Inverting Dependencies

1 of 6
InvertingDependencies
photo credit: Stéfan (http://www.flickr.com/photos/st3f4n/4085958000/) () via
photopin (http://photopin.com) cc (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/)
Polymorphism is the super power of the OO designer. However, many designers don't exploit
this power, they use inheritance for structural purposes. In a language like Java, this results in
an abuse of the instanceof statement (http://www.javapractices.com/topic/TopicAction.do?Id=31) .
Maybe Polymorphism is not the right word; maybe we should use multiple personality
disorder (not as sexy as polymorphism when you're trying to sell your OO suite...). Depending
on the runtime context, the object does not change form, it does not morph, it changes
behavior, it behaves as another object.
But the interesting part of this mechanism is how the dependencies align. Looking at the
dependencies from a UML Class diagram viewpoint, inheritance goes in the opposite
direction as composition or aggregation.
The next example shows two different ways for the print method of Object to invoke the
myFunction method of Child. The first case, Child inherites from Object (Template Method
Pattern (http://sourcemaking.com/design_patterns/template_method) ) this require the myFunction
method to be present in Object. In the second case, Object depends on Child and invokes it.

2 of 6
Object
void print()
Child
int myFunction()
Object
int myFunction()
void print()
Child
int myFunction()
However looking at it from a UML sequence diagram viewpoint, the direction of the method
invocation is not reversed.
o:Object c:Child
print()
myFunction()
Concretely, inheritance is a tool that offers the possibility to inverse dependencies arrows
while preserving the direction of behavioral arrows! This super power can be extremely
powerful in light of architectural styles that impose constraints on the direction of
dependencies.
Examples of constraints imposed on the direction of dependencies are Robert C. Martin's
"The Dependency Rule" (http://blog.8thlight.com/uncle-bob/2012/08/13/the-clean-architecture.html) and the
layers architectural style. The later imposes a downward "can use" relationship between
layers. By using inheritance, one can respect this structural constraint of downward
dependencies yet allow behavior to invoke upwards.
Let see how all this works, but to do so, let's use a programming language that is not object
oriented. This way the details will not be hidden away by syntactic sugar or by compiler magic.
Let's start by defining Object with a simple struct (Object.h
(https://github.com/luctrudeau/InvertingDependencies/blob/master/Object.h) )
struct Object;
struct Object build(int a, int b);
struct Object {
int a;
int b;


3 of 6
The first line is a forward declaration, it's required because the Object structure is used inside
the definition of the Object structure. Next, there's the build function that is the equivalent of
a constructor/factory. Finally the Object structure is defined. Notice that the last two
declarations are function pointers. These two function pointers are myFunction that expects
an Object structure as parameter and print that also expects an Object structure as parameter.
Notice that all the implementation details are hidden in Object.c (this is encapsulation). The
idea behind this header file is to expose only the structure but not the behavior. No one
knows, how build work, or even what's in myFunction or print, but they know that these
functions exist. This separation is key in flipping the direction of the dependency without
flipping the direction of invocation.
To find out what the behavior is, we can look at the Object.c
(https://github.com/luctrudeau/InvertingDependencies/blob/master/Object.c) file.
Now we know that myFunction points to an add function, and that print simply does a printf.
Even if not all languages use the same keyword, the concept of an abstract method is
generally available. We can match this concept to the functions pointers. If these pointers are
not assigned then the method is abstract. This is why you can't instantiate classes with
abstract methods.
Notice that the parameter of the functions inside the Object structure are structures of type
Object. For now, we can think of this as a solution to the problem of accessing the values of
the instance of the Object structure, but we will see shortly that there's another more
int (*myFunction)(struct Object);
void (*print)(struct Object);
};
#include "Object.h"
int add(struct Object o)
{
return o.a + o.b;
}
void print(struct Object o)
{
printf("Result = %dn", o.myFunction(o));
}
struct Object build(int a, int b)
{
struct Object o;
o.a = a;
o.b = b;
o.myFunction = &add;
o.print = &print;
return o;
}


4 of 6
profound mechanism at work here. Some programming languages hide this detail behind the
"this" keyword, others like python will make the instance parameter visible to developer and
define it as the first parameter of every method.
Let's say main.c wants to use the Object structure, it only need to include "Object.h", it does
not need to care about Object.c. If we look at the dependencies we can see the inversion effect.
The main.c file depends on Object.h but Object.h does not depend upon Object.c, it's the other
way around Object.c depends upon Object.h. The header file is an abstraction.
main.c
Object.h
struct Object
Object.c
int add(struct Object o){...}
void print(struct Object o){...}
struct Object build(int a, int b) {...}
<<includes>>
<<includes>>
Now let's try inheritance, I'm not interested in structural inheritance, I don't want to add a
third variable to Object. I'm interested in polymorphism; I want to change the behavior of
Object.
This is the content of Child.h (https://github.com/luctrudeau/InvertingDependencies/blob/master/Child.h)
The Child depends on Object.h and defines a new constructor/factory buildChild. Let's look at
its behavior (Child.c (https://github.com/luctrudeau/InvertingDependencies/blob/master/Child.c) )
#include "Object.h"
struct Object buildChild(int a, int b);

#include "Child.h"
int sub(struct Object o)
{
return o.a - o.b;
}
struct Object buildChild(int a, int b)
{
struct Object o = build(a,b);
o.myFunction = ⊂
return o;
}


5 of 6
Instead of invoking the add function, the Child version of the Object structure will invoke the
sub function. Notice how the buildChild function invokes build of Object and then overrides
the myFunction function pointer.
Now we have an Object that acts like a Child, yet almost no one needs to know. The only
entity that needs to know is the one calling buildChild function instead of the build function.
This switch can be executed dynamically at runtime. Looking at main.c we can see that the
choice between the build or the buildChild functions is performed dynamically based on a
random variable.
Dependency injection (http://martinfowler.com/articles/injection.html) is exactly what is going on
inside the print function. At runtime, when the buildChild function is selected, the Child
variant of Object is being injected into the print function. This is interesting because the type
of the parameter is mandatory (aka closed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open/closed_principle) ) but its
behavior is not (aka open (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open/closed_principle) ).
The Child variant of Object can be developed years after Object was written, by completely
different developers, yet it will still work inside print function without requiring modifications
to the print function.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <time.h>
#include "Object.h"
#include "Child.h"
int main()
{
struct Object o;
srand(time(0));
if (rand() % 2)
{
o = buildChild(5, 3);
} else {
o = build(2, 3);
}
o.print(o);
}


6 of 6
main.c
Object.h
struct Object
Object.c
int add(struct Object o){...}
void print(struct Object o){...}
struct Object build(int a, int b) {...}
Child.h
struct Object buildChild(int a, int b)
Child.c
int sub(struct Object o){...}
struct Object buildChild(int a, int b) {...}
<<includes>><<includes>>
<<includes>>
<<includes>>
<<includes>>
Not only does this allows the Object's print function to invoke the Child's sub function
without depending on it, but to do so Child is the one depending on the Object.

Inverting Dependencies

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Inverting Dependencies (20)

More from Luc Trudeau (11)

Recently uploaded (20)

Inverting Dependencies