• GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 month ago

    Consider the following: You have a class A that has a few dependencies it needs. The dependencies B and C never change, but D will generally be different for each time the class needs to be used. You also happen to be using dependency injection in this case. You could either:

    • Inject the dependencies B and C for any call site where you need an instance of A and have a given D, or
    • Create an AFactory, which depends on B and C, having a method create with a parameter D returning A, and then inject that for all call sites where you have a given D.

    This is a stripped example, but one I personally have both seen and productively used frequently at work.

    In this case the AFactory could practically be renamed PartialA and be functionally the same thing.

    You could also imagine a factory that returns different implementations of a given interface based on either static (B and C in the previous example) or dynamic dependencies (D in the previous example).

    • Kache@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Sounds easy to simplify:

      Use one of: constructor A(d), function a(d), or method d.a() to construct A’s.

      B and C never change, so I invoke YAGNI and hardcode them in this one and only place, abstracting them away entirely.

      No factories, no dependency injection frameworks.

      • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Now B and C cannot be replaced for the purposes of testing the component in isolation, though. The hardcoded dependency just increased the testing complexity by a factor of B * C.