 2018 at 14:24 | comment | added | Euphoric | Depends on how much logic or behavior there is in the receiving input and preparing output. I would agrue those should be just dumb "data mappers". | |
| Jan 26, 2018 at 13:32 | review | First posts | |||
| Jan 26, 2018 at 14:53 | |||||
| Jan 26, 2018 at 13:29 | history | asked | schrödingcöder | CC BY-SA 3.0 |