|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is a module? |
|
Cohesion |
|
Coupling |
|
Data encapsulation product maintenance |
|
Abstract data types |
|
Information hiding |
|
Objects |
|
Inheritance, polymorphism and dynamic binding |
|
Cohesion and coupling of objects |
|
|
|
|
|
What is a module? |
|
A lexically contiguous sequence of program
statements, bounded by boundary elements, with an aggregate identifier |
|
|
|
|
A highly incompetent computer architect decides
to build an ALU, shifter and 16 registers with AND, OR, and NOT gates,
rather than NAND or NOR gates. |
|
|
|
|
Architect designs 3 silicon chips |
|
|
|
|
Redesign with one gate type per chip |
|
Resulting “masterpiece” |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The two designs are functionally equivalent |
|
Second design is |
|
Hard to understand |
|
Hard to locate faults |
|
Difficult to extend or enhance |
|
Cannot be reused in another product |
|
Modules must be like the first design |
|
Maximal relationships within modules, minimal relationships between modules |
|
|
|
|
|
Method for breaking up a product into modules
for |
|
Maximal interaction within module, and |
|
Minimal interaction between modules |
|
Module cohesion |
|
Degree of interaction within a module |
|
Module coupling |
|
Degree of interaction between modules |
|
|
|
|
|
In C/SD, the name of a module is its function |
|
Example |
|
Module computes square root of double precision
integers using Newton’s algorithm.
Module is named compute square root |
|
|
|
|
Degree of interaction within a module |
|
Seven categories or levels of cohesion
(non-linear scale) |
|
|
|
|
|
A module has coincidental cohesion if it
performs multiple, completely unrelated actions |
|
Example |
|
print next line, reverse string of characters
comprising second parameter, add 7 to fifth parameter, convert fourth
parameter to floating point |
|
Arise from rules like |
|
“Every module will consist of between 35 and 50
statements” |
|
|
|
|
|
Degrades maintainability |
|
Modules are not reusable |
|
This is easy to fix |
|
Break into separate modules each performing one
task |
|
|
|
|
|
|
A module has logical cohesion when it performs a
series of related actions, one of which is selected by the calling module |
|
Example 1 |
|
function code = 7; |
|
new operation (op code, dummy 1, dummy 2,
dummy 3); |
|
// dummy 1, dummy 2, and dummy 3 are dummy
variables, |
|
// not used if function code is equal to 7 |
|
Example 2 |
|
Module performing all input and output |
|
Example 3 |
|
One version of OS/VS2 contained logical cohesion
module performing 13 different actions.
Interface contained 21 pieces of data |
|
|
|
|
The interface is difficult to understand |
|
Code for more than one action may be intertwined |
|
Difficult to reuse |
|
|
|
|
A new tape unit is installed |
|
What is the effect on the laser printer? |
|
|
|
|
|
A module has temporal cohesion when it performs
a series of actions related in time |
|
Example |
|
open old master file, new master file,
transaction file, print file, initialize sales district table, read first
transaction record, read first old master record (a.k.a. perform
initialization) |
|
|
|
|
|
Actions of this module are weakly related to one
another, but strongly related to actions in other modules. |
|
Consider sales district table |
|
|
|
Not reusable |
|
|
|
|
|
A module has procedural cohesion if it performs
a series of actions related by the procedure to be followed by the product |
|
Example |
|
read part number and update repair record on
master file |
|
|
|
|
Actions are still weakly connected, so module is
not reusable |
|
|
|
|
|
A module has communicational cohesion if it
performs a series of actions related by the procedure to be followed by the
product, but in addition all the actions operate on the same data |
|
Example 1 |
|
update record in database and write it to audit
trail |
|
Example 2 |
|
calculate new coordinates and send them to
terminal |
|
|
|
|
Still lack of reusability |
|
|
|
|
A module has informational cohesion if it
performs a number of actions, each with its own entry point, with
independent code for each action, all performed on the same data structure |
|
|
|
|
Essentially, this is an abstract data type (see
later) |
|
|
|
|
|
Module with functional cohesion performs exactly
one action |
|
Example 1 |
|
get temperature of furnace |
|
|
|
Example 2 |
|
compute orbital of electron |
|
|
|
Example 3 |
|
write to floppy disk |
|
|
|
Example 4 |
|
calculate sales commission |
|
|
|
|
|
More reusable |
|
Corrective maintenance easier |
|
Fault isolation |
|
Fewer regression faults |
|
Easier to extend product |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Degree of interaction between two modules |
|
Five categories or levels of coupling (non-linear scale) |
|
|
|
|
|
Two modules are content coupled if one directly
references contents of the other |
|
|
|
Example 1 |
|
Module a modifies statement of module b |
|
|
|
Example 2 |
|
Module a refers to local data of module b in
terms of some numerical displacement within b |
|
|
|
Example 3 |
|
Module a branches into local label of module b |
|
|
|
|
|
Almost any change to b, even recompiling b with
new compiler or assembler, requires change to a |
|
Warning |
|
Content coupling can be implemented in Ada
through use of overlays implemented via address clauses |
|
|
|
|
|
Two modules are common coupled if they have
write access to global data |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Example 1 |
|
Modules cca and ccb can access and change value
of global variable |
|
|
|
|
|
Example 2 |
|
Modules cca and ccb both have access to same
database, and can both read and write same record |
|
Example 3 |
|
FORTRAN common |
|
COBOL common (nonstandard) |
|
COBOL-80 global |
|
|
|
|
|
Contradicts the spirit of structured programming |
|
The resulting code is virtually unreadable |
|
|
|
|
|
Modules can have side-effects |
|
This affects their readability |
|
Entire module must be read to find out what it
does |
|
Difficult to reuse |
|
Module exposed to more data than necessary |
|
|
|
|
|
Two modules are control coupled if one
passes an element of control to the
other |
|
Example 1 |
|
Operation code passed to module with logical
cohesion |
|
Example 2 |
|
Control-switch passed as argument |
|
|
|
|
|
Modules are not independent; module b (the called module) must know internal
structure and logic of module a. |
|
Affects reusability |
|
Associated with modules of logical cohesion |
|
|
|
|
|
Some languages allow only simple variables as
parameters |
|
part number |
|
satellite altitude |
|
degree of multiprogramming |
|
Many languages also support passing of data
structures |
|
part record |
|
satellite coordinates |
|
segment table |
|
|
|
|
Two modules are stamp coupled if a data
structure is passed as a parameter, but the called module operates on some
but not all of the individual components of the data structure |
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is not clear, without reading the entire
module, which fields of a record are accessed or changed |
|
Example |
|
calculate withholding (employee record) |
|
Difficult to understand |
|
Unlikely to be reusable |
|
More data than necessary is passed |
|
Uncontrolled data access can lead to computer
crime |
|
There is nothing wrong with passing a data
structure as a parameter, provided all the components of the data structure
are accessed and/or changed |
|
invert matrix (original matrix, inverted
matrix); |
|
print inventory record (warehouse record); |
|
|
|
|
|
Two modules are data coupled if all parameters
are homogeneous data items [simple parameters, or data structures all of
whose elements are used by called module] |
|
|
|
Examples |
|
display time of arrival (flight number); |
|
compute product (first number, second number); |
|
get job with highest priority (job queue); |
|
|
|
|
The difficulties of content, common, control,
and stamp coupling are not present |
|
Maintenance is easier |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coupling between all pairs of modules |
|
|
|
|
|
Good design has high cohesion and low coupling |
|
What else characterizes good design? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Example |
|
Design an operating system for a large mainframe
computer. It has been decided that
batch jobs submitted to the computer will be classified as high priority,
medium priority, or low priority.
There must be three queues for incoming batch jobs, one for each job
type. When a job is submitted by a
user, the job is added to the appropriate queue, and when the operating
system decides that a job is ready to be run, it is removed from its queue
and memory is allocated to it |
|
Design 1 (Next slide) |
|
Low cohesion—operations on job queues are spread
all over product |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
m_encapsulation has informational cohesion |
|
m_encapsulation is an implementation of data
encapsulation |
|
Data structure (job_queue) together with
operations performed on that data structure |
|
Advantages |
|
Development |
|
Maintenance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Data encapsulation is an example of abstraction |
|
Job queue example |
|
Data structure |
|
job_queue |
|
Three new functions |
|
initialize_job_queue |
|
add_job_to_queue |
|
delete_job_from_queue |
|
Abstraction |
|
Conceptualize problem at higher level |
|
job queues and operations on job queues |
|
not lower level |
|
records or arrays |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Design in terms of high level concepts |
|
It is irrelevant how job queues are implemented |
|
2. Design low level components |
|
Totally ignore what use will be made of them |
|
In 1st step, assume existence of lower level |
|
Concern is the behavior of the data structure |
|
job_queue |
|
In 2nd step, ignore existence of high level |
|
Concern is the implementation of that behavior |
|
In a larger product, there will be many levels
of abstraction |
|
|
|
|
|
Identify aspects of product likely to change |
|
Design product so as to minimize the effects of
change |
|
Data structures are unlikely to change |
|
Implementation may change |
|
Data encapsulation provides a way to cope with
change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What happens if queue is now implemented as a
two-way linked list of JobRecord? |
|
Module that uses JobRecord need not be changed
at all, merely recompiled |
|
|
|
C++ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Java |
|
|
|
|
|
Problem with both implementations |
|
Only one queue |
|
Need |
|
We need: |
|
Data type + operations performed on
instantiations of that data type |
|
Abstract data type |
|
|
|
|
(Problems caused by public attributes solved
later) |
|
|
|
|
|
Data abstraction |
|
Designer thinks at level of an ADT |
|
Procedural abstraction |
|
Define a procedure—extend the language |
|
Instances of a more general design concept, information
hiding |
|
Design the modules in way that items likely to
change are hidden |
|
Future change is localized |
|
Changes cannot affect other modules |
|
|
|
|
C++ abstract data type implementation with
information hiding |
|
|
|
|
|
Effect of information hiding via private
attributes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First refinement |
|
Product is designed in terms of abstract data
types |
|
Variables (“objects”) are instantiations of
abstract data types |
|
Second refinement |
|
Class: abstract data type that supports inheritance |
|
Objects are instantiations of classes |
|
|
|
|
|
Define humanBeing to be a class |
|
A humanBeing has attributes, such as age,
height, gender |
|
Assign values to attributes when describing
object |
|
Define Parent to be a subclass of HumanBeing |
|
A Parent has all attributes of a HumanBeing,
plus attributes of his/her own (name of oldest child, number of children) |
|
A Parent inherits all attributes of humanBeing |
|
The property of inheritance is an essential
feature of object-oriented languages such as Smalltalk, C++, Ada 95, Java
(but not C, FORTRAN) |
|
|
|
|
|
UML notation |
|
Inheritance is represented by a large open
triangle |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Classical paradigm |
|
record_1.field_2 |
|
Object-oriented paradigm |
|
thisObject.attributeB |
|
thisObject.methodC () |
|
|
|
|
|
Classical paradigm |
|
Must explicitly invoke correct version |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All that is needed is myFile.open() |
|
Correct method invoked at run-time (dynamically) |
|
Method open can be applied to objects of
different classes |
|
Polymorphic |
|
|
|
|
Method checkOrder (b : Base) can be applied to
objects of any subclass of Base |
|
|
|
|
|
Can have a negative impact on maintenance |
|
Code is hard to understand if there are multiple
possibilities for a specific method |
|
Polymorphism and dynamic binding |
|
Strength and weakness of the object-oriented
paradigm |
|
|
|
|
|
No such thing! |
|
Object-oriented cohesion and coupling always
reduces to classical cohesion |
|
The only feature unique to the object-oriented
paradigm is inheritance |
|
Cohesion has nothing to do with inheritance |
|
Two objects with the same functionality have the
same cohesion |
|
It does not matter if this functionality is
inherited or not |
|
Similarly, so-called object-oriented coupling
always reduces to classical coupling |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Two types of so-called object-oriented metric |
|
Not related to inheritance |
|
Reduces to a classical metric |
|
Inheritance-related |
|
May reduce to a classical metric |
|
No problem |
|
Classical metrics work just fine |
|
But don’t mislead others by calling them
object-oriented |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Same as as advantages of abstract data types |
|
Information hiding |
|
Data abstraction |
|
Procedural abstraction |
|
Inheritance provides further data abstraction |
|
Easier and less error-prone product development |
|
Easier maintenance |
|
Objects are more reusable than modules with
functional cohesion |
|
(See next chapter) |
|