How to enforce constraints between decoupled objects?

Question

Note - I have moved the original post to the bottom because I think it is still of value to newcomers to this thread. What follows directly below is an attempt at rewriting the question based on feedback.

Completely Redacted Post

Ok, I'll try to elaborate a bit more on my specific problem. I realise I am blending domain logic with interfacing/presentation logic a little but to be honest I am not sure where to seperate it. Please bear with me :)

I am writing an application that (among other things) performs logistics simulations for moving stuff around. The basic idea is that the user sees a Project, similar to Visual Studio, where she can add, remove, name, organise, annotate and so on various objects which I am about to outline:

• Items and Locations are basic behaviourless data items.

  class Item { ... }
  
  class Location { ... }
  

• A WorldState is a Collection of item-location pairs. A WorldState is mutable: The user is able to add and remove items, or change their location.

  class WorldState : ICollection<Tuple<Item,Location>> { }
  

• A Plan represents the movement of items to different locations at desired times. These can either be imported into the Project or generated within the program. It references a WorldState to get the initial location of various objects. A Plan is also mutable.

  class Plan : IList<Tuple<Item,Location,DateTime>>
  {
     WorldState StartState { get; }
  }
  

• A Simulation then executes a Plan. It encapsulates a lot of rather complex behaviour, and other objects, but the end result is a SimulationResult which is a set of metrics that basically describe how much this cost and how well the Plan was fulfilled (think the Project Triangle)

  class Simulation 
  {
     public SimulationResult Execute(Plan plan);
  }
  
  class SimulationResult
  {
     public Plan Plan { get; }
  }
  

The basic idea is that the users can create these objects, wire them together, and potentially re-use them. A WorldState may be used by multiple Plan objects. A Simulation may then be run over multiple Plans.

At the risk of being horribly verbose, an example

var bicycle = new Item();
var surfboard = new Item();
var football = new Item();
var hat = new Item();

var myHouse = new Location();
var theBeach = new Location();
var thePark = new Location();

var stuffAtMyHouse = new WorldState( new Dictionary<Item, Location>() {
    { hat, myHouse },
    { bicycle, myHouse },
    { surfboard, myHouse },
    { football, myHouse },
};

var gotoTheBeach = new Plan(StartState: stuffAtMyHouse , Plan : new [] { 
    new [] { surfboard, theBeach, 1/1/2010 10AM }, // go surfing
    new [] { surfboard, myHouse, 1/1/2010 5PM }, // come home
});

var gotoThePark = new Plan(StartState: stuffAtMyHouse , Plan : new [] { 
    new [] { football, thePark, 1/1/2010 10AM }, // play footy in the park
    new [] { football, myHouse, 1/1/2010 5PM }, // come home
});

var bigDayOut = new Plan(StartState: stuffAtMyHouse , Plan : new [] { 
    new [] { bicycle, theBeach, 1/1/2010 10AM },  // cycle to the beach to go surfing
    new [] { surfboard, theBeach, 1/1/2010 10AM },  
    new [] { bicycle, thePark, 1/1/2010 1PM },  // stop by park on way home
    new [] { surfboard, thePark, 1/1/2010 1PM },
    new [] { bicycle, myHouse, 1/1/2010 1PM },  // head home
    new [] { surfboard, myHouse, 1/1/2010 1PM },

});

var s1 = new Simulation(...);
var s2 = new Simulation(...);
var s3 = new Simulation(...);

IEnumerable<SimulationResult> results = 
    from simulation in new[] {s1, s2}
    from plan in new[] {gotoTheBeach, gotoThePark, bigDayOut}
    select simulation.Execute(plan);

The problem is when something like this is executed:

stuffAtMyHouse.RemoveItem(hat); // this is fine
stuffAtMyHouse.RemoveItem(bicycle); // BAD! bicycle is used in bigDayOut, 

So basically when a user attempts to delete an item from a WorldState (and maybe the entire Project) via a world.RemoveItem(item) call, I want to ensure that the item is not referred to in any Plan objects which use that WorldState. If it is, I want to tell the user "Hey! The following Plan X is using this Item! Go and deal with that before trying to remove it!". The sort of behaviour I do not want from a world.RemoveItem(item) call is:

• Deleting the item but still having the Plan reference it.
• Deleting the item but having the Plan silently delete all elements in its list that refer to the item. (actually, this is probably desireable but only as a secondary option).

So my question is basically how can such desired behaviour be implemented with in a cleanly decoupled fashion. I had considered making this a purview of the user interface (so when user presses 'del' on an item, it triggers a scan of the Plan objects and performs a check before calling world.RemoveItem(item)) - but (a) I am also allowing the user to write and execute custom scripts so they can invoke world.RemoveItem(item) themselves, and (b) I'm not convinced this behaviour is a purely "user interface" issue.

Phew. Well I hope someone is still reading...

Original Post

Suppose I have the following classes:

public class Starport
{
    public string Name { get; set; }
    public double MaximumShipSize { get; set; }
}

public class Spaceship
{
    public readonly double Size;
    public Starport Home;
}

So suppose a constraint exists whereby a Spaceship size must be smaller than or equal to the MaximumShipSize of its Home.

So how do we deal with this?

Traditionally I've done something coupled like this:

partial class Starport
{
    public HashSet<Spaceship> ShipsCallingMeHome; // assume this gets maintained properly
    private double _maximumShipSize;
    public double MaximumShipSize
    {
        get { return _maximumShipSize; } 
        set
        {
            if (value == _maximumShipSize) return;
            foreach (var ship in ShipsCallingMeHome)
                if (value > ship)
                    throw new ArgumentException();
            _maximumShipSize = value
        }
    }
}

This is manageable for a simple example like this (so probably a bad example), but I'm finding as the constraints get larger and and more complex, and I want more related features (e.g. implement a method bool CanChangeMaximumShipSizeTo(double) or additional methods which will collect the ships which are too large) I end up writing more unnecessary bidirectional relationships (in this case SpaceBase-Spaceship is arguably appropriate) and complicated code which is largely irrelevant from the owners side of the equation.

So how is this sort of thing normally dealt with? Things I've considered:

1. I considered using events, similar to the ComponentModel INotifyPropertyChanging/PropertyChanging pattern, except that the EventArgs would have some sort of Veto() or Error() capability (much like winforms allows you to consume a key or suppress a form exit). But I'm not sure whether this constitutes eventing abuse or not.

2. Alternatively, managing events myself via an explicitly defined interface, e.g

asdf I need this line here or the formatting won't work

interface IStarportInterceptor
{
    bool RequestChangeMaximumShipSize(double newValue);
    void NotifyChangeMaximumShipSize(double newValue);
}

partial class Starport
{
    public HashSet<ISpacebaseInterceptor> interceptors; // assume this gets maintained properly
    private double _maximumShipSize;
    public double MaximumShipSize
    {
        get { return _maximumShipSize; } 
        set
        {
            if (value == _maximumShipSize) return;
            foreach (var interceptor in interceptors)
                if (!RequestChangeMaximumShipSize(value))
                    throw new ArgumentException();
            _maximumShipSize = value;
            foreach (var interceptor in interceptors)
                NotifyChangeMaximumShipSize(value);
        }
    }
}

But I'm not sure if this is any better. I'm also unsure if rolling my own events in this manner would have certain performance implications or there are other reasons why this might be a good/bad idea.

2. Third alternative is maybe some very wacky aop using PostSharp or an IoC/Dependency Injection container. I'm not quite ready to go down that path yet.

3. God object which manages all the checks and so forth - just searching stackoverflow for god object gives me the impression this is bad and wrong

My main concern is this seems like a fairly obvious problem and what I thought would be a reasonably common one, but I haven't seen any discussions about it (e.g. System.ComponentModel providse no facilities to veto PropertyChanging events - does it?); this makes me afraid that I've (once again) failed to grasp some fundamental concepts in coupling or (worse) object-oriented design in general.

Comments? }

Answer 1

Based on the revised question:

I'm thinking the WorldState class needs a delegate... And Plan would set a method that should be called to test if an item is in use. Sortof like:

delegate bool IsUsedDelegate(Item Item);

public class WorldState {

    public IsUsedDelegate CheckIsUsed;

    public bool RemoveItem(Item item) {

        if (CheckIsUsed != null) {
            foreach (IsUsedDelegate checkDelegate in CheckIsUsed.GetInvocationList()) {
                if (checkDelegate(item)) {
                    return false;  // or throw exception
                }
            }
        }

        //  Remove the item

        return true;
    }

}

Then, in the plan's constructor, set the delegate to be called

public class plan {

    public plan(WorldState state) {
        state.IsUsedDelegate += CheckForItemUse;
    }

    public bool CheckForItemUse(Item item) {
         // Am I using it?
    }

}

This is very rough, of course, I'll try to add more after lunch : ) But you get the general idea.

(Post-Lunch :) The downside is that you have to rely on the Plan to set the delegate... but there's simply no way to avoid that. There's no way for an Item to tell how many references there are to it, or to control its own usage.

The best you can have is an understood contract... WorldState agrees not to remove an item if a Plan is using it, and Plan agrees to tell WorldState that it's using an item. If a Plan doesn't hold up its end of the contract, then it may end up in an invalid state. Tough luck, Plan, that's what you get for not following the rules.

The reason you don't use events is because you need a return value. An alternative would be to have WorldState expose a method to add 'listeners' of type IPlan, where IPlan defines CheckItemForUse(Item item). But you'd still have to rely that a Plan notifies WorldState to ask before removing an item.

One huge gap that I'm seeing: In your example, the Plan you create is not tied to the WorldState stuffAtMyHouse. You could create a Plan to take your dog to the beach, for example, and Plan would be perfectly happy (you'd have to create a dog Item, of course). Edit: do you mean to pass stuffAtMyHouse to the Plan constructor, instead of myHouse?

Because they're not tied, you currently don't care if you remove bicycle from stuffAtMyHouse... because what you're currently saying is "I don't care where the bicycle starts, and I don't care where it belongs, just take it to the beach". But what you mean (I believe) is "Take my bicycle from my house and go to the beach." The Plan needs to have a starting WorldState context.

TLDR: The best decoupling you can hope for is to let Plan choose what method WorldState should query before removing an item.

HTH,
James

Original Answer
It's not 100% clear to me what your goal is, and maybe it's just the forced example. Some possibilities:

I. Enforcing the maximum ship size on methods such as SpaceBase.Dock(myShip)

Pretty straight-forward... the SpaceBase tracks the size when called and throws a TooBigToDockException to the ship attempting to dock if it's too big. In this case, there's not really any coupling... you wouldn't notify the ship of the new max ship size, because managing the max ship size isn't the ship's responsibility.

If the max ship size decreases, you would force the ship to undock... again, the ship doesn't need to know the new max size (though an event or interface to tell it that it's now floating in space might be appropriate). The ship would have no say or veto on the decision... The base has decided it's too big and has booted it.

Your suspicions are correct... God objects are usually bad; clearly-delineated responsibilities make them vanish from the design in puffs of smoke.

II. A queryable property of the SpaceBase

If you want to let a ship ask you if it's too big to dock, you can expose this property. Again, you're not really coupled... you're just letting the ship make a decision to dock or not dock based on this property. But the base doesn't trust the ship to not-dock if it's too big... the base will still check on a call to Dock() and throw an exception.

The responsibility for checking dock-related constraints lies firmly with the base.

III. As true coupling, when the information is necessary to both parties

In order to dock, the base may need to control the ship. Here an interface is appropriate, ISpaceShip, which might have methods such as Rotate(), MoveLeft(), and MoveRight().

Here you avoid coupling by the virtue of the interface itself... Every ship will implement Rotate() differently... the base doesn't care, so long as it can call Rotate() and have the ship turn in place. A NoSuchManeuverException might be thrown by the ship if it doesn't know how to rotate, in which case the base makes a decision to try something different or reject the dock. The objects communicate, but they are not coupled beyond the Interface (contract), and the base still has the responsibility of docking.

IV. Validation on the MaxShipSize setter

You talk about throwing an exception to the caller if it tries to set the MaxShipSize to smaller than the docked ships. I have to ask, though, who is trying to set the MaxShipSize, and why? Either the MaxShipSize should have been set in the constructor and be immutable, or setting the size should follow natural rules, e.g. you can't set the ship size smaller than its current size, because in the real world you would expand a SpaceBase, but never shrink it.

By preventing illogical changes, you render the forced undocking and the communication that goes along with it moot.

The point I'm trying to make is that when you feel like your code is getting unnecessarily complicated, you're almost always right, and your first consideration should be the underlying design. And that in code, less is always more. When you talk about writing Veto() and Error(), and additional methods to 'collect ships that are too large', I become concerned that the code will turn into a Rube Goldberg machine. And I think that separated responsibilities and encapsulation will whittle away much of the unnecessary complication you're experiencing.

It's like a sink with plumbing issues... you can put in all sorts of bends and pipes, but the right solution is usually simple, straight-forward, and elegant.

HTH,
James

Answer 2

You want to apply constraints on actions, but applying them on the data.

Firstly, why changing Starport.MaximumShipSize is allowed? When we "resize" the Starport shouldn't all the Ships take off?

Those are the kind of questions to understand better what needs to be done (and there is no "right and wrong" answer, there is "mine and yours").

Look at the problem from other angle:

public class Starport
{
    public string Name { get; protected set; }
    public double MaximumShipSize { get; protected set; }

    public AircarfDispatcher GetDispatcherOnDuty() {
        return new AircarfDispatcher(this); // It can be decoupled further, just example
    }
}

public class Spaceship
{
    public double Size { get; private set; };
    public Starport Home {get; protected set;};
}

public class AircarfDispatcher
{
    Startport readonly airBase;
    public AircarfDispatcher(Starport airBase) { this.airBase = airBase; }

    public bool CanLand(Spaceship ship) {
        if (ship.Size > airBase.MaximumShipSize)
            return false;
        return true;
    }

    public bool CanTakeOff(Spaceship ship) {
        return true;
    }

    public bool Land(Spaceship ship) {
        var canLand = CanLand(ship);
        if (!canLand)
            throw new ShipLandingException(airBase, this, ship, "Not allowed to land");
        // Do something with the capacity of Starport
    }

}


// Try to land my ship to the first available port
var ports = GetPorts();
var onDuty = ports.Select(p => p.GetDispatcherOnDuty())
    .Where(d => d.CanLand(myShip)).First();
onDuty.Land(myShip);

// try to resize! But NO we cannot do that (setter is protected)
// because it is not the responsibility of the Port, but a building company :)
ports.First().MaximumShipSize = ports.First().MaximumShipSize / 2.0

Answer 3

The INotifyPropertyChanging interface was designed for data binding, which explains why it doesn't have abilities you're looking for. I might try something like this:

interface ISpacebaseInterceptor<T>
{ 
    bool RequestChange(T newValue); 
    void NotifyChange(T newValue); 
} 

Answer 4

You could do something like C++ STL traits classes - implement a generic SpaceBase<Ship, Traits> which has two parameterizing Types - one that defines the SpaceShip member, and the other that constrains the SpaceBase and its SpaceShips using a SpaceBaseTraits class to encapsulate the characteristics of the base such as limitations on ships it can contain.

Answer 5

You know that a Spaceship must have a Size; put the Size in the base class, and implement validation checks in the accessor there.

I know this seems excessively focused on your specific implementation, but the point here is that your expectations aren't as decoupled as you expect; if you have a hard expectation in the base class of something in the derived class, your base class is making a fundamental expectation of the derived class providing an implementation of that; might as well migrate that expectation directly to the base class, where you can manage the constraints better.