Alex Rivera | Logout

Minimal API v. Convenience

Asked 2010-01-01T04:50:50.053
10

I am trying to design the interface that will be used internally for my application. Following Google's example, I strive to reduce public API clutter. However, there are some convenience methods that are defined in terms of the minimal methods. What factors should I consider as I seek a balance between convenience and tidiness?

Google example: in HashBiMap (doc):

Why does BiMap have no getKeyForValue() method?

We did think about it (Doug Lea even half-jokingly suggested naming it teg()!). But you don't really need it; just call inverse().get().

Google Collections FAQ

An example of this on the Set interface: add() and remove() are minimal methods, whereas addAll() and removeAll() are for convenience. addAll() could be implemented in terms of add(), so it's not really giving the client new capabilities for working with a Set. But it does clean up client code.

I have considered making a Utility class that would include more convenience methods. But then I'm getting away from OOP, and I have to include the object being operated on as an argument in every call. Although I guess that follows the example of Java's Collections class.

java oop interface software-design api-design
Edit
Report

2 Answers

2

I'll piggyback on John F.'s answer:

I want all the convenience methods I find useful without all the others I don't. Firefox, accommodates this sort of thing with plugins. The browser supports what a basic browser should; however, to my own personal preferences, I can beef it up with plugins. I see convenience methods in the same light.

Allow me to add in whatever modules I like so I can have just the convenience methods I want.

There are many sides to this one:

http://martinfowler.com/bliki/HumaneInterface.html

answered 2010-08-09T20:27:58.953
0

Without looking at the source I would guess that ArrayList.addAll first ensures that the capacity is large enough so that the array is not resized while the operation happens. This would not be possible for a utility class since it is an internal implementation detail.

So the answer depends on if you require the internals of the class to be able to do the utility method or not. If not then there is a strong argument for moving it out of the class, otherwise it should be part of the class.

answered 2010-01-01T05:09:59.820

Your Answer