oop - When should we prefer hard coupling over loose coupling? -


with hype loose coupling (with reason) , information ive read easy obsessed, point of becoming religious it. ive been wondering, when hard coupling favorible on loose coupling? when object candidate hard coupling? think depending on situation reduce complexity.

some examples appreciated.

advantages of hard/tight coupling

there few scenarios when tight coupling might leave better off. typically has speed of development , complexity of program.

very small projects/proof of concepts

in short term, loose coupling increases development time. theoretically, every service/client pair there need interface created well. hard coupling wouldn't worry dependencies. experience, many projects in school small enough tightly coupled classes okay. in cases when turn in assignment , never have touch again.

keeping things simple

often loosely coupled systems contain more components, adds more complexity program. bigger programs, complexity worth because expanding/modifying program exponentially easier , cause less bugs. however, small programs or programs 99% unlikely change, time spent trying program abstractions , remove dependencies, may not worth it. analysis paralysis more designing program.

concluding remarks

as whole never suggest"tightly coupled" classes better. however, interest of time , complexity "tighter coupled" classes can justified.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

android - InAppBilling registering BroadcastReceiver in AndroidManifest -

i'm implementing inapp billing in android app. works well, however, i'm trying decouple broadcast receiver activity manifest. suggestion in android's trivialdrive sample: // important: dynamically register broadcast messages updated purchases. // register receiver here instead of <receiver> in manifest // because call getpurchases() @ startup, therefore can ignore // broadcasts sent while app isn't running. // note: registering listener in activity bad idea, done here // because sample. regardless, receiver must registered after // iabhelper setup, before first call getpurchases(). currently there's class extends broadcastreceiver : public class iabbroadcastreceiver extends broadcastreceiver { /** * intent action receiver should filter for. */ public static final string action = "com.android.vending.billing.purchases_updated"; private final iabbroadcastlistener mlistener; public iabbroadcastreceiver(iabbroadcastlistener listener) { m...
Read more

python Tkinter Capturing keyboard events save as one single string -

is possible store keyboard events 1 string? code below stores 1 char , prints it. card reader or bar code reader, contains collection of character/ string not 1 character @ time. goal save char pressed text variable. from tkinter import * root = tk() def key(event): text= event.char text+= event.char print ("pressed", text) def callback(event): frame.focus_set() print ("clicked at", event.x, event.y) frame = frame(root, width=100, height=100) frame.bind("<key>", key) frame.bind("<button-1>", callback) frame.pack() root.mainloop() currently, creating text variable , everytime key() function gets called, , text stores last character typed. you can define text module level variable , , use module level text inside key function - text = '' def key(event): global text text+= event.char print("pressed", text)
Read more

sql server - Why does Linq-to-SQL add unnecessary COUNT()? -

here tables: create table customer ( cid int primary key, name varchar(32) ) create table ord ( oid int primary key, cid int foreign key references customer, address varchar(20) ) here's linq-to-sql statement: var aaa = c in db.customer select new { c, o = c.ord.tolist() }; and here's inexplicable query generated linq-to-sql: select [t0].[cid] [cid], [t0].[name] [name], [t1].[oid] [oid], [t1].[cid] [cid2], [t1].[address] [address], (select count(*) [dbo].[ord] [t2] [t2].[cid] = [t0].[cid]) [value] [dbo].[customer] [t0] left outer join [dbo].[ord] [t1] on [t1].[cid] = [t0].[cid] order [t0].[cid], [t1].[oid] i want understand how rid of count(*) part. it's entirely uncalled for! linq needs count(*) in order determine number of entries returned o = c.ord.tolist() .
Read more