Re: Rule against Circular Dependencies?
From: Phlip (phlip_cpp_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 04/22/04
- Next message: christopher diggins: "Re: Viability of Design by Contract technique with templates"
- Previous message: Ken: "Rule against Circular Dependencies?"
- In reply to: Ken: "Rule against Circular Dependencies?"
- Next in thread: Roger L. Cauvin: "Re: Rule against Circular Dependencies?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 14:11:23 GMT
Ken wrote:
> Hi. I'm currently working on an object oriented design standard for
> our project. The subject of circular dependencies between classes has
> come up. My inclination is to have a rule that says they are not
> allowed. However, I've been hard pressed to see such a rule
> recommended out in the OO literature.
>
> Would you recommend such a rule? Could you cite any literature that
> supports such a rule?
That rule is an effect of subtler decoupling rules, but it also helps
prevent logistics problems. Start here:
The Dependency Inversion Principle
http://www.objectmentor.com/publications/dip.pdf
> Note that any of our rules can be bypassed via official waiver. So I
> would consider a rule to be necessary if it should hold true 90% of
> the time--and if violating it will create high risk of runtime failure
> or cause maintenance nightmares.
How about a rule that all code is reviewed at the same time as it is
written? That kills many bugs with one stone.
--
Phlip
http://www.xpsd.org/cgi-bin/wiki?TestFirstUserInterfaces
- Next message: christopher diggins: "Re: Viability of Design by Contract technique with templates"
- Previous message: Ken: "Rule against Circular Dependencies?"
- In reply to: Ken: "Rule against Circular Dependencies?"
- Next in thread: Roger L. Cauvin: "Re: Rule against Circular Dependencies?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
