Patterns represent a couple (intent, solution), where the intent matters most. Based on that intents, that can be generic or specialized, I propose to consider patterns like types in languages with strong typing, for the compiler to enforce their constraints.
Declaring patterns: what for?
Represent dimensioned values with both their amount and their unit
By simply declaring this pattern, we immediately express many things:
- We wish to represent a quantity with its unit
- Quantity is a special kind of ValueObject (as in Fowler or DDD), hence:
- It is Immutable, therefore it has no setter, only a valued constructor
- Identity is based solely on its values, two value objects are equal if they share the same values
- In Java, the hashcode() and equals() methods must be implemented solely on the values of the immutable fields, and the hashcode can be cached internally; the toString() result can be cached as well
- In the spirit of Domain Driven Design, it also probably follows Closure of Operation and Side -Effect-Free Functions
- It must not depend on any heavyweight dependencies such as middleware, database or gui classes
- It must not depend on Entities and Services
If we had an explicit way to mark the use of the pattern in the code, and if the compiler was able to know about this pattern, then it could enforce all the above. Moreover, it could also generate corresponding unit tests to assert the dynamic and runtime aspects constrained by the pattern.
This approach can be considered similar to the typing used in programming languages, where the compiler can enforce many constraints according to the type declarations given by the developer.
In current languages there is no explicit way to declare the use of patterns in the source code. The reader of the source must pay attention to various hints and compare to his/her prior knowledge to decide whether or not a pattern is used. Typical hints include naming conventions, where the class or interface names ends with the name of the pattern participant: an interface TradeFactory is probably a Factory that creates Trade instances.
Since many years I have been using a custom Javadoc tag @pattern to explicitly mark the patterns I use in my source code, hoping that a tool could use it in the future. Over time I have noticed several benefits from doing that, the biggest one being that I am forced to be 100% clear about what I want. Many times I noticed that asking myself to explicitly declare in patterns what I was doing required me to think deeper. Though I know what I am doing, when trying to express that intent using patterns from the books I am forced to clarify my intent to decide which exact pattern I am applying. This is fully in the spirit of the Pragmatic Programmer‘s « Programming by Coincidence« , and also in the spirit of Test Driven Development where the unit test is forcing you to clarify what you really want.
In other words, we could call that Pattern Driven Development. PDD, yet another acronym!
It may not sound intuitive that there exists a documented pattern for each and every possible design decision, but I can confirm that the panel of existing patterns is very wide and already covers a lot of common design decisions. Such patterns are far from sophisticated solutions or tricks, they usually just name intents and known practices. But this is exactly what we need. Dirk Riehle, in a recent paper entitled Design Pattern Density Defined, found that in the case of open-source frameworks, and considering only classic design patterns, the density of such patterns was between 40 and 70%, where density is defined by « The design pattern density of an object-oriented framework is the percentage of its collaborations that are design pattern instances. »
In addition, it becomes increasingly common for software teams to use custom patterns as a convenient way of documenting their common design practices. Actually this is how the pattern story began when Kent Beck and Ralph Johnson decided to document the design of HotDraw in the now classic paper: Patterns generate architectures. To illustrate that, the Drupal team is using custom patterns in addition to standard patterns to document their design in an efficient way, as described in the program of the DrupalCon Paris 2009 conference:
This session will cover the how and why of design patterns, and review the most common patterns used in Drupal as well as a number of common patterns we could be using. Some are Drupal-specific patterns and some more more general software design patterns.
Another major example of patterns dedicated for a particular project is the the Eclipse IDE. Erich Gamma, the main Eclipse designer -one of the Gang of Four- wrote the book Contributing to Eclipse: principles, patterns, and plug-ins (together with Kent Beck) where Eclipse-specific and standard patterns are used together as the primary mean of documenting the design.
Patterns are signs to denote intents, and I propose to promote the use of patterns (patterns already existing or to be defined in the context of a particular project) to trace these intents explicitly, and to enable tools to enforce pattern-specific constraints.