Question

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.

Closed 9 years ago.

This might be a duplicate, but as I haven t seen anything hopefully it isn t. Basically, I ve never seen a good rule-of-thumb for when to split a chunk of code into separate methods and objects. Does anyone have any good rules they found work well?

Answer 1

I ve found this article (butunclebob.com, S.O.L.I.D. principles for OOP) to be enlightening for designing boundaries and hierarchies of classes. Although it is mostly common sense, putting a name to the goals you want to achieve helps until you gain a feel for "good"ness of a design through experience.

Answer 2

如果某一方法在一页上安装,则该方法过于庞大。

That s not an excuse to use a really small font or use a really big monitor

Go and read;

Refactroring : http://www.amazon.co.uk/Refactoring-Improving-Design-Existing-Technology/dp/0201485672/
Working with legacy code : http://www.amazon.co.uk/Working-Effectively-Legacy-Robert-Martin/dp/0131177052/

虽然他们谈论如何处理你已经掌握的东西,但如果你们阅读和学习,你可以不制定从来的滞后法!

Answer 3

Disclaimer: I have nothing against OOP, quite the opposite. The following is just a personal opinion

In general I agree with the other answers and I would also try to break up code into methods whenever I "feel" it necessary.

然而,如果你想说,该组织是一种方法,是一种工具。在采用OOP技术时,仍然有一些其他办法更适合的情况。

简单

echo "Hello World!"

might be faster/better/easier than

class HelloWorld {

    private String text = null;

    public HelloWorld() {
        this.text = "Hello World";
    }

    public void print() {
        echo this.text;
    }

}

(Compare the exaggerated example hello world in patterns)

Answer 4

umb行的规则也一样:

问题:我是否应该把这分为方法和物体?

A: 是。

Answer 5

从业务处的角度来看,“all代码”应作为物体和方法书写。 OOP的货币为objects。现在,如果你有一大阶层,并想知道如何打破这一阶层,因为它违反了单一的责任,那么umb的统治就是要概括不同的。

Answer 6

班级的设计应具有一个首要目的。页: 1 简明扼要。

在决定方法时,你应铭记两点。重点为这一类别建立明确的接口,并制定可测试的方法。

友情链接