Whether as members, whether perhaps static, separate namespaces, via friend-s, via overloads even, or any other C++ language feature...
When facing the problem of supporting multiple/varying formats, maybe protocols or any other kind of targets for your types, what was the most flexible and maintainable approach?
Were there any conventions or clear cut winners?
A brief note why a particular approach helped would be great.
Thanks.
[ ProtoBufs like suggestions should not cut it for an upvote, no matter how flexible that particular impl might be :) ]
Reading through the already posted responses, I can only agree with a middle-tier approach.
Basically, in your original problem you have 2 distinct hierarchies:
n classes
m protocols
The naive use of a Visitor pattern (as much as I like it) will only lead to n*m methods... which is really gross and a gateway towards maintenance nightmare. I suppose you already noted it otherwise you would not ask!
The "obvious" target approach is to go for a n+m solution, where the 2 hierarchies are clearly separated. This of course introduces a middle-tier.
The idea is thus ObjectA -> MiddleTier -> Protocol1.
Basically, that's what Protocol Buffers does, though their problematic is different (from one language to another via a protocol).
It may be quite difficult to work out the middle-tier:
Performance issues: a "translation" phase add some overhead, and here you go from 1 to 2, this can be mitigated though, but you will have to work on it.
Compatibility issues: some protocols do not support recursion for example (xml or json do, edifact does not), so you may have to settle for a least-common approach or to work out ways of emulating such behaviors.
Personally, I would go for "reimplementing" the JSON language (which is extremely simple) into a C++ hierarchy:
int
strings
lists
dictionaries
Applying the Composite pattern to combine them.
Of course, that is the first step only. Now you have a framework, but you don't have your messages.
You should be able to specify a message in term of primitives (and really think about versionning right now, it's too late once you need another version). Note that the two approaches are valid:
In-code specification: your message is composed of primitives / other messages
Using a code generation script: this seems overkill there, but... for the sake of completion I thought I would mention it as I don't know how many messages you really need :)
On to the implementation:
Herb Sutter and Andrei Alexandrescu said in their C++ Coding Standards
Prefer non-member non-friend methods
This applies really well to the MiddleTier -> Protocol step > creates a Protocol1 class and then you can have:
Protocol1 myProtocol;
myProtocol << myMiddleTierMessage;
The use of operator<< for this kind of operation is well-known and very common. Furthermore, it gives you a very flexible approach: not all messages are required to implement all protocols.
The drawback is that it won't work for a dynamic choice of the output protocol. In this case, you might want to use a more flexible approach. After having tried various solutions, I settled for using a Strategy pattern with compile-time registration.
The idea is that I use a Singleton which holds a number of Functor objects. Each object is registered (in this case) for a particular Message - Protocol combination. This works pretty well in this situation.
Finally, for the BOM -> MiddleTier step, I would say that a particular instance of a Message should know how to build itself and should require the necessary objects as part of its constructor.
That of course only works if your messages are quite simple and may only be built from few combination of objects. If not, you might want a relatively empty constructor and various setters, but the first approach is usually sufficient.
Putting it all together.
// 1 - Your BOM
class Foo {};
class Bar {};
// 2 - Message class: GetUp
class GetUp
{
typedef enum {} State;
State m_state;
};
// 3 - Protocl class: SuperProt
class SuperProt: public Protocol
{
};
// 4 - GetUp to SuperProt serializer
class GetUp2SuperProt: public Serializer
{
};
// 5 - Let's use it
Foo foo;
Bar bar;
SuperProt sp;
GetUp getUp = GetUp(foo,bar);
MyMessage2ProtBase.serialize(sp, getUp); // use GetUp2SuperProt inside
If you need many output formats for many classes, I would try to make it a n + m problem instead of an n * m problem. The first way I come to think of is to have the classes reductible to some kind of dictionary, and then have a method to serlalize those dictionarys to each output formats.
Assuming you have full access to the classes that must be serialized. You need to add some form of reflection to the classes (probably including an abstract factory). There are two ways to do this: 1) a common base class or 2) a "traits" struct. Then you can write your encoders/decoders in relation to the base class/traits struct.
Alternatively, you could require that the class provide a function to export itself to a container of boost::any and provide a constructor that takes a boost::any container as its only parameter. It should be simple to write a serialization function to many different formats if your source data is stored in a map of boost::any objects.
That's two ways I might approach this. It would depend highly on the similarity of the classes to be serialized and on the diversity of target formats which of the above methods I would choose.
I used OpenH323 (famous enough for VoIP developers) library for long enough term to build number of application related to VoIP starting from low density answering machine and up to 32xE1 border controller. Of course it had major rework so I knew almost anything about this library that days.
Inside this library was tool (ASNparser) which converted ASN.1 definitions into container classes. Also there was framework which allowed serialization / de-serialization of these containers using higher layer abstractions. Note they are auto-generated. They supported several encoding protocols (BER,PER,XER) for ASN.1 with very complex ASN sntax and good-enough performance.
What was nice?
Auto-generated container classes which were suitable enough for clear logic implementation.
I managed to rework whole container layer under ASN objects hierarchy without almost any modification for upper layers.
It was relatively easy to do refactoring (performance) for debug features of that ASN classes (I understand, authors didn't intended to expect 20xE1 calls signalling to be logged online).
What was not suitable?
Non-STL library with lazy copy under this. Refactored by speed but I'd like to have STL compatibility there (at least that time).
You can find Wiki page of all the project here. You should focus only on PTlib component, ASN parser sources, ASN classes hierarchy / encoding / decoding policies hierarchy.
By the way,look around "Bridge" design pattern, it might be useful.
Feel free to comment questions if something seen to be strange / not enough / not that you requested actuall.
Related
I'm a beginner programmer (who has a bunch of design-related scripting experience for video games but very little programming experience - so just basic stuff like loops, flow control, etc. - although I do have a C++ fundamentals and C++ data structures and algorithm's course under my belt). I'm working on a text-adventure personal project (I actually already wrote it in Python ages ago before I learned how classes work - everything is a dictionary - so it's shameful). I'm "remaking" it in C++ with classes to get out of the rut of having only done homework assignments.
I've written my player and room classes (which were simple since I only need one class for each). I'm onto item classes (an item being anything in a room, such as a torch, a fire, a sign, a container, etc.). I'm unsure how to approach the item base class and derived classes. Here are the problems I'm having.
How do I tell whether an item is of a certain type in a non-shit way (there's a good chance I'm overthinking this)?
For example, I set up my print room info function so that in addition to whatever else it might do, it prints the name of every object in its inventory (i.e. inside of it) and I want it to print something special for a container object (the contents of its inventory for example).
The first part's easy because every item has a name since the name attribute is part of the base item class. The container has an inventory though, which is an attribute unique to the container subclass.
It's my understanding that it's bad form to execute conditional logic based on the object's class type (because one's classes should be polymorphic) and I'm assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that it'd be weird and wrong to put a getHasInventory accessor virtual function in the item base class (my assumption here is based on thinking it'd be crazy to put virtual functions for every derived class in the base class - I have about a dozen derived classes - a couple of which are derived classes of derived classes).
If that's all correct, what's an acceptable way to do this? One obvious thing is to add an itemType attribute to the base and then do conditional logic but this strikes me as wrong since it seems to just be a re-skinning of the checking class type solution. I'm unsure whether the above-mentioned assumptions are correct and what a good solution might be.
How should I structure my base class/classes and my derived classes?
I originally wrote them such that the item class was the base class and most other classes used single inheritance (except for a couple which had multi-level).
This seemed to present some awkwardness and repeating myself though. For example, I want a sign and a letter. A sign is a Readable Item > Untakeable Item > Item. A letter is a Readable Item > Takeable Item > Item. Because they all use single inheritance I need two different Readable Items, one that's takeable and one that's not (I know I could just make takeable and untakeable into attributes of the base in this instance and I did but this works as an example because I still have similar issues with other classes).
That seems icky to me so I took another stab at it and implemented them all using multiple inheritance & virtual inheritance. In my case that seems more flexible because I can compose classes of multiple classes and create a kind of component system for my classes.
Is one of these ways better than the other? Is there some third way that's better?
One possible way to solve your problem is polymorphism. By using polymorphism you can (for example) have a single describe function which when invoked leads the item to describe itself to the player. You can do the same for use, and other common verbs.
Another way is to implement a more advanced input parser, which can recognize objects and pass on the verbs to some (polymorphic) function of the items for themselves to handle. For example each item could have a function returning a list of available verbs, together with a function returning a list of "names" for the items:
struct item
{
// Return a list of verbs this item reacts to
virtual std::vector<std::string> get_verbs() = 0;
// Return a list of name aliases for this item
virtual std::vector<std::string> get_names() = 0;
// Describe this items to the player
virtual void describe(player*) = 0;
// Perform a specific verb, input is the full input line
virtual void perform_verb(std::string verb, std::string input) = 0;
};
class base_torch : public item
{
public:
std::vector<std::string> get_verbs() override
{
return { "light", "extinguish" };
}
// Return true if the torch is lit, false otherwise
bool is_lit();
void perform_verb(std::string verb, std::string) override
{
if (verb == "light")
{
// TODO: Make the torch "lit"
}
else
{
// TODO: Make the torch "extinguished"
}
}
};
class long_brown_torch : public base_torch
{
std::vector<std::string> get_names() override
{
return { "long brown torch", "long torch", "brown torch", "torch" };
}
void describe(player* p) override
{
p->write("This is a long brown torch.");
if (is_lit())
p->write("The torch is burning.");
}
};
Then if the player input e.g. light brown torch the parser looks through all available items (the ones in the players inventory followed by the items in the room), get each items name-list (call the items get_names() function) and compare it to the brown torch. If a match is found the parser calls the items perform_verb function passing the appropriate arguments (item->perform_verb("light", "light brown torch")).
You can even modify the parser (and the items) to handle adjectives separately, or even articles like the, or save the last used item so it can be referenced by using it.
Constructing the different rooms and items is tedious but still trivial once a good design has been made (and you really should spend some time creating requirement, analysis of the requirements, and creating a design). The really hard part is writing a decent parser.
Note that this is only two possible ways to handle items and verbs in such a game. There are many other ways, to many to list them all.
You are asking some excellent questions reg. how to design, structure and implement the program, as well as how to model the problem domain.
OOP, 'methods' and approaches
The questions you ask indicate that you have learned about OOP (object-oriented programming). In a lot of introductory material on OOP, it is common to encourage modelling the problem domain directly through objects and subtyping and implementing functionality by adding methods to them. A classical example is modelling animals, with for instance an Animal type and two sub-types, Duck and Cat, and implementing functionality, for instance walk, quack and mew.
Modelling the problem domain directly with objects and subtyping can make sense, but it can also very much be overkill and bothersome compared to simply having a single or a few types with different fields describing what it is. In your case, I do believe a more complex modelling like you have with objects and subtypes or alternative approaches can make sense, since among other aspects you have functionality that varies depending on the type as well as somewhat complex data (like a container with an inventory). But it is something to keep in mind - there are different trade-offs, and sometimes, having a single type with multiple different fields for modelling the domain can make more sense overall.
Implementing the desired functionality through methods on a base class and subtypes likewise have different trade-offs, and it is not always a good approach for the given case. For one of your questions, you could do something like adding a print method or similar to the base type and each subtype, but this is not always that nice in practice (a simple example is that of a calculator application where simplifying the arithmetic expression the user enters (like (3*x)*4/2) might be bothersome to implement if one uses the approach of adding methods to the base class).
Alternative approach - Tagged unions/sum types
There is a very nice fundamental abstraction known as "tagged union" (it is also known by the names "disjoint union" and "sum type"). The main idea about the tagged union is that you have a union of several different sets of instances, where which set the given instance belongs to matters. They are a superset of the feature in C++ known as enum. Regrettably, C++ does not currently support tagged unions, though there are research into it (for instance https://www.stroustrup.com/OpenPatternMatching.pdf , though this may be somewhat beyond you if you are a beginner programmer). As far as I can see, this fits very well with the example you have given here. An example in Scala would be (many other languages support tagged unions as well, such as Rust, Kotlin, Typescript, the ML-languages, Haskell, etc.):
sealed trait Item {
val name: String
}
case class Book(val name: String) extends Item
case object Fire extends Item {
val name = "Fire"
}
case class Container(val name: String, val inventory: List[Item]) extends Item
This describes your different kinds of items very well as far as I can see. Do note that Scala is a bit special in this regard, since it implements tagged unions through subtyping.
If you then wanted to implement some print functionality, you could then use "pattern matching" to match which item you have and do functionality specific to that item. In languages that support pattern matching, this is convenient and non-fragile, since the pattern matching checks that you have covered each possible case (similar to switch in C++ over enums checking that you have covered each possible case). For instance in Scala:
def getDescription(item: Item): String = {
item match {
case Book(_) | Fire => item.name
case Container(name, inventory) =>
name + " contains: (" +
inventory
.map(getDescription(_))
.mkString(", ") +
")"
}
}
val description = getDescription(
Container("Bag", List(Book("On Spelunking"), Fire))
)
println(description)
You can copy-paste the two snippets in here and try to run them: https://scalafiddle.io/ .
This kind of modelling works very well with what one might call "data types", where you have no or very little functionality in the classes themselves, and where the fields inside the classes basically are part of their interface ("interface" in the sense that you would like to change the implementations that uses the types if you ever add to, remove or change the fields of the types).
Conversely, I find a more conventional subtyping modelling and approach more convenient when the implementation inside of a class is not part of its interface, for instance if I have a base type that describes a collision system interface, and each of its subtypes have different performance characteristics, handy for different situations. Hiding and protecting the implementation since it is not part of the interface makes a lot of sense and fits very well with what one might call "mini-modules".
In C++ (and C), sometimes people do use tagged unions despite the lack of language support, in various ways. One way that I have seen being used in C is to make a C union (though do be careful reg. aspects such as memory and semantics) where an enum tag was used to differentiate between the different cases. This is error-prone, since you might easily end up accessing a field in one enum case that is not valid for that enum case.
You could also model your command input as a tagged union. That said, parsing can be somewhat challenging, and parsing libraries may be a bit involved if you are a beginner programmer; keeping the parsing somewhat simple might be a good idea.
Side-notes
C++ is a special languages - I do not quite like it for cases where I do not care much about resource usage or runtime performance and the like for multiple different reasons, since it can be annoying and not that flexible to develop in. And it can be challenging to develop in, because you must always take great care to avoid undefined behaviour. That said, if resource usage or runtime performance do matter, C++ can, depending on case, be a very good option. There are also a number of very useful and important insights in the C++ language and its community, such as RAII, ownership and lifetimes. My recommendation is that learning C++ is a good idea, but that you should also learn other languages, maybe for instance a statically-typed functional programming language. FP (functional programming) and languages supporting FP, has a number of advantages and drawbacks, but some of their advantages are very, very nice, especially reg. immutability as well as side-effects.
Of these languages, Rust may be the closest to C++ in certain regards, though I don't have experience with Rust and cannot therefore vouch for either the language or its community.
As a side-note, you may be interested in this Wikipedia-page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expression_problem .
I'm looking for a data structure which behaves similar to boost::property_tree but (optionally) leaves the get/set implementation for each value item to the developer.
You should be able to do something like this:
std::function<int(void)> f_foo = ...;
my_property_tree tree;
tree.register<int>("some.path.to.key", f_foo);
auto v1 = tree.get<int>("some.path.to.key"); // <-- calls f_foo
auto v2 = tree.get<int>("some.other.path"); // <-- some fallback or throws exception
I guess you could abuse property_tree for this but I haven't looked into the implementation yet and I would have a bad feeling about this unless I knew that this is an intended use case.
Writing a class that handles requests like val = tree.get("some.path.to.key") by calling a provided function doesn't look too hard in the first place but I can imagine a lot of special cases which would make this quite a bulky library.
Some extra features might be:
subtree-handling: not only handle terminal keys but forward certain subtrees to separate implementations. E.g.
tree.register("some.path.config", some_handler);
// calls some_handler.get<int>("network.hostname")
v = tree.get<int>("some.path.config.network.hostname");
search among values / keys
automatic type casting (like in boost::property_tree)
"path overloading", e.g. defaulting to a property_tree-implementation for paths without registered callback.
Is there a library that comes close to what I'm looking for? Has anyone made experiences with using boost::property_tree for this purpose? (E.g. by subclassing or putting special objects into the tree like described here)
After years of coding my own container classes I ended up just adopting QVariantMap. This way it pretty much behaves (and is as flexible as) python. Just one interface. Not for performance code though.
If you care to know, I really caved in for Qt as my de facto STL because:
Industry standard - used even in avionics and satellite software
It has been around for decades with little interface change (think about long term support)
It has excellent performance, awesome documentation and enormous user base.
Extensive feature set, way beyond the STL
Would an std::map do the job you are interested in?
Have you tried this approach?
I don't quite understand what you are trying to do. So please provide a domain example.
Cheers.
I have some home-cooked code that lets you register custom callbacks for each type in GitHub. It is quite basic and still missing most of the features you would like to have. I'm working on the second version, though. I'm finishing a helper structure that will do most of the job of making callbacks. Tell me if you're interested. Also, you could implement some of those features yourself, as the code to register callbacks is already done. It shouldn't be so difficult.
Using only provided data structures:
First, getters and setters are not native features to c++ you need to call the method one way or another. To make such behaviour occur you can overload assignment operator. I assume you also want to store POD data in your data structure as well.
So without knowing the type of the data you're "get"ting, the only option I can think of is to use boost::variant. But still, you have some overloading to do, and you need at least one assignment.
You can check out the documentation. It's pretty straight-forward and easy to understand.
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_61_0/doc/html/variant/tutorial.html
Making your own data structures:
Alternatively, as Dani mentioned, you can come up with your own implementation and keep a register of overloaded methods and so on.
Best
In a project I am working on, we have several "disposable" classes. What I mean by disposable is that they are a class where you call some methods to set up the info, and you call what equates to a doit function. You doit once and throw them away. If you want to doit again, you have to create another instance of the class. The reason they're not reduced to single functions is that they must store state for after they doit for the user to get information about what happened and it seems to be not very clean to return a bunch of things through reference parameters. It's not a singleton but not a normal class either.
Is this a bad way to do things? Is there a better design pattern for this sort of thing? Or should I just give in and make the user pass in a boatload of reference parameters to return a bunch of things through?
What you describe is not a class (state + methods to alter it), but an algorithm (map input data to output data):
result_t do_it(parameters_t);
Why do you think you need a class for that?
Sounds like your class is basically a parameter block in a thin disguise.
There's nothing wrong with that IMO, and it's certainly better than a function with so many parameters it's hard to keep track of which is which.
It can also be a good idea when there's a lot of input parameters - several setup methods can set up a few of those at a time, so that the names of the setup functions give more clue as to which parameter is which. Also, you can cover different ways of setting up the same parameters using alternative setter functions - either overloads or with different names. You might even use a simple state-machine or flag system to ensure the correct setups are done.
However, it should really be possible to recycle your instances without having to delete and recreate. A "reset" method, perhaps.
As Konrad suggests, this is perhaps misleading. The reset method shouldn't be seen as a replacement for the constructor - it's the constructors job to put the object into a self-consistent initialised state, not the reset methods. Object should be self-consistent at all times.
Unless there's a reason for making cumulative-running-total-style do-it calls, the caller should never have to call reset explicitly - it should be built into the do-it call as the first step.
I still decided, on reflection, to strike that out - not so much because of Jalfs comment, but because of the hairs I had to split to argue the point ;-) - Basically, I figure I almost always have a reset method for this style of class, partly because my "tools" usually have multiple related kinds of "do it" (e.g. "insert", "search" and "delete" for a tree tool), and shared mode. The mode is just some input fields, in parameter block terms, but that doesn't mean I want to keep re-initializing. But just because this pattern happens a lot for me, doesn't mean it should be a point of principle.
I even have a name for these things (not limited to the single-operation case) - "tool" classes. A "tree_searching_tool" will be a class that searches (but doesn't contain) a tree, for example, though in practice I'd have a "tree_tool" that implements several tree-related operations.
Basically, even parameter blocks in C should ideally provide a kind of abstraction that gives it some order beyond being just a bunch of parameters. "Tool" is a (vague) abstraction. Classes are a major means of handling abstraction in C++.
I have used a similar design and wondered about this too. A fictive simplified example could look like this:
FileDownloader downloader(url);
downloader.download();
downloader.result(); // get the path to the downloaded file
To make it reusable I store it in a boost::scoped_ptr:
boost::scoped_ptr<FileDownloader> downloader;
// Download first file
downloader.reset(new FileDownloader(url1));
downloader->download();
// Download second file
downloader.reset(new FileDownloader(url2));
downloader->download();
To answer your question: I think it's ok. I have not found any problems with this design.
As far as I can tell you are describing a class that represents an algorithm. You configure the algorithm, then you run the algorithm and then you get the result of the algorithm. I see nothing wrong with putting those steps together in a class if the alternative is a function that takes 7 configuration parameters and 5 output references.
This structuring of code also has the advantage that you can split your algorithm into several steps and put them in separate private member functions. You can do that without a class too, but that can lead to the sub-functions having many parameters if the algorithm has a lot of state. In a class you can conveniently represent that state through member variables.
One thing you might want to look out for is that structuring your code like this could easily tempt you to use inheritance to share code among similar algorithms. If algorithm A defines a private helper function that algorithm B needs, it's easy to make that member function protected and then access that helper function by having class B derive from class A. It could also feel natural to define a third class C that contains the common code and then have A and B derive from C. As a rule of thumb, inheritance used only to share code in non-virtual methods is not the best way - it's inflexible, you end up having to take on the data members of the super class and you break the encapsulation of the super class. As a rule of thumb for that situation, prefer factoring the common code out of both classes without using inheritance. You can factor that code into a non-member function or you might factor it into a utility class that you then use without deriving from it.
YMMV - what is best depends on the specific situation. Factoring code into a common super class is the basis for the template method pattern, so when using virtual methods inheritance might be what you want.
Nothing especially wrong with the concept. You should try to set it up so that the objects in question can generally be auto-allocated vs having to be newed -- significant performance savings in most cases. And you probably shouldn't use the technique for highly performance-sensitive code unless you know your compiler generates it efficiently.
I disagree that the class you're describing "is not a normal class". It has state and it has behavior. You've pointed out that it has a relatively short lifespan, but that doesn't make it any less of a class.
Short-lived classes vs. functions with out-params:
I agree that your short-lived classes are probably a little more intuitive and easier to maintain than a function which takes many out-params (or 1 complex out-param). However, I suspect a function will perform slightly better, because you won't be taking the time to instantiate a new short-lived object. If it's a simple class, that performance difference is probably negligible. However, if you're talking about an extremely performance-intensive environment, it might be a consideration for you.
Short-lived classes: creating new vs. re-using instances:
There's plenty of examples where instances of classes are re-used: thread-pools, DB-connection pools (probably darn near any software construct ending in 'pool' :). In my experience, they seem to be used when instantiating the object is an expensive operation. Your small, short-lived classes don't sound like they're expensive to instantiate, so I wouldn't bother trying to re-use them. You may find that whatever pooling mechanism you implement, actually costs MORE (performance-wise) than simply instantiating new objects whenever needed.
Since a few years, common sense seems to dictate that it's better to program against interfaces rather than against implementations. For high-level code this indeed seems logical, e.g. if I have a complex solver in my application, it seems better to have something like this:
ISolver *solver = solverFactory.getSolver();
solver->solve(inputdata);
Rather than
Solver solver;
solver.solve(inputdata);
In the first code it is also easier to mock the solver, and thus, to unit test.
But my question is: at which level doesn't it make sense anymore to use interface. E.g. if I have a ComplexNumber class (or String class, or whatever) in my application, then writing this:
IComplexNumber *complexNumber = complexNumberFactory.create(1,2); // 1+2i
Seems much more complex (especially regarding performance) than writing:
ComplexNumber complexNumber(1,2); // 1+2i
So, which elements are important in deciding whether something should be put behind an interface and when it shouldn't be put behind an interface?
Reasons to move to an interface are when it makes things simpler or reduces coupling. (Thats what an interface is for).
Reasons to move away from an interface are if it makes things more complicated or kills performance (but profile that to be sure). I'd argue that your IComplexNumber class actually makes the class heirarchy more complex unless you're introducing a MockComplexNumber, but I doubt such a class would be usefull... and it will probably make make things slower, but I'd measure that.
But don't think you need to do everything one way, or that your decisions are fixed in stone. It's pretty easy to convert to/from using an interface.
If you divide your classes into "service" and "value" classes, depending on the roles they play, then the answer is simple. Only use interfaces on service classes. In your question, "solver" is a service and "complex number" is a value.
Value classes should be easy to create using new() because they only accept basic types and other value classes in the constructor. Value classes are not useful to mock because you can use the real thing.
It may be useful to mock service classes and you may want multiple implementations. Your solverFactory could return a naiveSolver, a lookupSolver, a geneticSolver, a mockSolver etc. Here an interface is uesful.
With C++ it does not matter so as c++ has multiple inheritance and so an interface is an abstract class which you can add implemetation to. Where I have found interfaces most used is Java and C# which have single inheritance and if you wan a class to implement several things only one can be an abstract class the others must be interfaces
The more I get into writing unit tests the more often I find myself writing smaller and smaller classes. The classes are so small now that many of them have only one public method on them that is tied to an interface. The tests then go directly against that public method and are fairly small (sometimes that public method will call out to internal private methods within the class). I then use an IOC container to manage the instantiation of these lightweight classes because there are so many of them.
Is this typical of trying to do things in a more of a TDD manner? I fear that I have now refactored a legacy 3,000 line class that had one method in it into something that is also difficult to maintain on the other side of the spectrum because there is now literally about 100 different class files.
Is what I am doing going too far? I am trying to follow the single responsibility principle with this approach but I may be treading into something that is an anemic class structure where I do not have very intelligent "business objects".
This multitude of small classes would drive me nuts. With this design style it becomes really hard to figure out where the real work gets done. I am not a fan of having a ton of interfaces each with a corresponding implementation class, either. Having lots of "IWidget" and "WidgetImpl" pairings is a code smell in my book.
Breaking up a 3,000 line class into smaller pieces is great and commendable. Remember the goal, though: it's to make the code easier to read and easier to work with. If you end up with 30 classes and interfaces you've likely just created a different type of monster. Now you have a really complicated class design. It takes a lot of mental effort to keep that many classes straight in your head. And with lots of small classes you lose the very useful ability to open up a couple of key files, pick out the most important methods, and get an idea of what the heck is going on.
For what it's worth, though, I'm not really sold on test-driven design. Writing tests early, that's sensible. But reorganizing and restructuring your class design so it can be more easily unit tested? No thanks. I'll make interfaces only if they make architectural sense, not because I need to be able to mock up some objects so I can test my classes. That's putting the cart before the horse.
You might have gone a bit too far if you are asking this question. Having only one public method in a class isn't bad as such, if that class has a clear responsibility/function and encapsulates all logic concerning that function, even if most of it is in private methods.
When refactoring such legacy code, I usually try to identify the components in play at a high level that can be assigned distinct roles/responsibilities and separate them into their own classes. I think about which functions should be which components's responsibility and move the methods into that class.
You write a class so that instances of the class maintain state. You put this state in a class because all the state in the class is related.You have function to managed this state so that invalid permutations of state can't be set (the infamous square that has members width and height, but if width doesn't equal height it's not really a square.)
If you don't have state, you don't need a class, you could just use free functions (or in Java, static functions).
So, the question isn't "should I have one function?" but rather "what state-ful entity does my class encapsulate?"
Maybe you have one function that sets all state -- and you should make it more granular, so that, e.g., instead of having void Rectangle::setWidthAndHeight( int x, int y) you should have a setWidth and a separate setHeight.
Perhaps you have a ctor that sets things up, and a single function that doesIt, whatever "it" is. Then you have a functor, and a single doIt might make sense. E.g., class Add implements Operation { Add( int howmuch); Operand doIt(Operand rhs);}
(But then you may find that you really want something like the Visitor Pattern -- a pure functor is more likely if you have purely value objects, Visitor if they're arranged in a tree and are related to each other.)
Even if having these many small objects, single-function is the correct level of granularity, you may want something like a facade Pattern, to compose out of primitive operations, often-used complex operations.
There's no one answer. If you really have a bunch of functors, it's cool. If you're really just making each free function a class, it's foolish.
The real answer lies in answering the question, "what state am I managing, and how well do my classes model my problem domain?"
I'd be speculating if I gave a definite answer without looking at the code.
However it sounds like you're concerned and that is a definite flag for reviewing the code. The short answer to your question comes back to the definition of Simple Design. Minimal number of classes and methods is one of them. If you feel like you can take away some elements without losing the other desirable attributes, go ahead and collapse/inline them.
Some pointers to help you decide:
Do you have a good check for "Single Responsibility" ? It's deceptively difficult to get it right but is a key skill (I still don't see it like the masters). It doesn't necessarily translate to one method-classes. A good yardstick is 5-7 public methods per class. Each class could have 0-5 collaborators. Also to validate against SRP, ask the question what can drive a change into this class ? If there are multiple unrelated answers (e.g. change in the packet structure (parsing) + change in the packet contents to action map (command dispatcher) ) , maybe the class needs to be split. On the other end, if you feel that a change in the packet structure, can affect 4 different classes - you've run off the other cliff; maybe you need to combine them into a cohesive class.
If you have trouble naming the concrete implementations, maybe you don't need the interface. e.g. XXXImpl classes implmenting XXX need to be looked at. I recently learned of a naming convention, where the interface describes a Role and the implementation is named by the technology used to implement the role (or falling back to what it does). e.g. XmppAuction implements Auction (or SniperNotifier implements AuctionEventListener)
Lastly are you finding it difficult to add / modify / test existing code (e.g. test setup is long or painful ) ? Those can be signs that you need to go refactoring.