It is time to see the fifth and last principle of SOLID: the Dependency Inversion Principle, also known as DIP. If you missed the other principles, you can learn more about them by following these links:

• Single Responsibility Principle (SRP)
• Open Closed Principle (OCP)
• Liskov Substitution Principle (LSP)
• Interface Segregation Principle (ISP)

When developing software you will have a lot of different modules having each their role and responsibility. You will have to connect these modules between them in order to create the desired functionalities for your system. They will have dependencies between them and it will increase the coupling between your components. So it is important to reduce the risk involved in these dependencies. This is where the DIP rules come in play:

1. High-level modules should not depend on low-level modules. Both should depend on abstractions.
2. Abstractions should not depend upon details. Details should depend upon abstractions.

When a high-level module (business service for instance) depends on low-level module (data validator, a repository, …) it is difficult to reuse this module because it is highly coupled.

I have created an example that violates the DIP and I will show a way to solve the issue.

public class User
{
    public string UserName { get; set; }
    // some more properties
}
 
public class UserRepository
{
    public User GetUser(string userName)
    {
        // retrieve user in Database
        return new User();
    }
}
 
public class NotificationService
{
    public void Send(string message, User user)
    {
        // populate a message with the user information
        // send the message
    }
}
 
public class MessageSender
{
    // Send a message to a specific user
    public void SendMessage(string message, string userName)
    {
        var userRepository = new UserRepository();
        var user = userRepository.GetUser(userName);
 
        var notificationService = new NotificationService();
        notificationService.Send(message, user);
    }
}

In this piece of code my high-level module is the MessageSender, it allows me to send a given message to a given user (found by its username). For example this is a class that can be used from a user interface with a form. You can see that it has dependencies on a repository and a service, a modification of one of them can have impacts on my class. And what if I want to retrieve my user through a web service instead of the database? Or if I want to be able to send message to my friend via Twitter, Facebook or another social network? I will have to add complexity in this module even if its responsibility does not change from a “business” point of view.

My code is highly coupled and violates the Dependency Inversion Principle, I have to change it and I will by using abstraction (interfaces in my case).

public interface IUserRepository
{
    User GetUser(string userName);
}
 
public class UserRepository : IUserRepository
{
    public User GetUser(string userName)
    {
        // retrieve user in Database
        return new User();
    }
}
 
public interface INotificationService
{
    void Send(string mesage, User user);
}
 
public class NotificationService : INotificationService
{
    public void Send(string message, User user)
    {
        // populate a message with the user information
        // send the message
    }
}
 
public class MessageSender
{
    public INotificationService NotificationService { get; set; }
    public IUserRepository UserRepository { get; set; }
 
    // Send a message to a specific user
    public void SendMessage(string message, string userName)
    {
        var user = UserRepository.GetUser(userName);
        NotificationService.Send(message, user);
    }
}

In this new version I only use contracts/abstractions for my high-level component and this way I reduced the coupling with the implementations of the low-level modules. I decided to expose the dependencies via properties to access them and set them in order to clean the “SendMessage” method. When using this class I can now specify if I want to use an EmailNotificationService, a TwitterNotificationService, another social network related service or even a test double if I am in a test context.

Imagine creating automated tests with the first implementation! I would have to create an actual database for my UserRepository and a STMP service for my email based NotificationService. All of this only to test this little piece of logic, with abstraction and dependency inversion it is much easier now to test my components. A few months ago I introduced a DIP pattern known as Dependency Injection, you can learn more here.

This is the end of my presentation of the Dependency Inversion Principle and the end of the SOLID principles as well. I hope you like it and do not hesitate to leave a comment if you want to improve the concepts I have introduced in these blog posts.

See you next time!

In my latest posts I introduced the Single Responsibility Principle, the Open Closed Principle and the Liskov Substitution Principle of SOLID. Now it is time to see the Interface Segregation Principle (ISP). In Object Oriented Programming (OOP) abstraction is a valuable asset especially with interfaces that allow you to design your application by contracts. Even if the interfaces do not contain any actual code it is important to control their size. The following sentence defines the ISP rule:

Clients should not be forced to depend on methods they do not use.

In other words it means that you should have small dedicated interfaces instead of larger ones. This way the client code will only have access to the functionalities it needs. I have created an example to show how the ISP can be violated and how to fix it.

public interface IRepository<T> where T : class
{
    void Insert(T entity);
    void Update(T entity);
    T Get(int id);
    void Delete(int id);
}

I have this interface that represents a repository to manipulate the entities stored in my database, it has the basic CRUD (Create Read Update Delete) operations. I will use this interface on my User entity:

public class User
{
    public int Id { get; set; }
    // other properties
}
 
public class UserRepository : IRepository<User>
{
    public void Insert(User entity)
    {
        // save user in DB
    }
 
    public void Update(User entity)
    {
        // update user in DB
    }
 
    public User Get(int id)
    {
        // retrieve user from DB
        return new User();
    }
 
    public void Delete(int id)
    {
        // delete user from DB
    }
}

Good, I have now a full control over my User objects lifetime in the database. Now I also want to be able to retrieve some event logs to be able to consult them, I will use my repository interface to do so.

public class EventLog
{
    public int Id { get; set; }
    public string Message { get; set; }
    // other properties
}
 
public class LogRepository : IRepository<EventLog>
{
    public void Insert(EventLog entity)
    {
        // nothing to do
    }
 
    public void Update(EventLog entity)
    {
        // nothing to do
    }
 
    public EventLog Get(int id)
    {
        // retrieve log from DB
        return new EventLog();
    }
 
    public void Delete(int id)
    {
        // nothing to do
    }
}

The issue is that my logs are stored in the database by other applications and in the one I’m working on I don’t have any logging to do. This force me to leave 3 methods empty since they are not used but are defined in my interface… This is clearly a violation of the Interface Segregation Principle. In this example I have a repository that is “read & write” and another that is just “read”. My abstraction is not correct in my context.

I have to find a solution that allows me to keep the functionalities for both repositories without breaking the ISP. I will then create two separate interfaces:

public interface IReadRepository<T> where T : class
{
    T Get(int id);
}
 
public interface IWriteRepository<T> where T : class
{
    void Insert(T entity);
    void Update(T entity);
    void Delete(int id);
}

As you can see one is dedicated to “read” operations and the other to “write” operations. My LogRepository can now inherits the IReadRepository because it does not need anything else.

public class LogRepository : IReadRepository<EventLog>
{
    public EventLog Get(int id)
    {
        // retrieve log from data source
        return new EventLog();
    }
}

And what about the UserRepository? Since it is “read & write” it will implement both interfaces. Multiple inheritance is commonly use when the ISP is in play.

public class UserRepository : IReadRepository<User>, IWriteRepository<User>
{
    public void Insert(User entity)
    {
        // save user in DB
    }
 
    public void Update(User entity)
    {
        // update user in DB
    }
 
    public User Get(int id)
    {
        // retrieve user from DB
        return new User();
    }
 
    public void Delete(int id)
    {
        // delete user from DB
    }
}

With time my application is likely to grow and use more and more entities from the database that will need “read” and “write” operations. If it is the case I can create an IReadWriteRepository that will be defined like this:

public interface IReadWriteRepository<T> : IReadRepository<T>, IWriteRepository<T>
    where T : class
{
 
}

In my example the UserRepository can implement this interface since it works as an alias over the two other ones. The ISP does not prevent you from regrouping interfaces under a common one. This will allow your code to be “cleaner” and explicit without losing functionalities.

This is the end of the Interface Segregation Principle presentation, remember to look for partial implementations of an interface if you want to spot where the ISP is violated.

I hope you liked this 4th principle of the SOLID series and as always do not hesitate to share, comment and give your opinion.

See you next time!

It is time for the third entry for the SOLID series, after the SRP and the OCP, I’ll introduce the Liskov Substitution Principle (LSP). This concept has been introduced by Barbara Liskov in 1984, with Jeannette Wing they define this principle as the following:

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

Well, if you are like me you must be still trying to figure this one out to understand how it can be applied to Object Oriented Programming. Do not worry, a more accessible rule has been defined to specify the LSP.

Subtypes must be substitutable for their base types.

In other words it means that consuming any implementation of a base class should not change the correctness of the system. To give more depth to this principle I will use the famous Rectangle-Square example to show how this rule can be violated.

public class Rectangle
{
    public int Width { get; set; }
    public int Length { get; set; }
    public virtual int CalculateArea()
    {
        return Width * Length;
    }
}
 
public class Square : Rectangle
{
    public override int CalculateArea()
    {
        return Width * Width;
    }
}

As you can see, the Square is a subclass of Rectangle and that makes sense since a square is a rectangle with the same width and length. Now I will use these two classes in a program:

class Program
{
    static void Main(string[] args)
    {
        Rectangle rectangle = new Square();
        rectangle.Length = 10;
        rectangle.Width = 5;
        Console.WriteLine("Area : {0}", rectangle.CalculateArea());
    }
}

Area: 25

Let me resume the situation: I have a rectangle of 10 by 5 and its area is 25?! This does not make sense. Even if the inheritance seems legitimate, the way it is used in my application violates the Liskov Substitution Principle.

Using the NotSupportedException of the .NET framework is likely showing that the LSP is not respected in your source code. There is even a part of this same framework that transgress this principle.

class Program
{
    static void Main(string[] args)
    {
        ICollection<int> collection = new ReadOnlyCollection<int>(new List<int>{1,2});
        collection.Add(3);  // throws a NotSupportedException
    }
}

The ReadOnlyCollection does not allow any modification to the collection, it is impossible to add or remove items in it. Yet its the ICollection interface that defines methods to manipulate the items: the LSP is clearly violated.

The LSP is closely related to the Design by Contract approach to create software. This way your thinking ahead of the pre-conditions,  post-conditions and side effects for your application and every implementations of your subtypes are related to your contracts.

This is the end of the introduction to the Liskov Substitution Principle and especially how to detect when the rule is broken. I am still working on a relevant example to demonstrate how to start from a “bad” code sample, like the ones I gave you, to a sample that respect the LSP.

In the meantime do not hesitate to give your opinion regarding this topic.

See you next time!

In my last entry I introduced the S of the SOLID principles: Single Responsibility Principle. Today I will move to the next letter, the O which stands for Open Closed Principle. In an agile environment, teams and projects have to be responsive to change (4th value of the agile manifesto) in order to steadily add value (2nd value of the software craftsmanship manifesto). But respecting these values can be really hard if the code of your application is not easily extensible. This is where this second principle come in play.

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

This is the rule for the Open Closed Principle. There are 2 key attributes in this statement and in the name of the principle as well: open & close. Even if they are in opposition this does not imply that they block each other.

The module is open for extension, this means that it can be extended with new behaviors as the requirements for the application change. Yet the module is also closed for modification, in other words it implies that you should be able to extend the functionalities of this module without modifying its source code. I know it might sound confusing and this is why I’ll show an example to explain how this principle can be used.

public class User
{
    // some properties
}
 
public class NotificationCenter
{
    public void NotifyByEmail(User user, string message)
    {
        // some email related logic
    }
 
    public void NotifyByText(User user, string message)
    {
        // some texting relating logic
    }
}

In this piece of code I created a class that allows me to send notifications to a user by email or by text. Now imagine that I want my application to notify my users using social networks… I will have to modify the source code of this class to add new behaviors and it clearly violates the OCP. I will update my class in order to change this “mistake”:

public interface INotificationService
{
    void SendMessage(User user, string message);
}
 
public class EmailNotificationService : INotificationService
{
    public void SendMessage(User user, string message)
    {
        // some email related logic
    }
}
 
public class TextNotificationService : INotificationService
{
    public void SendMessage(User user, string message)
    {
        // some texting related logic
    }
}

public class FacebookNotificationService : INotificationService
{
    public void SendMessage(User user, string message)
    {
        // some facebook related logic
    }
}
 
public class TwitterNotificationService : INotificationService
{
    public void SendMessage(User user, string message)
    {
        // some twitter related logic
    }
}
 
public class NotificationCenter
{
    public void Notify(User user, string message, INotificationService service)
    {
        // some logic
        service.SendMessage(user, message);
    }
}

My NotificationCenter now use a specific interface to do its work and I am able to add functionalities to it without changing the code. All I have to do is to implement the INotificationService to add a new behavior. By doing this I can even separate each implementation in a specific assembly and I avoid putting Facebook or Twitter dependencies in my class. For instance if the Twitter API changes and I have to change the code, I can only package and deliver the TwitterNotificationService, I don’t have to redeploy everything.

The key to the OCP is abstraction. Yet this does not mean that you have to use it everywhere, the context is important and premature abstraction may add complexity to your source code where it is not needed.

I hope you like this presentation of the Open Closed Principle for the SOLID series. You can also check this great article by Joel Abrahamsson about this principle.

See you next time!