The Arolla “ancient world map” of software development

Software development technologies and trends are not particularly tangible things, yet we need to reason on them. At Arolla, the company I’m part of, we’ve designed an “ancient world map” of software development, as a cartography of the universe of software development we live in. Built for our own purpose, we also share it so you can benefit from it.

 The Arolla "ancient world map" of our software development universe
The Arolla "ancient world map" of our software development universe

If you want to use the map with your own teams, please do so (it’s licensed CC-NC-ND). If you need a high-resolution file for print, just ask (the file is quite big). We’d love to get your feedback!

The metaphor of an ancient world map

Agile and in XP suggest using metaphors to help materialize abstract stuff, and make it easier to grasp. You’ve probably seen Eric Evans (Domain-Driven Design) showing a picture of an ancient world map when presenting his concept of “a model built for a purpose”. We wanted to materialize software development technologies and trends, for which we have no clear and accurate visualisation yet, just like explorers in the middle age had no accurate knowledge of the world, lands and oceans. Ancient world maps had to represent that part of ignorance, with dragons and strange creatures on the less-known areas.

So we chose this metaphor to represent our universe. And ancient world maps are beautiful too!

A map conveys meaning

In cartography, the role of map design is to:

Orchestrate the elements of the map to best convey its message to its audience.

In our map, each continent represents a particular chapter of related technical stuff , and oceans in between represents “soft” techniques that complement them best. Of course the universe of software development has many more dimensions than the two dimensions available on a map. This means that such map is quite subjective, it depends on our own mental model. On the other hand, this is also true for any map of the physical world, that is also supposed to represents a 3D planet onto a plane, with some deep decision on whether to preserve angles or distances.

We tried to put most related technologies as close as possible to each other. Regions in the middle of the map represent the core of a developer daily work, in contrast with the regions closer to the poles which are more specialized.

Of course not every existing technology and trend was included on the map, especially the ones that we do not want to offer to our clients or that are of less importance. As a fan of DDD I regret we could not include our clients domains (finance, e-commerce, media, e-advertising, online games…) on the map, but a map is for a purpose, just like a model. A map of everything would just be useless.

Drawing the map proved a lot more work than expected, with hundreds of layers and lots of little adjustments everywhere, resulting into a huge file for printing.

To discuss skills and areas of expertise

Why this map int the first place? At Arolla we wanted to organise a session for all our consultants to discover more about each other from a skills point of view. We also wanted more senior consultants to volunteer and take ownership on some areas of their technical expertise.

We didn’t want another boring evening with slides shows in front of a passive audience. We wanted a more concrete, more fun and more engaging way to talk about technical skills and areas of knowledge.

So we printed the map on a big poster laid on a table, like in the captain room in an old vessel, and made it into a game.

Map + Lego = game

During last June DDD Immersion course at skillmaster, Alberto told me about Lego Serious Play. This game helps people express their ideas and be creative using Lego bricks as a medium, to help say crazy things in front of other people. It also makes any discussion a lot more fun! So we bought a set of Lego mini-figures, including some crazy figures, for our consultants to play with on the map (we did not follow the actual Lego Serious Play game at all).

The first part of the game was to get familiar with the map. I was shouting the name of various technologies at random, and the first to find out where it is on the map would take a marshmallow and place it as a flag (we had lots of sweeties everywhere too). This part was fast-paced and didn’t take long as it was quickly obvious that everyone had understood and indexed the map in their mind already.

Putting marshmallow on the map

In the next part, we had to create our own Lego persona, using the Lego building blocks available. It was really fun, and everyone was really happy to be given the opportunity to play with Lego again. It was nice to see that nobody built a mini-figure as planned on the box, they were all very personal, ironical or really weird.

Each consultant then told his/her career by moving his/her Lego custom figure over the big map, starting from some technology (e.g. C++) “in this continent” before “moving to another territory” (e.g. Java or .Net), then “crossing oceans” to gain additional skills in software factory and agile.

I particularly enjoyed the relaxed atmosphere, where anyone would interrupt to ask questions or comment, or throw a joke out loud. Perhaps the map, the Lego and the marshmallow made it clear that it was not too serious an exercise. The map and the Lego figures were able to make abstract skills more tangible and more fun for the time of the game.

We could have done the same exercise without all that, but the feedback we had from our consultants was very positive, they really enjoyed the game.

What’s next?

We’re going to put the big poster of the map on the wall, as a decoration. Smaller printed maps will help scope some discussions, perhaps for interviews, or when discussing with less technology-involved people. It could also be useful for developers to self-assert how much they know about the current state of the art in our craft.

Read More

The untold art of Composite-friendly interfaces

The Composite pattern is a very powerful design pattern that you use regularly to manipulate a group of things through the very same interface than a single thing. By doing so you don’t have to discriminate between the singular and plural cases, which often simplifies your design.

Yet there are cases where you are tempted to use the Composite pattern but the interface of your objects does not fit quite well. Fear not, some simple refactorings on the methods signatures can make your interfaces Composite-friendly, because it’s worth it.

Always start with examples

Imagine an interface for a financial instrument with a getter on its currency:

public interface Instrument {
  Currency getCurrency();

This interface is alright for a single instrument, however it does not scale for a group of instruments (Composite pattern), because the corresponding getter in the composite class would look like (notice that return type is now a collection):

public class CompositeInstrument {
  // list of instruments...

  public Set getCurrencies() {...}

We must admit that each instrument in a composite instrument may have a different currency, hence the composite may be multi-currency, hence the collection return type. This breaks the goal of the Composite pattern which is to unify the interfaces for single and multiple elements. If we stop there, we now have to discriminate between a single Instrument and a CompositeInstrument, and we have to discriminate that on every call site. I’m not happy with that.

The composite pattern applied to a lamp: same plug for one or several lamps

The brutal approach

The brutal approach is to generalize the initial interface so that it works for the composite case:

public interface Instrument {
  Set getCurrencies() ;

This interface now works for both the single case and the composite case, but at the cost of always having to deal with a collection as return value. In fact I’m not that sure that we’ve simplified our design with this approach: if the composite case is not used that often, we even have complicated the design for little benefit, because the returned collection type always goes on our way, requiring a loop every time it is called.

The trick to improve that is just to investigate what our interface is really used for. The getter on the initial interface only reveals that we did not think about the actual use before, in other words it shows a design decision “by default”, or lack of.

Turn it into a boolean method

Very often this kind of getter is mostly used to test whether the instrument (single or composite) has something to do with a given currency, for example to check if an instrument is acceptable for a screen in USD or tradable by a trader who is only granted the right to trade in EUR.

In this case, you can revamp the method into another intention-revealing method that accepts a parameter and returns a boolean:

public interface Instrument {
  boolean isInCurrency(Currency currency);

This interface remains simple, is closer to our needs, and in addition it now scales for use with a Composite, because the result for a Composite instrument can be derived from each result on each single instrument and the AND operator:

public class CompositeInstrument {
  // list of instruments...

  public boolean isInCurrency(Currency currency) {
     boolean result;
     // for each instrument, result &= isInCurrency(currency);
     return result;

Something to do with Fold

As shown above the problem is all about the return value. Generalizing on boolean and their boolean logic from the previous example (‘&=’), the overall trick for a Composite-friendly interface is to define methods that return a type that is easy to fold over successive executions. For example the trick is to merge (“fold”) the boolean result of several calls into one single boolean result. You typically do that with AND or OR on boolean types.

If the return type is a collection, then you could perhaps merge the results using addAll(…) if it makes sense for the operation.

Technically, this is easily done when the return type is closed under an operation (magma), i.e. when the result of some operation is of the same type than the operand, just like ‘boolean1 AND boolean2‘ is also a boolean.

This is obviously the case for boolean and their boolean logic, but also for numbers and their arithmetic, collections and their sets operations, strings and their concatenation, and many other types including your own classes, as Eric Evans suggests you favour “Closure of Operations” in his book Domain-Driven Design.

Fire hydrants: from one pipe to multiple pipes (composite)

Turn it into a void method

Though not possible in our previous example, void methods work very well with the Composite pattern: with nothing to return, there is no need to unify or fold anything:

public class CompositeFunction {
  List functions = ...;

  public void apply(...) {
     // for each function, function.apply(...);

Continuation-passing style

The last trick to help with the Composite pattern is to adopt the continuation passing style by passing a continuation object as a parameter to the method. The method then sets its result into it instead of using its return value.

As an example, to perform search on every node of a tree, you may use a continuation like this:

public class SearchResults {
   public void addResult(Node node){ // append to list of results...}
   public List getResults() { // return list of results...}

public class Node {
  List children = ...;

  public void search(SarchResults sr) {
     if (found){
     // for each child,;

By passing a continuation as argument to the method, the continuation takes care of the multiplicity, and the method is now well suited for the Composite pattern. You may consider that the continuation indeed encapsulates into one object the process of folding the result of each call, and of course the continuation is mutable.

This style does complicates the interface of the method a little, but also offers the advantage of a single allocation of one instance of the continuation across every call.

That's continuation passing style (CC Some rights reserved by 2011 BUICK REGAL)

One word on exceptions

Methods that can throw exceptions (even unchecked exceptions) can complicate the use in a composite. To deal with exceptions within the loop that calls each child, you can just throw the first exception encountered, at the expense of giving up the loop. An alternative is to collect every caught exception into a Collection, then throw a composite exception around the Collection when you’re done with the loop. On some other cases the composite loop may also be a convenient place to do the actual exception handling, such as full logging, in one central place.

In closing

We’ve seen some tricks to adjust the signature of your methods so that they work well with the Composite pattern, typically by folding the return type in some way. In return, you don’t have to discriminate manually between the single and the multiple, and one single interface can be used much more often; this is with these kinds of details that you can keep your design simple and ready for any new challenge.

Follow me on Twitter! Credits: Pictures from myself, except the assembly line by BUICK REGAL (Flickr)

Read More

A touch of functional style in plain Java with predicates – Part 2

In the first part of this article we introduced predicates, which bring some of the benefits of functional programming to object-oriented languages such as Java, through a simple interface with one single method that returns true or false. In this second and last part, we’ll cover some more advanced notions to get the best out of your predicates.


One obvious case where predicates shine is testing. Whenever you need to test a method that mixes walking a data structure and some conditional logic, by using predicates you can test each half in isolation, walking the data structure first, then the conditional logic.

In a first step, you simply pass either the always-true or always-false predicate to the method to get rid of the conditional logic and to focus just on the correct walking on the data structure:

// check with the always-true predicate
final Iterable<PurchaseOrder> all = orders.selectOrders(Predicates.<PurchaseOrder> alwaysTrue());
assertEquals(2, Iterables.size(all));

// check with the always-false predicate
assertTrue(Iterables.isEmpty(orders.selectOrders(Predicates.<PurchaseOrder> alwaysFalse())));

In a second step, you just test each possible predicate separately.

final CustomerPredicate isForCustomer1 = new CustomerPredicate(CUSTOMER_1);
assertTrue(isForCustomer1.apply(ORDER_1)); // ORDER_1 is for CUSTOMER_1
assertFalse(isForCustomer1.apply(ORDER_2)); // ORDER_2 is for CUSTOMER_2

This example is simple but you get the idea. To test more complex logic, if testing each half of the feature is not enough you may create mock predicates, for example a predicate that returns true once, then always false later on. Forcing the predicate like that may considerably simplify your test set-up, thanks to the strict separation of concerns.

Predicates work so good for testing that if you tend to do some TDD, I mean if the way you can test influences the way you design, then as soon as you know predicates they will surely find their way into your design.

Explaining to the team

In the projects I’ve worked on, the team was not familiar with predicates at first. However this concept is easy and fun enough for everyone to get it quickly. In fact I’ve been surprised by how the idea of predicates spread naturally from the code I had written to the code of my colleagues, without much evangelism from me. I guess that the benefits of predicates speak for themselves. Having mature API’s from big names like Apache or Google also helps convince that it is serious stuff. And now with the functional programming hype, it should be even easier to sell!

Simple optimizations

This engine is so big, no optimization is required (Chicago Auto Show).

The usual optimizations are to make predicates immutable and stateless as much as possible to enable their sharing with no consideration of threading.  This enables using one single instance for the whole process (as a singleton, e.g. as static final constants). Most frequently used predicates that cannot be enumerated at compilation time may be cached at runtime if required. As usual, do it only if your profiler report really calls for it.

When possible a predicate object can pre-compute some of the calculations involved in its evaluation in its constructor (naturally thread-safe) or lazily.

A predicate is expected to be side-effect-free, in other words “read-only”: its execution should not cause any observable change to the system state. Some predicates must have some internal state, like a counter-based predicate used for paging, but they still must not change any state in the system they apply on. With internal state, they also cannot be shared, however they may be reused within their thread if they support reset between each successive use.

Fine-grained interfaces: a larger audience for your predicates

In large applications you find yourself writing very similar predicates for types totally different but that share a common property like being related to a Customer. For example in the administration page, you may want to filter logs by customer; in the CRM page you want to filter complaints by customer.

For each such type X you’d need yet another CustomerXPredicate to filter it by customer. But since each X is related to a customer in some way, we can factor that out (Extract Interface in Eclipse) into an interface CustomerSpecific with one method:

public interface CustomerSpecific {
   Customer getCustomer();

This fine-grained interface reminds me of traits in some languages, except it has no reusable implementation. It could also be seen as a way to introduce a touch of dynamic typing within statically typed languages, as it enables calling indifferently any object with a getCustomer() method. Of course our class PurchaseOrder now implements this interface.

Once we have this interface CustomerSpecific, we can define predicates on it rather than on each particular type as we did before. This helps leverage just a few predicates throughout a large project. In this case, the predicate CustomerPredicate is co-located with the interface CustomerSpecific it operates on, and it has a generic type CustomerSpecific:

public final class CustomerPredicate implements Predicate<CustomerSpecific>, CustomerSpecific {
  private final Customer customer;
  // valued constructor omitted for clarity
  public Customer getCustomer() {
    return customer;
  public boolean apply(CustomerSpecific specific) {
    return specific.getCustomer().equals(customer);

Notice that the predicate can itself implement the interface CustomerSpecific, hence could even evaluate itself!

When using trait-like interfaces like that, you must take care of the generics and change a bit the method that expects a Predicate<PurchaseOrder> in the class PurchaseOrders, so that it also accepts any predicate on a supertype of PurchaseOrder:

public Iterable<PurchaseOrder> selectOrders(Predicate<? super PurchaseOrder> condition) {
    return Iterables.filter(orders, condition);

Specification in Domain-Driven Design

Eric Evans and Martin Fowler wrote together the pattern Specification, which is clearly a predicate. Actually the word “predicate” is the word used in logic programming, and the pattern Specification was written to explain how we can borrow some of the power of logic programming into our object-oriented languages.

In the book Domain-Driven Design, Eric Evans details this pattern and gives several examples of Specifications which all express parts of the domain. Just like this book describes a Policy pattern that is nothing but the Strategy pattern when applied to the domain, in some sense the Specification pattern may be considered a version of predicate dedicated to the domain aspects, with the additional intent to clearly mark and identify the business rules.

As a remark, the method name suggested in the Specification pattern is: isSatisfiedBy(T): boolean, which emphasises a focus on the domain constraints. As we’ve seen before with predicates, atoms of business logic encapsulated into Specification objects can be recombined using boolean logic (or, and, not, any, all), as in the Interpreter pattern.

The book also describes some more advanced techniques such as optimization when querying a database or a repository, and subsumption.

Optimisations when querying

The following are optimization tricks, and I’m not sure you will ever need them. But this is true that predicates are quite dumb when it comes to filtering datasets: they must be evaluated on just each element in a set, which may cause performance problems for huge sets. If storing elements in a database and given a predicate, retrieving every element just to filter them one after another through the predicate does not sound exactly a right idea for large sets…

When you hit performance issues, you start the profiler and find the bottlenecks. Now if calling a predicate very often to filter elements out of a data structure is a bottleneck, then how do you fix that?

One way is to get rid of the full predicate thing, and to go back to hard-coded, more error-prone, repetitive and less-testable code. I always resist this approach as long as I can find better alternatives to optimize the predicates, and there are many.

First, have a deeper look at how the code is being used. In the spirit of Domain-Driven Design, looking at the domain for insights should be systematic whenever a question occurs.

Very often there are clear patterns of use in a system. Though statistical, they offer great opportunities for optimisation. For example in our PurchaseOrders class, retrieving every PENDING order may be used much more frequently than every other case, because that’s how it makes sense from a business perspective, in our imaginary example.

Friend Complicity

Weird complicity (Maeght foundation)

Based on the usage pattern you may code alternate implementations that are specifically optimised for it. In our example of pending orders being frequently queried, we would code an alternate implementation FastPurchaseOrder, that makes use of some pre-computed data structure to keep the pending orders ready for quick access.

Now, in order to benefit from this alternate implementation, you may be tempted to change its interface to add a dedicated method, e.g. selectPendingOrders(). Remember that before you only had a generic selectOrders(Predicate) method. Adding the extra method may be alright in some cases, but may raise several concerns: you must implement this extra method in every other implementation too, and the extra method may be too specific for a particular use-case hence may not fit well on the interface.

A trick for using the internal optimization through the exact same method that only expects predicates is just to make the implementation recognize the predicate it is related to. I call that “Friend Complicity“, in reference to the friend keyword in C++.

/** Optimization method: pre-computed list of pending orders */
private Iterable<PurchaseOrder> selectPendingOrders() {
  // ... optimized stuff...

public Iterable<PurchaseOrder> selectOrders(Predicate<? super PurchaseOrder> condition) {
  // internal complicity here: recognize friend class to enable optimization
  if (condition instanceof PendingOrderPredicate) {
     return selectPendingOrders();// faster way
  // otherwise, back to the usual case
  return Iterables.filter(orders, condition);

It’s clear that it increases the coupling between two implementation classes that should otherwise ignore each other. Also it only helps with performance if given the “friend” predicate directly, with no decorator or composite around.

What’s really important with Friend Complicity is to make sure that the behaviour of the method is never compromised, the contract of the interface must be met at all times, with or without the optimisation, it’s just that the performance improvement may happen, or not. Also keep in mind that you may want to switch back to the unoptimized implementation one day.


If the orders are actually stored in a database, then SQL can be used to query them quickly. By the way, you’ve probably noticed that the very concept of predicate is exactly what you put after the WHERE clause in a SQL query.

Ron Arad designed a chair that encompasses another chair: this is subsumption

A first and simple way to still use predicate yet improve performance is for some predicates to implement an additional interface SqlAware, with a method asSQL(): String that returns the exact SQL query corresponding for the evaluation of the predicate itself. When the predicate is used against a database-backed repository, the repository would call this method instead of the usual evaluate(Predicate) or apply(Predicate) method, and would then query the database with the returned query.

I call that approach SQL-compromised as the predicate is now polluted with database-specific details it should ignore more often than not.

Alternatives to using SQL directly include the use of stored procedures or named queries: the predicate has to provide the name of the query and all its parameters. Double-dispatch between the repository and the predicate passed to it is also an alternative: the repository calls the predicate on its additional method selectElements(this) that itself calls back the right pre-selection method findByState(state): Collection on the repository; the predicate then applies its own filtering on the returned set and returns the final filtered set.


Subsumption is a logic concept to express a relation of one concept that encompasses another, such as “red, green, and yellow are subsumed under the term color” (Merriam-Webster). Subsumption between predicates can be a very powerful concept to implement in your code.

Let’s take the example of an application that broadcasts stock quotes. When registering we must declare which quotes we are interested in observing. We can do that by simply passing a predicate on stocks that only evaluates true for the stocks we’re interested in:

public final class StockPredicate implements Predicate<String> {
   private final Set<String> tickers;
   // Constructors omitted for clarity

   public boolean apply(String ticker) {
     return tickers.contains(ticker);

Now we assume that the application already broadcasts standard sets of popular tickers on messaging topics, and each topic has its own predicates; if it could detect that the predicate we want to use is “included”, or subsumed in one of the standard predicates, we could just subscribe to it and save computation. In our case this subsumption is rather easy, by just adding an additional method on our predicates:

 public boolean encompasses(StockPredicate predicate) {
   return tickers.containsAll(predicate.tickers);
 }Subsumption is all about evaluating another predicate for "containment". This is easy when your predicates are based on sets, as in the example, or when they are based on intervals of numbers or dates. Otherwise You may have to resort to tricks similar to Friend Complicity, i.e. recognizing the other predicate to decide if it is subsumed or not, in a case-by-case fashion.

Overall, remember that subsumption is hard to implement in the general case, but even partial subsumption can be very valuable, so it is an important tool in your toolbox.


Predicates are fun, and can enhance both your code and the way you think about it!


The single source file for this part is available for download (fixed broken link)

Read More

A touch of functional style in plain Java with predicates – Part 1

You keep hearing about functional programming that is going to take over the world, and you are still stuck to plain Java? Fear not, since you can already add a touch of functional style into your daily Java. In addition, it’s fun, saves you many lines of code and leads to fewer bugs.

What is a predicate?

I actually fell in love with predicates when I first discovered Apache Commons Collections, long ago when I was coding in Java 1.4. A predicate in this API is nothing but a Java interface with only one method:

evaluate(Object object): boolean

That’s it, it just takes some object and returns true or false. A more recent equivalent of Apache Commons Collections is Google Guava, with an Apache License 2.0. It defines a Predicate interface with one single method using a generic parameter:

apply(T input): boolean

It is that simple. To use predicates in your application you just have to implement this interface with your own logic in its single method apply(something).

A simple example

As an early example, imagine you have a list orders of PurchaseOrder objects, each with a date, a Customer and a state. The various use-cases will probably require that you find out every order for this customer, or every pending, shipped or delivered order, or every order done since last hour.  Of course you can do that with foreach loops and a if inside, in that fashion:

//List<PurchaseOrder> orders...

public List<PurchaseOrder> listOrdersByCustomer(Customer customer) {
  final List<PurchaseOrder> selection = new ArrayList<PurchaseOrder>();
  for (PurchaseOrder order : orders) {
    if (order.getCustomer().equals(customer)) {
  return selection;

And again for each case:

public List<PurchaseOrder> listRecentOrders(Date fromDate) {
  final List<PurchaseOrder> selection = new ArrayList<PurchaseOrder>();
  for (PurchaseOrder order : orders) {
    if (order.getDate().after(fromDate)) {
  return selection;

The repetition is quite obvious: each method is the same except for the condition inside the if clause, emphasized in bold here. The idea of using predicates is simply to replace the hard-coded condition inside the if clause by a call to a predicate, which then becomes a parameter. This means you can write only one method, taking a predicate as a parameter, and you can still cover all your use-cases, and even already support use-cases you do not know yet:

public List<PurchaseOrder> listOrders(Predicate<PurchaseOrder> condition) {
  final List<PurchaseOrder> selection = new ArrayList<PurchaseOrder>();
  for (PurchaseOrder order : orders) {
    if (condition.apply(order)) {
  return selection;

Each particular predicate can be defined as a standalone class, if used at several places, or as an anonymous class:

final Customer customer = new Customer("BruceWaineCorp");
final Predicate<PurchaseOrder> condition = new Predicate<PurchaseOrder>() {
  public boolean apply(PurchaseOrder order) {
    return order.getCustomer().equals(customer);

Your friends that use real functional programming languages (Scala, Clojure, Haskell etc.) will comment that the code above is awfully verbose to do something very common, and I have to agree. However we are used to that verbosity in the Java syntax and we have powerful tools (auto-completion, refactoring) to accommodate it. And our projects probably cannot switch to another syntax overnight anyway.

Predicates are collections best friends

Didn't find any related picture, so here's an unrelated picture from my library

Coming back to our example, we wrote a foreach loop only once to cover every use-case, and we were happy with that factoring out. However your friends doing functional programming “for real” can still laugh at this loop you had to write yourself. Luckily, both API from Apache or Google also provide all the goodies you may expect, in particular a class similar to java.util.Collections, hence named Collections2 (not a very original name).

This class provides a method filter() that does something similar to what we had written before, so we can now rewrite our method with no loop at all:

public Collection<PurchaseOrder> selectOrders(Predicate<PurchaseOrder> condition) {
  return Collections2.filter(orders, condition);

In fact, this method returns a filtered view:

The returned collection is a live view of unfiltered (the input collection); changes to one affect the other.

This also means that less memory is used, since there is no actual copy from the initial collection unfiltered to the actual returned collection filtered.

On a similar approach, given an iterator, you could ask for a filtered iterator on top of it (Decorator pattern) that only gives you the elements selected by your predicate:

Iterator filteredIterator = Iterators.filter(unfilteredIterator, condition);

Since Java 5 the Iterable interface comes very handy for use with the foreach loop, so we’d prefer indeed use the following expression:

public Iterable<PurchaseOrder> selectOrders(Predicate<PurchaseOrder> condition) {
  return Iterables.filter(orders, condition);

// you can directly use it in a foreach loop, and it reads well:
for (PurchaseOrder order : orders.selectOrders(condition)) {

Ready-made predicates

To use predicates, you could simply define your own interface Predicate, or one for each type parameter you need in your application. This is possible, however the good thing in using a standard Predicate interface from an API such as Guava or Commons Collections is that the API brings plenty of excellent building blocks to combine with your own predicate implementations.

First you may not even have to implement your own predicate at all. If all you need is a condition on whether an object is equal to another, or is not-null, then you can simply ask for the predicate:

// gives you a predicate that checks if an integer is zero
Predicate<Integer> isZero = Predicates.equalTo(0);
// gives a predicate that checks for non null objects
Predicate<String> isNotNull = Predicates.notNull();
// gives a predicate that checks for objects that are instanceof the given Class
Predicate<Object> isString = Predicates.instanceOf(String.class);

Given a predicate, you can inverse it (true becomes false and the other way round):


Combine several predicates using boolean operators AND, OR:

Predicates.and(predicate1, predicate2);
Predicates.or(predicate1, predicate2);
// gives you a predicate that checks for either zero or null
Predicate<Integer> isNullOrZero = Predicates.or(isZero, Predicates.isNull());

Of course you also have the special predicates that always return true or false, which are really, really useful, as we’ll see later for testing:


Where to locate your predicates

I often used to make anonymous predicates at first, however they always ended up being used more often so were often promoted to actual classes, nested or not.

By the way, where to locate these predicates? Following Robert C. Martin and his Common Closure Principle (CCP) :

Classes that change together, belong together

Because predicates manipulates objects of a certain type, I like to co-locate them close to the type they take as parameter. For example, the classes CustomerOrderPredicate, PendingOrderPredicate and RecentOrderPredicate should reside in the same package than the class PurchaseOrder that they evaluate, or in a sub-package if you have a lot of them. Another option would be to define them nested within the type itself. Obviously, the predicates are quite coupled to the objects they operate on.


Here are the source files for the examples in this article: cyriux_predicates_part1 (zip)

In the next part, we’ll have a look at how predicates simplify testing, how they relate to Specifications in Domain-Driven Design, and some additional stuff to get the best out of your predicates.

Read More

Key insights that you probably missed on DDD

As suggested by its name, Domain-Driven Design is not only about Event Sourcing and CQRS. It all starts with the domain and a lot of key insights that are too easy to overlook at first. Even if you’ve read the “blue book” already, I suggest you read it again as the book is at the same time wide and deep.

You got talent

The new "spoken" language makes heavy use of the thumb
A new natural language that makes heavy use of your thumbs

Behind the basics of Domain-Driven Design, one important idea is to harness the huge talent we all have: the ability to speak, and this talent of natural language can help us reason about the considered domain.

Just like multi-touch and tangible interfaces aim at reusing our natural strength in using our fingers, Eric Evans suggests that we use our language ability as an actual tool to try out loud modelling concepts, and to test if they pass the simple test of being useful in sentences about the domain.

This is a simple idea, yet powerful. No need for any extra framework or tool, one of the most powerful tool we can imagine is already there, wired in our brain. The trick is to find a middle way between natural language in all its fuzziness, and an expressive model that we can discuss without ambiguity, and this is exactly what the Ubiquitous Language addresses.

One model to rule them all

Another key insight in Domain-Driven Design is to identify -equate- the implementation model with the analysis model, so that there is only one model across every aspect of the software process, from requirements and analysis to code.

This does not mean you must have only one domain model in your application, in fact you will probably get more than one model across the various areas* of the application. But this means that in each area there must be only one model shared by developers and domain experts. This clearly opposes to some early methodologies that advocated a distinct analysis modelling then a separate, more detailed implementation modelling. This also leads naturally to the Ubiquitous Language, a common language between domain experts and the technical team.

The key driver is that the knowledge gained through analysis can be directly used in the implementation, with no gap, mismatch or translation. This assumes of course that the underlying programming language is modelling-oriented, which object oriented languages obviously are.

What form for the model?

Text is supplemented by pictures
Text is supplemented by pictures

Shall the model be expressed in UML? Eric Evans is again quite pragmatic: nothing beats natural language to express the two essential aspects of a model: the meaning of its concepts, and their behaviour. Text, in English or any other spoken language, is therefore the best choice to express a model, while diagrams, standard or not, even pictures, can supplement to express a particular structure or perspective.

If you try to express the entirety of the model using UML, then you’re just using UML as a programming language. Using only a programming language such as Java to represent a model exhibits by the way the same shortcoming: it is hard to get the big picture and to grasp the large scale structure. Simple text documents along with some diagrams and pictures, if really used and therefore kept up-to-date, help explain what’s important about the model, otherwise expressed in code.

A final remark

The beauty in Domain-Driven Design is that it is not just a set of independent good ideas on why and how to build domain models; it is itself a complete system of inter-related ideas, each useful on their own but that also supplement each other. For example, the idea of using natural language as a modelling tool and the idea of sharing one same model for analysis and implementation both lead to the Ubiquitous Language.

* Areas would typically be different Bounded Contexts

Read More

What next language will you choose?

Now that enterprises have chosen stable platforms (JVM and .Net), on top of which we can choose a syntax out of many available, which language will you pick up as your next favourite?

New languages to have a look at (my own selection)

Based on what I read everyday in various blogs, I arbitrarily reduced the list of candidates to just a few language that I believe are rising and promising:

  • Scala
  • F#
  • Clojure
  • Ruby
  • Groovy

Of course each language has its own advantages, and we should definitely take a look at several of them, not just one. But the popularity of the languages is also important to have a chance of using them in your day work.

Growth rates stats

In order to get some facts about the trends of these new programming languages in the real world, Google trends is your friend. Here is the graph of rate of growth (NOT absolute numbers), worldwide:

I’m impressed at how Clojure is taking off so brutally… In absolute terms, Ruby comes first, Groovy second.

So that was for the search queries on Google. What about the job posts? Again these are growth rates, not absolute numbers, and with a focus on the US.

Again, the growth of Clojure is impressive, even though it remains very small in absolute terms, where Ruby comes first, followed by Groovy.

Popularity index

So far the charts only showed how new languages are progressing compared to each other.

To get an indication of the actual present popularity of each language, the usual place to go is at the TIOBE indices (last published June 2010):

The TIOBE Programming Community index gives an indication of the popularity of programming languages. The index is updated once a month. The ratings are based on the number of skilled engineers world-wide, courses and third party vendors. The popular search engines Google, MSN, Yahoo!, Wikipedia and YouTube are used to calculate the ratings.

In short:

  • Ruby is ranked 12th; Ruby is kinda mainstream already
  • LISP/Scheme/Clojure are ranked together 16th, almost the same rank than in 2005 when Clojure did not exist yet.
  • Scala, Groovy, F#/Caml are ranked 43, 44 and 45th respectively


Except Ruby, the new languages Scala, Groovy, F# and Clojure are not yet well established, but they do progress quickly, especially Clojure then Scala.

In absolute terms, and within my selection of languages, Groovy is the more popular after Ruby, followed by Scala. Clojure and F# are still far behind.

I have a strong feeling that the time has come for developers to mix alternate syntax in addition to their legacy language (Java or C#), still on top of the same platform, something also called polyglot programming. It’s also time for the ideas of functional programming to become more popular.

In practice, these new languages are more likely to be introduced initially for automated testing and build systems, before being used for production code, especially with high productivity web frameworks that leverage their distinct strengths.

So which one to choose? If you’re already on the JVM, why not choose Groovy or Scala first, then Clojure to get a grasp on something different. If you’re on .Net, why not choose Scala and then F#. Ad if you were to choose Ruby, I guess you would have done it already.

Read More

Patterns express intents

Patterns represent a couple (intent, solution); sometime they refer to a solution, more often they essentially represents an intent, independently of its solution.

Sometimes the solution part of patterns includes a trick or a workaround to overcome the limits of a language, but patterns cannot be reduced to that trick. Indeed, a very important role of patterns (not only design patterns but patterns in general ) is that they represent stereotypes of intents.

A matter of intent

Therefore, it does not really matter if the Strategy pattern can be expressed using a Java interface, a C++ functor or a first-class function: it remains a Strategy because this is just what we want: “Strategy lets the algorithm vary independently from clients that use it“.

Is the intent of this book holder clear?
Is the intent of this book holder clear?

Another similar pattern is the Command pattern, which intent is:” Encapsulate a request as an object, thereby letting you parameterize clients with different requests, queue or log requests, and support undoable operations.” Here the intent talks about ‘object’ because it was written for an object-oriented context, however it can easily be made generic if you think ‘handle on function’ (or closure etc.) instead of object. Again, even if first class functions such as delegates in C# can achieve this goal, they do not replace the need to declare the precise intent: “you want to parameterize clients with different requests, queue or log requests, and support undoable operations.”  So in some sense, just using a functor without declaring that the intent is to do a Strategy or a Command is like using untyped variables: you are supposed to know what you are doing, but it is implicit.*

Yet another example with the Visitor pattern and its intent: “Represent an operation to be performed on the elements of an object structure. Visitor lets you define a new operation without changing the classes of the elements on which it operates.” This is typically achieved through double-dispatch in languages lacking multimethods, but regardless of how it is implemented the intent remains, and this is what matters most.

Generic Vs. specialized intents

For example, the intent of the generic Proxy pattern defined in a paper from James Noble:

The Proxy pattern is used to “Provide a surrogate or placeholder for another object the Subject to control access to it”. A Proxy object provides the same interface as the original Subject object, but intercepts any messages directed to the Subject. A Proxy object can therefore be used in place of the Subject by a client which is designed to access the Subject, without the client being aware the Subject has been replaced by a Proxy.

This intent can then be specialized for various purposes, leading to several specialized patterns:

What's your intent if you buy that? (yes this is brand new furniture for sale)
What's your intent if you buy that? (yes this is brand new furniture for sale)
  • Remote Proxy: provides a local representative to an object that is only available on a remote machine
  • Protection Proxy: checks the access rights before directing to the original object
  • Virtual Proxy: creates expensive object only on demand so that they are created only when necessary
  • Cache Proxy: an object representative that remembers the result of calling the methods of an object to avoid directing subsequent call again to this object
  • Counter Proxy (smart pointer management), etc.

We say that these patterns are specializations of the Proxy pattern. The main Proxy pattern introduces the common solution—providing a placeholder for an object. Every specialized proxy pattern is a special kind of Proxy: A “Protection Proxy” is a special kind of “Proxy”. The specialization here only deals with the Intent part of the patterns.


Now that functional languages are getting more attention, it becomes fashionable to question the usefulness of patterns: “Scala does that without the need for patterns”. I agree Scala is great, I disagree this argument. Patterns are first of all signs to denote intents, even if they can do more.


Patterns as Signs, James Noble and Robert Biddle, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

Classifying Relationships Between Object-Oriented Design Patterns, James Noble, Microsoft Research Institute, Macquarie University

* By the way, how to achieve “undoable operations” by using first class functions in an elegant way? this would require passing two functions always together: do() and undo()

Read More

Choosing good names for your Java classes

With Object-Oriented programming we often have many classes, therefore it is really important to name them well.

It’s amazing how I can spend so much time searching for good names for classes, and I do think it is worth doing it well, after all naming is all about making the code easy to read and to understand, which is a major concern in professional programming.

However it is not easy to find good names, and by the way what does “good” naming means ? I claim that a name is good when most people understand it the same way. This gives already a valuable advise to check a name: ask your colleagues what they think of it, or what they would suggest instead. In pair programming, this is obviously always the case, and this sure helps.

But how to find good names in the first place ? First the domain analysis gives good names, because they are names everybody agrees on [1].

Then whenever you use design patterns (or analysis, UI or J2EE patterns), these patterns suggest rather standard prefixes or postfixes for your classes and methods names. For example, if you implement the State pattern, one would expect classes with names like “MyDomainThingState”. Of course this is not a rule, but if you have no good reason not to do this way, you’d better follow the most standard way.

Also, any convention or API that is well-known can be used as a naming guideline, such as the Java API, Commons Collections and some major open-source projects. Any Iterator must be called “SomeIterator”, and a class that purpose is to filter objects is a “SomePredicate”. Naming interfaces that define a capability with “SomeCapability-able” is a very common usage, as well as the use of plural to name a class that operates on a type hierarchy such as Collections (note the plural) that operates over several Collection instances.

Of course Hungarian Notation should be avoided (do not prefix interfaces with “I”) as nobody should ever care that a type is an interface or not to use it the same fashion, only the factory has to know about this implementation detail.

Some words do not mean anything precise, like “data”, “object”, “wrapper”… As a result they do not bring any benefit, they are just in the way. Just try to get rid of them or replace them with words from the domain (with Rename refactoring this is now very easy) and you will be surprised of the level of expressiveness you gain.

Often you think of a name, but for many reasons you cannot use it: maybe you already used it to mean something else, or it suggests something wrong to some people, or it does not suggest anything, or you really do not like it… Then I very often use an online dictionary and a thesaurus to find synonymouses and related words.

A random search in a web search engine is also a good way to go in-depth in the semantic context of a name, in order to find similar and related words that may be used for your naming. This is particularly relevant in specific domains, like finance, where dictionaries are not up-to-date or relevant. By seeing words already used in their context, you can use them more accurately. For example, in finance, we can talk a a group of products as a Package, a Bundle, or a Strategy. The latter is not good because it could mislead to the Strategy pattern. A google search only could help to choose Package, or Bundle, according to the very case you are dealing with.

Package names also help in this topic. Do not forget a class does not have to tell everything in its name, as its package name is part of the actual name and has the purpose to give a context to the short class name. As a consequence, it is not a problem to have the same short class name several times in a project, as long as they are not used together too often. Typically if you have an abstract factory of two families of things, each thing in each family can have the same name, in a dedicated package.

[1] See Ubiquitous Language, by Eric Evans –

UPDATE: An interesting reader’s comment have been destroyed when cleaning spams: this comment suggested to use Eclipse ctrl-shift-t/ctrl-shift-r to see lists of existing class names. Apologises for that.

UPDATE: A class name can reflect what the class really is, or what it is used for. In many cases naming a class according to what it is makes its more reusable, in which case the instance name (field of variable name) tells its purpose for the particular use.

Initially published on Jroller on Thursday April 27, 2006

Read More

UML is a too low level language

I recently taught design pattern to 20 of my co-workers in a kind of training session, here are some thoughts I had while preparing this presentation…

In OO you usually end up with many classes, especially when you correctly use design patterns; each class is also generally very simple and rather short. Thus classes are now in OO the equivalent of the “if-then-else-for” instructions in structured programming: low-level language elements.

Unfortunatly, UML is essentially about class-level static description (class diagram), dynamic objects interactions (sequence, object diagram). Even more OO-independent part of UML such as state diagram is still at the class level, as typical implementation using the State pattern (GoF) implies using a class for each state.

What is the higher level above the class-level ? In my opinion, it is the (design) pattern level, for at least three reasons:
– granularity: a design pattern usually deals with more than one class, so it is a natural way to talk about several classes as only one entity;
– patterns language: patterns may be solutions to solve recurrent problems, sure, but they first of all define a common language to talk about the entire solutions in a standard, shared way;
– patterns intent: patterns are always motivated by an explicit intent; this intent is the real high-level need of the developer, whereas the solution that uses classes, methods overriding, methods delegation, methods callbacks… is nothing but the best known way to meet the intent using OO language.

UML support for patterns is quite minimal (dash lined and named bubbles with links to every participant in the pattern), and adds nearly no value compared to simple UML comments. If you know the patterns, and you do if you’re reading this to this line, I’d better tell you “this package contains adapters from the third party financial instruments tree to our custom financial instruments tree” than show you a diagram with 35 classes in a package and 35 classes in another package, 35 interfaces and 35 bubbles showing the pattern Adapter is applied 35 times respectively for each class, class and interface…

In the business design (some say analysis), the same is true. It’s shorter and more accurate to say the model follows the Contract pattern (Fowler), than to show the UML diagram. But on the other side, there is no formal language, visual or textual, other than plain English to describe patterns at their full level. At this level, packages would would be first-class entities, not just boxes that contains classes. Code generation could also go one step further, since if the machine knows about our intent, it could also provide the solution to our intent, maybe by implementing the correct pattern automatically, using the best implementation tradeoff automatically, but now I’m dreaming…

Initially published on Jroller on Tuesday March 15, 2005

Read More