2009 frog design criticisms
From CSSEMediaWiki
(Difference between revisions)
m (Reverted edits by Ebybymic (Talk); changed back to last version by Warwick Irwin) |
|
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) | |
Latest revision as of 03:08, 25 November 2010
WARNING: Spoiler!
Try criticising the Frogs design BEFORE reading this.
Criticisms of the Frog Design (2009)
- Riel's heuristics
- 2.1 Hide data within its class: The AdultFrog class exposes an array of eggs it has laid.
- 2.9 Keep related data and behavior in one place: Frog and FrogBrain are separate classes.
- 3.5 Interface should be dependent on model: The Move interface contains a method called display; the model is dependent on the interface
- 3.9 Avoid verb classes: The Move interface is a verb. It could be called Movable or similar (although that name is still not great for other reasons).
- 3.10 Agent classes irrelevant: The Biologist class is an agent.
- 5.14 Avoid becomes: A frog will at various stages be an egg, tadpole and adult frog.
- Solution: State or strategy pattern
- 5.1 Inheritance for specialization: A toad is not a frog; it's inheritance for implementation.
- 5.17 Avoid no-op overrides: The hop and swim methods of Egg do nothing.
- 5.12 Beware type switches: Tadpole has a type attribute which is used in swim() (5.13 broken as well?)
- The biologist should have the saute method, not the frog itself.
- For a better solution to the XML export ability, see a froggy visitor (last year's class)
