object vs class composition
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Object vs Class composition

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 15

Object vs Class composition - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Object vs Class composition. By Marine Ruhamanya. Disciplined Inheritance. Problems with implementation inheritance: Encapsulation Fragile Base Class problem However it is a powerful mechanism. Several attempts to discipline the mechanism. The specialization interface.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Object vs Class composition' - spiro

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
object vs class composition

Object vs Class composition

By Marine Ruhamanya

disciplined inheritance
Disciplined Inheritance
  • Problems with implementation inheritance:
    • Encapsulation
    • Fragile Base Class problem
  • However it is a powerful mechanism.
  • Several attempts to discipline the mechanism
the specialization interface
The specialization interface
  • Special interface between a class and its subclasses
  • C++, Java, C# support the notion of protected features of a class
typing the specialization interface
Typing the specialization interface
  • Overriding methods needs to be done carefully
  • Proposal (Lamping,1993):

Type system to improve control

  • Declare method dependencies
    • Acyclic graph => methods arranged in layers
    • Cycles => all methods form a group
  • Subclass has to override methods group by group
behavioral specification
Behavioral specification
  • Semantic issues of implementation inheritance:
    • mostly related with re-entrance caused by self-recursion
  • Proposal (Stata and Guttag, 1995):
    • View a class as a combined definitions of interacting parts objects
    • Division of labor or method groups
    • No direct access between divisions
behavioral specification 2
Behavioral specification(2)
    • Use of specification techniques and the notion of behavioral subtyping
  • Stata-Guttag vs Lampig:
    • Stata-Guttag: split state and behavior into groups. Methods groups encapsulate part of the state
    • Lampig: any dependency of methods on state
  • Tight semantic control leads to object composition.
reuse contracts
Reuse contracts
  • Less restrictive forms of implementation
  • Proposal (Stayeart et al., 1996):

Annotated interface: reuse contracts

  • Determine how reuse happens between classes and its subclasses
    • Specify structural aspects of a base class
    • Specify only the part of a call stucture subclasses can rely on.
  • New: set of modification operators
representation invariants methods refinements
Representation Invariants & Methods Refinements
  • Proposal (Stephen, 1999):
    • Associate invariants to a class specification that refers to protected variables
  • Proposal (Stata, 1999):
    • Separate the notion of subtyping and subclassing to allow partial overriding
    • Supercalls are allowed if overriding method is a proper refinement of the base class method.
disciplined inheritance to avoid the fbc problem
Disciplined inheritance to avoid the FBC problem
  • Proposal (Mikhajlov-Sekerinski, 1998):

Set of rules:

    • Construction of subclasses based on superclass specification
    • Eliminate the introduction of new cyclic method dependencies
    • Superclasses instance variables are private and subclasses don’t introduce new ones.
  • Very restrictive, but interesting formal proof
creating subclasses without seeing the superclass code
Creating subclasses without seeing the superclass code
  • Proposal (Leavens et al., 2000):
  • Java Modeling Language defined
  • Focus on the inverse of FBC problem
  • Provide 3 parts to a class specification:
    • 1st and 2nd : public and protected parts
    • 3rd: subclassing contract provide information accessed variables and methods call dependencies
  • Link to the FBC not further explored.
from class to object composition
From Class to Object Composition
  • Object composition - simpler form of composition:
  • Object send message to other object asking for support;
    • Outer and inner objects, forwading
  • Differences to implementation inheritance;
    • Outer object does not reimplement inner object functionality
    • ‘Implicit self-recursion’ or ‘possesion of common self’
from class to object composition1
From Class to Object Composition
  • ‘Implicit self-recursion’ or ‘possession of common self’:
    • There is no ‘common self’ in object composition
    • In implementation inheritance: upcalls due to method invocation
    • Example ( page 135).
  • Advantage: dynamic
forwarding vs delegation
Forwarding vs Delegation
  • Message passing
  • Delegation: message-send is classified as either regular (forwarding) or self-recursive (delegation)
  • Example (page 136 &137)
  • Message resending
  • Complexity exploses under delegation
  • Interaction diagram similar to that of implementation inheritance
delegation inheritance
Delegation & Inheritance
  • Delegation – powerful programming tool
  • System based on OC and delegation are highly dynamic.
  • Languages are called prototype-based languages; e.g.: Self.
    • Not yet mainstream
  • Delegation is behind in discipline and modularity while inheritance is behind in system dynamics and late compsition