We're always striving to design software that's easy to maintain. With every code change, we try to avoid code bloat and develop a solution that's simple, while still meeting the project requirements. As a result, we measure our success by whether or not somebody else can look at our code and understand it clearly. Code clarity is a very important measure of maintainability, but we also need to look at our project from a 1,000 foot view and take a moment to look at the dependencies in our project.
To start with, I recommend modeling each component and the compile-time dependencies amongst those components. As an example, think of each component as a Java package. Take, for example, the following high-level view of a system with just three components. Here, component A depends on component C, component B depends on component A, and component C depends on component A.
A red flag should go up if you see this kind of compile-time cyclic dependency in your projects. There are a number of problems with this type of cyclic dependency. First, you can't reuse just one component without bringing along the others. Second, if you modify one component, you indirectly affect the others. This creates a nightmare to test. Also, when a new requirement arrives on your desk, it's difficult at first glance how wide or deep the change will ripple through the system. In some cases, you're forced to follow the affected code through all of the components in order to determine the impact that a change requires. Architecture 101 teaches us that any change that goes wide or deep is a high-risk change. Cyclic dependencies often result in the smallest of changes affecting multiple components.
Avoid compile-time cyclic dependencies! We should always strive for acyclic dependencies. Take the following graph as an example. All I've done for this example is reversed the dependency from A => C to C => A. This is just to illustrate the example. The result, however, is zero circular dependencies in our system. The issues discussed in the cyclic example go away (or at least aren't as serious).
This example is very trivial. In reality, we're usually working on very large applications with many, many components. So, it's clearly not as easy a task to avoid cyclic dependencies in a real world project. However, it's very important to manage your dependencies and avoid compile-time cyclic dependencies by keeping it at the forefront of your designs.
No comments:
Post a Comment