Skip to main content

Opt greseli de design care ne pot afecta aplicatia

Am inceput sa studiez design patterns si am inceput cu o carte de a celor de la Gof (Gang of Four). In aceasta carte am gasit opt greseli de design care ne pot afecta aplicatia:
  1. Crearea unui obiect folosind numele unei clase explicit. In acest fel ajungem sa fim legati direct de o anumita implementare. Pentru a evita acest lucru putem sa folosim o interfata, iar instanta sa o cream in mod indirect, de exemplu printr-un factory.
  2. Dependinte directe fata de sistemul hardware sau software. In cazul in care aplicatia noastra depinde in mod direct de anumite resurse ale sistemului portabilitatea scade in mod direct. Pentru aceaste cazuri putem sa incercam sa folosim un patern precum bridge, pentru a scadea dependintele.
  3. Dependintele fata de o anumita operatie. Cand specificam o anumita operatie, limitam ca lucrurile sa se intample intr-o singura varianta si numai una. Modificările care o sa apara in viitor o sa necesite mai mult timp, deoarece totul este hard-codat.
  4. Dependinta fata de algoritm. De obicei pe parcursul dezvoltării unei aplicatii un algoritm se schimba, din aceasta cauza algoritmii ar trebuii sa fie izolati si schimbati cu usurinta.
  5. Extinderea functionalitatilor prin subclase. In momentul in care trebuie sa adaugam o noua functionalitate, putem foarte simplu sa mostenim din clasa parinte si sa adaugam o noua functionalitate. Dar acest lucru implica sa cunoastem foarte bine clasa de baza, iar in timp poate sa duca la existenta unui numar foarte mari de clase. Acest lucru se poate rezolva prin delegation si composition. Aceste doua mecanisme ne permite sa adaugam functionalitati fara sa avem o inlantuire de subclase.
  6. Clase strans legate intre ele. In momentul in care ajungem sa avem o colectie de clase care sunt strans legate intre ele sistemul devine monolit. Orice modificare ajunge sa fie extrem de greu de facut si necesita cunoasterea foarte buna a sistemului.
  7. Imposibilitatea de a modifica anumite clase. Uneori avem nevoie sa modificam clase la care nu avem acces la codul sursa sau necesita modificarea unui numar mare de subclase. Pentru a evita acest lucru putem sa folosim Adapter sau Visitator pattern.
  8. Dependinte directa fata de un obiect sau o implementare. Este reprezentat in cazul in care o clasa conoaste modul in care o alta clasa functioneaza si este implementat. Modificarea aceste clase poate sa cauzeze modificari in cascada la toate clasele care folosesc clasa respectiva.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_pattern#Gang_of_Four

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How to audit an Azure Cosmos DB

In this post, we will talk about how we can audit an Azure Cosmos DB database. Before jumping into the problem let us define the business requirement: As an Administrator I want to be able to audit all changes that were done to specific collection inside my Azure Cosmos DB. The requirement is simple, but can be a little tricky to implement fully. First of all when you are using Azure Cosmos DB or any other storage solution there are 99% odds that you’ll have more than one system that writes data to it. This means that you have or not have control on the systems that are doing any create/update/delete operations. Solution 1: Diagnostic Logs Cosmos DB allows us activate diagnostics logs and stream the output a storage account for achieving to other systems like Event Hub or Log Analytics. This would allow us to have information related to who, when, what, response code and how the access operation to our Cosmos DB was done. Beside this there is a field that specifies what was th...

Can User Technical Profile Influence AI Architecture Decisions?

In the last few days, I ran a small experiment on Devin/Windsurf/Cascade, BMAD, and LLM-based architecture decisions. The initial concern was simple: if an AI coding assistant knows something about the user, for example, that the user is a Java developer or a .NET developer, can this information influence the architecture and technology stack that the AI will propose? This question is important because many companies are starting to use AI tools not only for coding but also for product discovery, architecture, documentation, and technical decision-making. If the AI is influenced by the developer's personal profile, the result may not be fully neutral. It may look like a business or architecture decision, but in reality, it may be partially shaped by the context of the person using the tool. The test was done using BMAD with Devin/Windsurf/Cascade. The scenario was a unified field service operations platform. The task was to let BMAD refine the product, define the architecture and s...

ADO.NET provider with invariant name 'System.Data.SqlClient' could not be loaded

Today blog post will be started with the following error when running DB tests on the CI machine: threw exception: System.InvalidOperationException: The Entity Framework provider type 'System.Data.Entity.SqlServer.SqlProviderServices, EntityFramework.SqlServer' registered in the application config file for the ADO.NET provider with invariant name 'System.Data.SqlClient' could not be loaded. Make sure that the assembly-qualified name is used and that the assembly is available to the running application. See http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=260882 for more information. at System.Data.Entity.Infrastructure.DependencyResolution.ProviderServicesFactory.GetInstance(String providerTypeName, String providerInvariantName) This error happened only on the Continuous Integration machine. On the devs machines, everything has fine. The classic problem – on my machine it’s working. The CI has the following configuration: TeamCity .NET 4.51 EF 6.0.2 VS2013 It see...