Demeter Transmogrifiers To The Rescue
In a recent post, The Law of Demeter Is Not A Dot Counting Exercise, I wanted to peer into the dark depths of the Law of Demeter to understand it’s real purpose. In the end I concluded that the real goal of the guideline is to reduce coupling, not dots, which was a relief because I’m a big fan of dots (and stripes too judging by my shirt collection).
However, one thing that puzzled me was that there are in essence two distinct formulations of the law, the object form and the class form. Why are there two forms and how do they differ in a practical sense?
Let’s find an example of where the law seems to break down and perhaps apply these forms to solve the conundrum as a means of gaining better understanding of the law.
Rémon Sinnema has a great example of where the law seems to break down that can serve as a starting point for this discussion.
Code that violates the Law of Demeter is a candidate for Hide Delegate, e.g.
manager = john.getDepartment().getManager()can be refactored to
manager = john.getManager(), where the
Employeeclass gets a new
However, not all such refactorings make as much sense. Consider, for example, someone who’s trying to kiss up to his boss:
sendFlowers(john.getManager().getSpouse()). Applying Hide Delegate here would yield a
This is an example of one common drawback of following LoD to the letter. You can end up up with a lot of one-off wrapper methods to propagate a property or method to the caller. In fact, this is so common there’s a term for such a wrapper. It’s called a Demeter Transmogrifier!
Who knew that Calvin was such a rock star software developer?
Too many of these one-off “transmogrifier” methods can clutter your API like a tornado in a paper factory, but like most things in software, it’s a trade-off that has to be weighed against the benefits of applying LoD in any given situation. These sort of judgment calls are part of the craft of software development and there’s just no “one size fits all follow the checklist” solution.
While this criticism of LoD may be valid at times, it may not be so in this particular case. Is this another case of dot counting?
For example, suppose the
getManager method returns an instance of
Manager implements the
IEmployee interface. Also
suppose that the
IEmployee interface includes the
method. Since John is also an
IEmployee, shouldn’t he be free to call
getSpouse() method of his manager without violating LoD? After
all, they are both instances of
Let’s take another look at the the general formulation of the law:
Each unit should have only limited knowledge about other units: only units “closely” related to the current unit. Or: Each unit should only talk to its friends; Don’t talk to strangers.
Notice that the word closely is in quotes. What exactly does it mean that one unit is closely related to another? In the short form of the law, Don’t talk to strangers,we learn we shouldn’t talk to strangers. But who exactly is a stranger? Great questions, if I do say so myself!
The formal version of the law focuses on sending messages to objects.
For example, a method of an object can always call methods of itself,
methods of an object it created, or methods of passed in arguments. But
what about types? Can an object always call methods of an object that is
the same type as the calling object? In other words, if I am a
Person object, is another
Person object a stranger to me?
According to the general formulation, there is a class form of LoD which applies to statically typed languages and seems to indicate that yes, this is the case. It seems it’s fair to say that for a statically typed language, an object has knowledge of the inner workings of another object of the same type.
Please note that I am qualifying that statement with “seems” and “fair to say” because I’m not an expert here. This is what I’ve pieced together in my own reading and am open to someone with more expertise here clearing up my understanding or lack thereof.