Is it bad practice when an Object has to be aware of another Object

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
2
down vote

favorite












I was reading this page and came across this sentence in the accepted answer:




I don't like A directly knowing about B. But that's a DIP thing
not a POJO thing.




What if you can't abstract out B so that A isn't aware of it?



Suppose if I have the following Book class:



public final class Book 

private final Author author;

// constructor and methods left out :D.



public final Author

private final String firstName;
private final String lastName;

// constructor and methods left out :D.



I'm aware of the fact that a book might have a list of authors, so it would be better if it was List<Author> authors, but I want to focus on a specific part of the above code sample.



Some might point out that the Book class knows about the Author object.



I don't see why Author would be an interface or abstract class.



Question:



Would you abstract out Author? If so, how?










share|improve this question

























    up vote
    2
    down vote

    favorite












    I was reading this page and came across this sentence in the accepted answer:




    I don't like A directly knowing about B. But that's a DIP thing
    not a POJO thing.




    What if you can't abstract out B so that A isn't aware of it?



    Suppose if I have the following Book class:



    public final class Book 

    private final Author author;

    // constructor and methods left out :D.



    public final Author

    private final String firstName;
    private final String lastName;

    // constructor and methods left out :D.



    I'm aware of the fact that a book might have a list of authors, so it would be better if it was List<Author> authors, but I want to focus on a specific part of the above code sample.



    Some might point out that the Book class knows about the Author object.



    I don't see why Author would be an interface or abstract class.



    Question:



    Would you abstract out Author? If so, how?










    share|improve this question























      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite











      I was reading this page and came across this sentence in the accepted answer:




      I don't like A directly knowing about B. But that's a DIP thing
      not a POJO thing.




      What if you can't abstract out B so that A isn't aware of it?



      Suppose if I have the following Book class:



      public final class Book 

      private final Author author;

      // constructor and methods left out :D.



      public final Author

      private final String firstName;
      private final String lastName;

      // constructor and methods left out :D.



      I'm aware of the fact that a book might have a list of authors, so it would be better if it was List<Author> authors, but I want to focus on a specific part of the above code sample.



      Some might point out that the Book class knows about the Author object.



      I don't see why Author would be an interface or abstract class.



      Question:



      Would you abstract out Author? If so, how?










      share|improve this question













      I was reading this page and came across this sentence in the accepted answer:




      I don't like A directly knowing about B. But that's a DIP thing
      not a POJO thing.




      What if you can't abstract out B so that A isn't aware of it?



      Suppose if I have the following Book class:



      public final class Book 

      private final Author author;

      // constructor and methods left out :D.



      public final Author

      private final String firstName;
      private final String lastName;

      // constructor and methods left out :D.



      I'm aware of the fact that a book might have a list of authors, so it would be better if it was List<Author> authors, but I want to focus on a specific part of the above code sample.



      Some might point out that the Book class knows about the Author object.



      I don't see why Author would be an interface or abstract class.



      Question:



      Would you abstract out Author? If so, how?







      java object-oriented class-design abstraction






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked 3 hours ago









      BasementJoe

      1597




      1597




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          2
          down vote



          accepted










          The way that in your example the Book class depends on Author, it's quite plausible that Author depends on Country, Town and Language (describing home town and native language), and so on.



          For the productive use of the program, you'll probably need Books with Authors having all these properties. So, there's nothing really wrong about that approach.



          But if you want to unit-test some functionality about Books, you'll appreciate not having to construct full-fledged Authors with their Country, Town and Language instances (and their dependencies and so on). Instead you'll want to use mockups with just enough functionality to support the Book class.



          To make that easy, define as an interface the API that an Author offers to other classes (hopefully Book and e.g. PublishingCompany need similar methods from Author, otherwise you should create multiple interfaces). Then for testing purposes, you (or your preferred mocking framework) can supply Author-like objects that are sufficient for Book, but don't need all the other classes.



          Of course, there are situations where this is just over-engineering, e.g. if Author really is nothing more than a holder for first and last name.






          share|improve this answer



























            up vote
            4
            down vote













            Whether we want to use an abstraction(interfaces and abstract classes) depends on whether we want the following advantages :



            • We want to be able to comfortably switch between different implementations of Author like ScientificJournalAuthor or FictionAuthor or a AutoBiographyAuthor. If all these different authors follow the contract of the interface Author, you will be able to use them interchangeably in certain scenarios, reaping the benefits of code reuse.


            • By thinking in terms of an Abstraction, you will be able to narrow down on the minimal amount of functionality you need from an Author for the Book class. This knowledge will help you keep your implementation of Book decoupled from implementations of Author.


            Warning : Make sure you don't spawn too many abstractions as this can reduce code readability and make you spend time thinking about things that aren't necessary and provide little code reuse.






            share|improve this answer








            New contributor




            Harsh Verma is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.













            • 1




              This answer provides a good example of why in this case, the more general reasoning it that this approach make the software more flexible with regard to enhancement and is closely related to the Open Closed principle en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open%E2%80%93closed_principle
              – Martin Spamer
              1 hour ago










            • The problem is, I don't see why different subclasses of Author need to exist. The types you provide in your first point could just as easily be stored in a List collection called genres, to indicate that one author might write multiple types of books.
              – BasementJoe
              8 mins ago










            Your Answer







            StackExchange.ready(function()
            var channelOptions =
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "131"
            ;
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
            createEditor();
            );

            else
            createEditor();

            );

            function createEditor()
            StackExchange.prepareEditor(
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: false,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            );



            );













             

            draft saved


            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsoftwareengineering.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f380001%2fis-it-bad-practice-when-an-object-has-to-be-aware-of-another-object%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest






























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            2
            down vote



            accepted










            The way that in your example the Book class depends on Author, it's quite plausible that Author depends on Country, Town and Language (describing home town and native language), and so on.



            For the productive use of the program, you'll probably need Books with Authors having all these properties. So, there's nothing really wrong about that approach.



            But if you want to unit-test some functionality about Books, you'll appreciate not having to construct full-fledged Authors with their Country, Town and Language instances (and their dependencies and so on). Instead you'll want to use mockups with just enough functionality to support the Book class.



            To make that easy, define as an interface the API that an Author offers to other classes (hopefully Book and e.g. PublishingCompany need similar methods from Author, otherwise you should create multiple interfaces). Then for testing purposes, you (or your preferred mocking framework) can supply Author-like objects that are sufficient for Book, but don't need all the other classes.



            Of course, there are situations where this is just over-engineering, e.g. if Author really is nothing more than a holder for first and last name.






            share|improve this answer
























              up vote
              2
              down vote



              accepted










              The way that in your example the Book class depends on Author, it's quite plausible that Author depends on Country, Town and Language (describing home town and native language), and so on.



              For the productive use of the program, you'll probably need Books with Authors having all these properties. So, there's nothing really wrong about that approach.



              But if you want to unit-test some functionality about Books, you'll appreciate not having to construct full-fledged Authors with their Country, Town and Language instances (and their dependencies and so on). Instead you'll want to use mockups with just enough functionality to support the Book class.



              To make that easy, define as an interface the API that an Author offers to other classes (hopefully Book and e.g. PublishingCompany need similar methods from Author, otherwise you should create multiple interfaces). Then for testing purposes, you (or your preferred mocking framework) can supply Author-like objects that are sufficient for Book, but don't need all the other classes.



              Of course, there are situations where this is just over-engineering, e.g. if Author really is nothing more than a holder for first and last name.






              share|improve this answer






















                up vote
                2
                down vote



                accepted







                up vote
                2
                down vote



                accepted






                The way that in your example the Book class depends on Author, it's quite plausible that Author depends on Country, Town and Language (describing home town and native language), and so on.



                For the productive use of the program, you'll probably need Books with Authors having all these properties. So, there's nothing really wrong about that approach.



                But if you want to unit-test some functionality about Books, you'll appreciate not having to construct full-fledged Authors with their Country, Town and Language instances (and their dependencies and so on). Instead you'll want to use mockups with just enough functionality to support the Book class.



                To make that easy, define as an interface the API that an Author offers to other classes (hopefully Book and e.g. PublishingCompany need similar methods from Author, otherwise you should create multiple interfaces). Then for testing purposes, you (or your preferred mocking framework) can supply Author-like objects that are sufficient for Book, but don't need all the other classes.



                Of course, there are situations where this is just over-engineering, e.g. if Author really is nothing more than a holder for first and last name.






                share|improve this answer












                The way that in your example the Book class depends on Author, it's quite plausible that Author depends on Country, Town and Language (describing home town and native language), and so on.



                For the productive use of the program, you'll probably need Books with Authors having all these properties. So, there's nothing really wrong about that approach.



                But if you want to unit-test some functionality about Books, you'll appreciate not having to construct full-fledged Authors with their Country, Town and Language instances (and their dependencies and so on). Instead you'll want to use mockups with just enough functionality to support the Book class.



                To make that easy, define as an interface the API that an Author offers to other classes (hopefully Book and e.g. PublishingCompany need similar methods from Author, otherwise you should create multiple interfaces). Then for testing purposes, you (or your preferred mocking framework) can supply Author-like objects that are sufficient for Book, but don't need all the other classes.



                Of course, there are situations where this is just over-engineering, e.g. if Author really is nothing more than a holder for first and last name.







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered 3 hours ago









                Ralf Kleberhoff

                3,296414




                3,296414






















                    up vote
                    4
                    down vote













                    Whether we want to use an abstraction(interfaces and abstract classes) depends on whether we want the following advantages :



                    • We want to be able to comfortably switch between different implementations of Author like ScientificJournalAuthor or FictionAuthor or a AutoBiographyAuthor. If all these different authors follow the contract of the interface Author, you will be able to use them interchangeably in certain scenarios, reaping the benefits of code reuse.


                    • By thinking in terms of an Abstraction, you will be able to narrow down on the minimal amount of functionality you need from an Author for the Book class. This knowledge will help you keep your implementation of Book decoupled from implementations of Author.


                    Warning : Make sure you don't spawn too many abstractions as this can reduce code readability and make you spend time thinking about things that aren't necessary and provide little code reuse.






                    share|improve this answer








                    New contributor




                    Harsh Verma is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.













                    • 1




                      This answer provides a good example of why in this case, the more general reasoning it that this approach make the software more flexible with regard to enhancement and is closely related to the Open Closed principle en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open%E2%80%93closed_principle
                      – Martin Spamer
                      1 hour ago










                    • The problem is, I don't see why different subclasses of Author need to exist. The types you provide in your first point could just as easily be stored in a List collection called genres, to indicate that one author might write multiple types of books.
                      – BasementJoe
                      8 mins ago














                    up vote
                    4
                    down vote













                    Whether we want to use an abstraction(interfaces and abstract classes) depends on whether we want the following advantages :



                    • We want to be able to comfortably switch between different implementations of Author like ScientificJournalAuthor or FictionAuthor or a AutoBiographyAuthor. If all these different authors follow the contract of the interface Author, you will be able to use them interchangeably in certain scenarios, reaping the benefits of code reuse.


                    • By thinking in terms of an Abstraction, you will be able to narrow down on the minimal amount of functionality you need from an Author for the Book class. This knowledge will help you keep your implementation of Book decoupled from implementations of Author.


                    Warning : Make sure you don't spawn too many abstractions as this can reduce code readability and make you spend time thinking about things that aren't necessary and provide little code reuse.






                    share|improve this answer








                    New contributor




                    Harsh Verma is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.













                    • 1




                      This answer provides a good example of why in this case, the more general reasoning it that this approach make the software more flexible with regard to enhancement and is closely related to the Open Closed principle en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open%E2%80%93closed_principle
                      – Martin Spamer
                      1 hour ago










                    • The problem is, I don't see why different subclasses of Author need to exist. The types you provide in your first point could just as easily be stored in a List collection called genres, to indicate that one author might write multiple types of books.
                      – BasementJoe
                      8 mins ago












                    up vote
                    4
                    down vote










                    up vote
                    4
                    down vote









                    Whether we want to use an abstraction(interfaces and abstract classes) depends on whether we want the following advantages :



                    • We want to be able to comfortably switch between different implementations of Author like ScientificJournalAuthor or FictionAuthor or a AutoBiographyAuthor. If all these different authors follow the contract of the interface Author, you will be able to use them interchangeably in certain scenarios, reaping the benefits of code reuse.


                    • By thinking in terms of an Abstraction, you will be able to narrow down on the minimal amount of functionality you need from an Author for the Book class. This knowledge will help you keep your implementation of Book decoupled from implementations of Author.


                    Warning : Make sure you don't spawn too many abstractions as this can reduce code readability and make you spend time thinking about things that aren't necessary and provide little code reuse.






                    share|improve this answer








                    New contributor




                    Harsh Verma is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.









                    Whether we want to use an abstraction(interfaces and abstract classes) depends on whether we want the following advantages :



                    • We want to be able to comfortably switch between different implementations of Author like ScientificJournalAuthor or FictionAuthor or a AutoBiographyAuthor. If all these different authors follow the contract of the interface Author, you will be able to use them interchangeably in certain scenarios, reaping the benefits of code reuse.


                    • By thinking in terms of an Abstraction, you will be able to narrow down on the minimal amount of functionality you need from an Author for the Book class. This knowledge will help you keep your implementation of Book decoupled from implementations of Author.


                    Warning : Make sure you don't spawn too many abstractions as this can reduce code readability and make you spend time thinking about things that aren't necessary and provide little code reuse.







                    share|improve this answer








                    New contributor




                    Harsh Verma is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.









                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer






                    New contributor




                    Harsh Verma is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.









                    answered 1 hour ago









                    Harsh Verma

                    411




                    411




                    New contributor




                    Harsh Verma is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.





                    New contributor





                    Harsh Verma is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.






                    Harsh Verma is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.







                    • 1




                      This answer provides a good example of why in this case, the more general reasoning it that this approach make the software more flexible with regard to enhancement and is closely related to the Open Closed principle en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open%E2%80%93closed_principle
                      – Martin Spamer
                      1 hour ago










                    • The problem is, I don't see why different subclasses of Author need to exist. The types you provide in your first point could just as easily be stored in a List collection called genres, to indicate that one author might write multiple types of books.
                      – BasementJoe
                      8 mins ago












                    • 1




                      This answer provides a good example of why in this case, the more general reasoning it that this approach make the software more flexible with regard to enhancement and is closely related to the Open Closed principle en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open%E2%80%93closed_principle
                      – Martin Spamer
                      1 hour ago










                    • The problem is, I don't see why different subclasses of Author need to exist. The types you provide in your first point could just as easily be stored in a List collection called genres, to indicate that one author might write multiple types of books.
                      – BasementJoe
                      8 mins ago







                    1




                    1




                    This answer provides a good example of why in this case, the more general reasoning it that this approach make the software more flexible with regard to enhancement and is closely related to the Open Closed principle en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open%E2%80%93closed_principle
                    – Martin Spamer
                    1 hour ago




                    This answer provides a good example of why in this case, the more general reasoning it that this approach make the software more flexible with regard to enhancement and is closely related to the Open Closed principle en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open%E2%80%93closed_principle
                    – Martin Spamer
                    1 hour ago












                    The problem is, I don't see why different subclasses of Author need to exist. The types you provide in your first point could just as easily be stored in a List collection called genres, to indicate that one author might write multiple types of books.
                    – BasementJoe
                    8 mins ago




                    The problem is, I don't see why different subclasses of Author need to exist. The types you provide in your first point could just as easily be stored in a List collection called genres, to indicate that one author might write multiple types of books.
                    – BasementJoe
                    8 mins ago

















                     

                    draft saved


                    draft discarded















































                     


                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function ()
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsoftwareengineering.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f380001%2fis-it-bad-practice-when-an-object-has-to-be-aware-of-another-object%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                    );

                    Post as a guest













































































                    Popular posts from this blog

                    How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

                    Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

                    How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?