Ruby Design Pattern: Pollution Control

Avoid method name collisions by mixing in modules to an instance of an inner class.



class Outer
class Inner
end

def initialize(mixin)
@inner = Inner.new()
@inner.extend(mixin)
end
...
end


When extending objects with mixin modules, there is a risk of method name
collisions. Given the example in the Module Injection post, the execute_before and execute_after methods in the Strategy object might collide with method names in a rule module. Suppose the rule module looks like this:

module TransformationRules
def functiondef_before(element)
...
end

def functiondef_after(element)
...
end

def execute_before(element)
...
end

def execute_after(element)
...
end
end


When the dispatch mechanism in the Strategy object finds an execute element, it will dispatch the element to the wrong execute method. It will call the execute_before method defined in Strategy, not the one defined in the TransformationRules module.

Pollution Control reduces the risk of name collisions when extending classes with new functionality by extending an inner class. Thus, functionality is added to a class without affecting the interface of the class.

Related Patterns


Pollution Control is a very close relative of Strategy, Inversion of Control, Dependency Injection and Module Injection.

The thing that makes Pollution Control a pattern in its own right is the purpose: mixing in functionality encapsulated in a module without changing the interface of the client.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Waterfall vs. Agile: Battle of the Dunces or A Race to the Bottom?

Image
The major software methodology wars since the mid 1950’s. Someone was wrong on the Internet, so here we go… In a recent HBR article, It’s Time to End the Battle Between Waterfall and Agile , the author sets up a false premise: There is a war between Waterfall methodology and Agile. The war must end. And finally, you can combine the approaches to get the best of both worlds. This sounds good, but the article is based on a misunderstanding of both Waterfall and Agile. Also, there is no war between Waterfall methodology and Agile. There can’t be, because Waterfall methodology does not exist! Waterfall is a name for large projects that failed in the 1960’s. Waterfall was never a methodology, but a failure to apply the methodologies that existed back then. As I will show towards the end of this article, at least one of the “successful” Waterfall projects mentioned in the HBR article was neither successful, nor a Waterfall project. I got invaluable help from Alistair Cockburn. He fact che...
Read more

Performance Evaluations, Business Strategy, and Agile Methodologies

Image
It is performance evaluation time in many companies. This can be stressful, both to the people being evaluated, and the people doing the evaluation. In companies adopting agile software development methods, the tension can be extraordinary. Individual performance evaluations run counter to agile philosophy, which emphasizes team performance over individual performance. However, managers and corporate leaders need to take a few steps back, and consider the impact performance evaluations have on the organization as a whole. Especially now, in the midst of a recession, it is important to look at a companies current policies to see if they can be improved, or if they are actually holding the company back. So, how can a manager evaluate policy? Performance evaluation policies can serve as an excellent example. I'll confine myself to discussing the so-called ‘rank and yank’ methods. These are performance reviews were employees are ranked using a forced ranking system. It usually looks so...
Read more

Agile Requirements Structures, Part 1

Image
If you have worked in large Agile projects or programs, you may have noticed that there is often quite a bit of confusion about requirements, what the requirement types are, their purpose, how to write them, how to use them, and above all, what not to do with them. There are many causes for this confusion. Here are some of the more common I have seen: Nobody in the organization has read up on the requirements model it is using, so everyone makes their own interpretation. The organization deviates from a standard requirements model, but nobody knows which standard model the organization is deviating from, and/or there is no agreement about how they deviate from it. The organization has not documented its own requirements model very well. The organization mixes two or more different requirements models, often without realizing it. The organization has documented its requirements model, but finding the documentation is an epic project in itself, on par with when Henry Sta...
Read more