How is this "pattern" called?

S

Stefan Ram

In the MVC pattern, I think, M, V, and C should be at least
one non-innner class each?

I often have seen (possibly, especially in beginner code) a
coding pattern, where there is only one single non-inner class:
the model.

The listeners and the view then are embedded into this
model, possibly, as inner classes. It's not really MVC
as the observer pattern is not used for decoupling.

So, to code a simple Java-GUI application, one just writes
a single class with the model and the controllers as inner
classes and no observer pattern for model-view decoupling.
Is there a name for this simple design?

What about »the bulk-class pattern«? Or »the naive GUI pattern«?
 
M

markspace

In the MVC pattern, I think, M, V, and C should be at least
one non-innner class each?

I often have seen (possibly, especially in beginner code) a
coding pattern, where there is only one single non-inner class:
the model.


"Especially in beginner code" seems to say to me that they might be
copying from beginner examples, especially of the sort that appear in
Oracle's Java tutorial. These example are designed to be shorter to
read on a web page or book page, and don't show best practice or correct
pattern. The examples simply show how to use the API.

Also, MVC is not MVC. That is, most languages and frameworks use a
modified MVC that really isn't MVC. Java itself uses a "split model"
design pattern. Model-Presenter-Controller is currently a popular
design pattern which can be used in Java.

The listeners and the view then are embedded into this
model, possibly, as inner classes. It's not really MVC
as the observer pattern is not used for decoupling.


"Close coupling" is an anti-pattern in most cases.

Do you have an example we could look at?
 
J

Jim Janney

In the MVC pattern, I think, M, V, and C should be at least
one non-innner class each?

I often have seen (possibly, especially in beginner code) a
coding pattern, where there is only one single non-inner class:
the model.

The listeners and the view then are embedded into this
model, possibly, as inner classes. It's not really MVC
as the observer pattern is not used for decoupling.

So, to code a simple Java-GUI application, one just writes
a single class with the model and the controllers as inner
classes and no observer pattern for model-view decoupling.
Is there a name for this simple design?

What about »the bulk-class pattern«? Or »the naive GUI pattern«?

Big Ball of Mud seems to fit:

http://laputan.org/mud/
 
S

Stefan Ram

final class Main
{
/* model */

final private java.util.Collection<java.awt.Point> collection
= new java.util.ArrayList<>();

/* view */

Panel panel;
final private class Panel extends javax.swing.JPanel
{ public Panel()
{ this.setPreferredSize( new java.awt.Dimension( 300, 300 ));
this.addMouseListener( new MouseListener() ); }
final @java.lang.Override public void paintComponent
( final java.awt.Graphics graphics )
{ super.paintComponent( graphics );
for( final java.awt.Point point : Main.this.collection )
graphics.fillRect( point.x, point.y, 4, 4 ); }}

final private class Frame extends javax.swing.JFrame
{ Frame()
{ Main.this.panel = new Panel(); this.add( Main.this.panel );
this.setDefaultCloseOperation
( javax.swing.WindowConstants.DISPOSE_ON_CLOSE );
this.pack(); this.setVisible( true ); }
final @java.lang.Override public void dispose(){ super.dispose(); }}

/* controller */

final private class MouseListener extends java.awt.event.MouseAdapter
{ public final void mousePressed
( final java.awt.event.MouseEvent mouseEvent )
{ Main.this.collection.add
( new java.awt.Point( mouseEvent.getX(), mouseEvent.getY() ));
Main.this.panel.repaint(); }}

public final java.lang.Runnable buildGui = new java.lang.Runnable()
{ @java.lang.Override public final void run(){ new Frame(); }};

public final void buildGui()
{ java.awt.EventQueue.invokeLater( this.buildGui ); }

public static void main( final java.lang.String args[] )
{ new Main().buildGui(); }}

I do not see a real problem with this style, assuming that
the assignment at hand was just to write such a simple dot
paint program.

The inner classes can easily share a common model and
identifier scope, while at the same time there is some
reasonable separation between the different concerns
of the inner classes.

Should it be required later to decouple one of these inner
classes more than now, this is also possible using a
refactor that will make it become an outer class or will
introduce an observer relationship. But should it not
be required later, no time is wasted now to implement a
decoupling and separation not needed.
 
M

markspace

I do not see a real problem with this style, assuming that
the assignment at hand was just to write such a simple dot
paint program.


Right, though the style doesn't particularly teach best practice either.

I think I'd call this the "monolithic example" pattern. It's similar to
a lot of example code I see in books and the Java tutorial. It's
monolithic because it crams everything into a single class, or at least
into the minimum page space.

And it's an example because that's what it is. A short program that
isn't written by more than one person, and will not be maintained. It's
fine for what it is, but it's not an example of good production style
coding either.
 
G

Gene Wirchenko

Beginner code does tend to be for a small system.

How about "KISS"?
Big Ball of Mud seems to fit:

http://laputan.org/mud/

If the ball is not big, then it is a case of KISS or maybe YAGNI.

There is little sense in using large system methodology on a
small system. (Do watch though that you do not keep adding to a small
system and switch over to having a large system wihtout realising it.)

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
 
J

John B. Matthews

I do not see a real problem with this style, assuming that the
assignment at hand was just to write such a simple dot paint program.

The inner classes can easily share a common model and identifier
scope, while at the same time there is some reasonable separation
between the different concerns of the inner classes.

Should it be required later to decouple one of these inner classes
more than now, this is also possible using a refactor that will make
it become an outer class or will introduce an observer relationship.
But should it not be required later, no time is wasted now to
implement a decoupling and separation not needed.

I sometimes strive to make nested classes static in order to facilitate
re-factoring, as suggested in the example below. Static also keeps me
honest on inadvertent coupling. I also use the somewhat dated Observer
and Observable classes to stress the observer pattern, even implementing
Observer despite leaking `this`.

Here's my understanding of the basic architecture:

<http://stackoverflow.com/a/2687871/230513>

Here's a more elaborate example that mentions other ways to implement
the observer pattern:

<http://stackoverflow.com/a/3072979/230513>

And I frequently refer to this article on Swing & MVC

<http://java.sun.com/products/jfc/tsc/articles/architecture/>

import java.awt.Color;
import java.awt.Dimension;
import java.awt.EventQueue;
import java.awt.Graphics;
import java.awt.Point;
import java.awt.event.MouseAdapter;
import java.awt.event.MouseEvent;
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.Observable;
import java.util.Observer;
import javax.swing.JFrame;
import javax.swing.JPanel;

public class MVCMain {

public static void main(String args[]) {
new MVCMain().buildGui();
}

public void buildGui() {
EventQueue.invokeLater(new Runnable() {

@Override
public void run() {
Model model = new Model();
View view = new View(model);
Control control = new Control(model, view);
JFrame f = new JFrame();
f.add(view);
f.setDefaultCloseOperation(JFrame.EXIT_ON_CLOSE);
f.pack();
f.setLocationRelativeTo(null);
f.setVisible(true);
}
});
}

private static final class Model extends Observable {

private List<Point> points = new ArrayList<Point>();

public void next(Point p) {
points.add(p);
setChanged();
notifyObservers();
}

public List<Point> getPoints() {
return points;
}
}

private static final class View extends JPanel implements Observer {

private Model model;

public View(Model model) {
this.model = model;
this.model.addObserver(this);
}

@Override
public void paintComponent(Graphics g) {
super.paintComponent(g);
g.setColor(Color.blue);
for (Point p : model.getPoints()) {
g.fillRect(p.x, p.y, 8, 8);
}
}

@Override
public Dimension getPreferredSize() {
return new Dimension(300, 300);
}

@Override
public void update(Observable o, Object arg) {
repaint();
}
}

private static final class Control {

private Model model;
private View view;

public Control(final Model model, View view) {
this.model = model;
this.view = view;
this.view.addMouseListener(new MouseAdapter() {

@Override
public void mousePressed(MouseEvent e) {
model.next(e.getPoint());
}
});
}
}
}
 
G

Gene Wirchenko

I like these too; good thoughts.

I have tended to avoid using OOP patterns except for what I came
up with myself. I did try reading one of the OOP patterns books, but
ugh! Some people seem to think that the last thing you should is do
in OOP is write a statement that actually instantiates an object.
(Qual horreur!) Instead, you call a factory -- is that it? -- and
have all sorts of indirection.

If you *really* need that, fine, but I do not. The closest that
I have come to this is related classes needing common code. I have
them inherit from a class with that code. That code class is never
instantiated itself.

With all of the hoopla over OOP patterns, it is difficult for me
to tell how much they are really needed.

Yes, I go for keeping it fairly simple.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
 
M

markspace

I have tended to avoid using OOP patterns except for what I came
up with myself. I did try reading one of the OOP patterns books, but
ugh!
...
If you *really* need that, fine, but I do not.


To me, this is the key part here. If you actually get the Gang of Four
book on patterns and read it -- and I mean read ALL of it, starting with
the front inside cover -- it says in the *introduction* not to use the
patterns exactly as presented, but to modify them to your particular
requirements. Patterns are there for you to get ideas from, but they
are not laws that must be followed with out deviation. You're still
required to think when using any given pattern.

In addition, with each pattern (that I've read, at least), the GOF
include a list of pro's and con's, and sometimes the cons are quite
surprising. For example the Visitor pattern doesn't work well when the
nodes/tree to traverse under goes lots of changes. The reason is that
the Visitor pattern isolates the implementation for each node, and it
can be a pain to go back into each implementation and add code for each
new type of node. They recommend not using the Visitor pattern at all
in this circumstance. Just use polymorphism and add the visitor API to
each node directly.

*That* is the biggest advantage to patterns and their study, imo. NOT
"rah rah yay patterns" but telling you when using a pattern might leave
you up a creek with no paddle. It allows you to eliminate a broad swath
of design space quickly and points you in a better direction.
 
G

Gene Wirchenko

On 5/18/2012 2:13 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
[snip]
With all of the hoopla over OOP patterns, it is difficult for me
to tell how much they are really needed.

Yes, I go for keeping it fairly simple.

I think a lot depends on the answer to one key question:

What is the cost if this needs to be changed?
Exactly.

If we are talking about a widely distributed API, where a change will
break thousands of programs, it is worth doing a lot to minimize the
risk of incompatible change. If we are talking about code that is used
in a couple of places in one program, KISS and refactor if necessary.

I quite agree with you.

With the amount of noise over patterns though, you would think
that many people need the patterns. For me, supporting an in-house
application, there is no or little need. I suspect that there are
many in my situation.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
 
A

Arne Vajhøj

In the MVC pattern, I think, M, V, and C should be at least
one non-innner class each?

Yes.

Although sometimes the V is not a class but JSP/XHTML/FXML.
I often have seen (possibly, especially in beginner code) a
coding pattern, where there is only one single non-inner class:
the model.

The listeners and the view then are embedded into this
model, possibly, as inner classes. It's not really MVC
as the observer pattern is not used for decoupling.

So, to code a simple Java-GUI application, one just writes
a single class with the model and the controllers as inner
classes and no observer pattern for model-view decoupling.
Is there a name for this simple design?

What about »the bulk-class pattern«? Or »the naive GUI pattern«?

I prefer "the big mess pattern".

:)

Arne
 
A

Arne Vajhøj

final class Main
{
/* model */

final private java.util.Collection<java.awt.Point> collection
= new java.util.ArrayList<>();

/* view */

Panel panel;
final private class Panel extends javax.swing.JPanel
{ public Panel()
{ this.setPreferredSize( new java.awt.Dimension( 300, 300 ));
this.addMouseListener( new MouseListener() ); }
final @java.lang.Override public void paintComponent
( final java.awt.Graphics graphics )
{ super.paintComponent( graphics );
for( final java.awt.Point point : Main.this.collection )
graphics.fillRect( point.x, point.y, 4, 4 ); }}

final private class Frame extends javax.swing.JFrame
{ Frame()
{ Main.this.panel = new Panel(); this.add( Main.this.panel );
this.setDefaultCloseOperation
( javax.swing.WindowConstants.DISPOSE_ON_CLOSE );
this.pack(); this.setVisible( true ); }
final @java.lang.Override public void dispose(){ super.dispose(); }}

/* controller */

final private class MouseListener extends java.awt.event.MouseAdapter
{ public final void mousePressed
( final java.awt.event.MouseEvent mouseEvent )
{ Main.this.collection.add
( new java.awt.Point( mouseEvent.getX(), mouseEvent.getY() ));
Main.this.panel.repaint(); }}

public final java.lang.Runnable buildGui = new java.lang.Runnable()
{ @java.lang.Override public final void run(){ new Frame(); }};

public final void buildGui()
{ java.awt.EventQueue.invokeLater( this.buildGui ); }

public static void main( final java.lang.String args[] )
{ new Main().buildGui(); }}

I do not see a real problem with this style, assuming that
the assignment at hand was just to write such a simple dot
paint program.

The inner classes can easily share a common model and
identifier scope, while at the same time there is some
reasonable separation between the different concerns
of the inner classes.

Should it be required later to decouple one of these inner
classes more than now, this is also possible using a
refactor that will make it become an outer class or will
introduce an observer relationship. But should it not
be required later, no time is wasted now to implement a
decoupling and separation not needed.

From a theoretical point of view V and C are not part of M.

From the practical point of view the pattern (combined with
your non standard formatting) ensures that it takes 10
times longer to read and understand the code.

Arne
 
A

Arne Vajhøj

Beginner code does tend to be for a small system.


How about "KISS"?


If the ball is not big, then it is a case of KISS or maybe YAGNI.

There is little sense in using large system methodology on a
small system. (Do watch though that you do not keep adding to a small
system and switch over to having a large system wihtout realising it.)

True.

But separation of M, V and C seems to become relevant when
passing the 500 LOC mark.

Arne
 
A

Arne Vajhøj

I have tended to avoid using OOP patterns except for what I came
up with myself.

That means that either you are absolute brilliant or a fool
not to learn from other.
I did try reading one of the OOP patterns books, but
ugh! Some people seem to think that the last thing you should is do
in OOP is write a statement that actually instantiates an object.
(Qual horreur!) Instead, you call a factory -- is that it? -- and
have all sorts of indirection.

????

There are plenty of new'ing in patterns.

Some patterns with the purpose of making the client code
use different implementations use factories. Obviously since
new does not meet the requirement for enabling the use of
different implementations.
With all of the hoopla over OOP patterns, it is difficult for me
to tell how much they are really needed.

Almost all Java code uses various well defined patterns. Large parts
of both Java SE and Java EE uses them.

Arne
 
A

Arne Vajhøj

With the amount of noise over patterns though, you would think
that many people need the patterns. For me, supporting an in-house
application, there is no or little need.

Or you have not realized the need.

Arne
 
L

Lew

Arne said:
Or you have not realized the need.


Or both of you are looking at it from the wrong perspective.

I would bet that both of you use "patterns" in the larger, non-buzzwordy
sense, that is, you recognize the shape of structures in your model and can
exploit common idioms for common shapes. Both of you appear to be competent
programmers from what this newsgroup shows, and programmers become competent
only if they have that skill.

The argument is over "patterns" in the GoF sense, a highly bureaucratized,
overly-verbose and religiously canonical set of labels and formats to describe
them. But even amidst all the sturm und drang over the latter kind of
patterns, they provide value in a common terminology and informal use. So when
we discuss Visitor or Singleton, we all know what we mean. ("We" being
competent programmers. One occasionally sees posters here who are less
knowledgeable.)

I favor having a library of common pattern labels to facilitate both
communication and program design. No one should think that the list in
GoF-land is exhaustive, and certainly not mandatory. Just because you haven't
used one of the patterns from the Official List doesn't mean you don't need
patterns, or don't use them.

The point of the Official List is to identify some (only some!) of the most
common patterns and get us used to thinking in terms of patterns, not to be
set upon an altar and have thurifers waved at them.
 
A

Arne Vajhøj

Or both of you are looking at it from the wrong perspective.

I would bet that both of you use "patterns" in the larger, non-buzzwordy
sense, that is, you recognize the shape of structures in your model and
can exploit common idioms for common shapes. Both of you appear to be
competent programmers from what this newsgroup shows, and programmers
become competent only if they have that skill.

The argument is over "patterns" in the GoF sense, a highly
bureaucratized, overly-verbose and religiously canonical set of labels
and formats to describe them. But even amidst all the sturm und drang
over the latter kind of patterns, they provide value in a common
terminology and informal use. So when we discuss Visitor or Singleton,
we all know what we mean. ("We" being competent programmers. One
occasionally sees posters here who are less knowledgeable.)

I favor having a library of common pattern labels to facilitate both
communication and program design. No one should think that the list in
GoF-land is exhaustive, and certainly not mandatory. Just because you
haven't used one of the patterns from the Official List doesn't mean you
don't need patterns, or don't use them.

The point of the Official List is to identify some (only some!) of the
most common patterns and get us used to thinking in terms of patterns,
not to be set upon an altar and have thurifers waved at them.

????

I don't think anyone suggested to treat patterns religiously. What is
it that you call arguments against something that no one has actually
suggested?

There are no official list. There are multiple lists: GoF which
are somewhat general OOP, specific Java EE etc..

The common terminology is one of the benefits.

The other big benefit is to learn from others experience instead
of spending a decade or more to learn it the hard way. That point
is actual very much emphasized in the GoF book.

Arne
 
M

markspace

No one should think that the list in
GoF-land is exhaustive, and certainly not mandatory.


I'm sure no one does. In support of this idea, I'll offer a couple of
good finds by Y.T. First, xUnit Test Patterns by Meszaros, an absolute
seminal work on test patterns for all you TDDers out there.

<http://www.amazon.com/xUnit-Test-Patterns-Refactoring-Code/dp/0131495054>

The other is Refactoring by Martin Fowler. It's organized as patterns
of change, ways that you can modify your code to improve it. The
organization into is useful because it gives each type of change an
distinct and succinct name, which facilitates communication. For
example, several of Fowler's patterns appear on the NetBeans "Refactor"
menu, and do exactly what he describes.

<http://www.amazon.com/Refactoring-Improving-Design-Existing-Code/dp/0201485672>
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,969
Messages
2,570,161
Members
46,710
Latest member
bernietqt

Latest Threads

Top