This site is from a past semester! The current version will be here when the new semester starts.

Principles

This is a printer-friendly version. It omits exercises, optional topics (i.e., four-star topics), and other extra content such as learning outcomes.

Single Responsibility Principle :

Single responsibility principle (SRP): A class should have one, and only one, reason to change. _{-- Robert C. Martin}

If a class has only one responsibility, it needs to change only when there is a change to that responsibility.

Consider a TextUi class that does parsing of the user commands as well as interacting with the user. That class needs to change when the formatting of the UI changes as well as when the syntax of the user command changes. Hence, such a class does not follow the SRP.

Gather together the things that change for the same reasons. Separate those things that change for different reasons. _{―- Agile Software Development, Principles, Patterns, and Practices by Robert C. Martin}

Open-Closed Principle :

The Open-Closed Principle aims to make a code entity easy to adapt and reuse without needing to modify the code entity itself.

Open-closed principle (OCP): A module should be open for extension but closed for modification. That is, modules should be written so that they can be extended, without requiring them to be modified. _{-- proposed by Bertrand Meyer}

In object-oriented programming, OCP can be achieved in various ways. This often requires separating the specification (i.e. interface) of a module from its implementation.

In the design given below, the behavior of the CommandQueue class can be altered by adding more concrete Command subclasses. For example, by including a Delete class alongside List, Sort, and Reset, the CommandQueue can now perform delete commands without modifying its code at all. That is, its behavior was extended without having to modify its code. Hence, it is open to extensions, but closed to modification.

The behavior of a Java generic class can be altered by passing it a different class as a parameter. In the code below, the ArrayList class behaves as a container of Students in one instance and as a container of Admin objects in the other instance, without having to change its code. That is, the behavior of the ArrayList class is extended without modifying its code.

ArrayList students = new ArrayList<Student>();
ArrayList admins = new ArrayList<Admin>();

Liskov Substitution Principle :

Liskov substitution principle (LSP): Derived classes must be substitutable for their base classes. _{-- proposed by Barbara Liskov}

LSP sounds the same as substitutability but it goes beyond substitutability; LSP implies that a subclass should not be more restrictive than the behavior specified by the superclass. As you know, Java has language support for substitutability. However, if LSP is not followed, substituting a subclass object for a superclass object can break the functionality of the code.

Suppose the Payroll class depends on the adjustMySalary(int percent) method of the Staff class. Furthermore, the Staff class states that the adjustMySalary method will work for all positive percent values. Both the Admin and Academic classes override the adjustMySalary method.

Now consider the following:

The Admin#adjustMySalary method works for both negative and positive percent values.
The Academic#adjustMySalary method works for percent values 1..100 only.

In the above scenario,

The Admin class follows LSP because it fulfills Payroll’s expectation of Staff objects (i.e. it works for all positive values). Substituting Admin objects for Staff objects will not break the Payroll class functionality.
The Academic class violates LSP because it will not work for percent values over 100 as expected by the Payroll class. Substituting Academic objects for Staff objects can potentially break the Payroll class functionality.

Another example

SOLID Principles

The five OOP principles given below are known as SOLID Principles (an acronym made up of the first letter of each principle):

Single Responsibility Principle (SRP)

Open-Closed Principle (OCP)

Liskov Substitution Principle (LSP)

Interface Segregation Principle (ISP)

Dependency Inversion Principle (DIP)

Separation of Concerns Principle

Separation of concerns principle (SoC): To achieve better modularity, separate the code into distinct sections, such that each section addresses a separate concern. -- Proposed by Edsger W. Dijkstra

A concern in this context is a set of information that affects the code of a computer program.

Examples for concerns:

A specific feature, such as the code related to the add employee feature
A specific aspect, such as the code related to persistence or security
A specific entity, such as the code related to the Employee entity

Applying reduces functional overlaps among code sections and also limits the ripple effect when changes are introduced to a specific part of the system.

If the code related to persistence is separated from the code related to security, a change to how the data are persisted will not need changes to how the security is implemented.

This principle can be applied at the class level, as well as at higher levels.

The n-tier architecture utilizes this principle. Each layer in the architecture has a well-defined functionality that has no functional overlap with each other.

This principle should lead to higher cohesion and lower coupling.

Law of Demeter

Law of Demeter (LoD):

An object should have limited knowledge of another object.
An object should only interact with objects that are closely related to it.

Also known as

Don’t talk to strangers.
Principle of least knowledge

More concretely, a method m of an object O should invoke only the methods of the following kinds of objects:

The object O itself
Objects passed as parameters of m
Objects created/instantiated in m (directly or indirectly)
Objects from the

The following code fragment violates LoD due to the following reason: while b is a ‘friend’ of foo (because it receives it as a parameter), g is a ‘friend of a friend’ (which should be considered a ‘stranger’), and g.doSomething() is analogous to ‘talking to a stranger’.

void foo(Bar b) {
    Goo g = b.getGoo();
    g.doSomething();
}

LoD aims to prevent objects from navigating the internal structures of other objects.

An analogy for LoD can be drawn from Facebook. If Facebook followed LoD, you would not be allowed to see posts of friends of friends, unless they are your friends as well. If Jake is your friend and Adam is Jake’s friend, you should not be allowed to see Adam’s posts unless Adam is a friend of yours as well.