Code organisation help request

Hello,

I’ve written some ruby code that creates Fortran95 code to define and
manipulate derived
types (aka structures) as well as perform “regular” (what I ambiguously
refer to as
“Binary”) and netCDF I/O. Via a driver script, I provide a text file
with the simple
structure definition to my ruby code and out pops three modules
(fortran95 modules, not
ruby ones) that I can compile.

The way I do this currently is like so:

f=FDefMod.new
f.read(def_file) # Parse the file containing an f95 structure
definition
f.createDefModule # Create the structure definition f95 module
f.createBinIOModule # Create the binary I/O f95 module
f.createNCIOModule # Create the netCDF I/O f95 module

This creates three compilable f95 modules. (It’s all very cool, really
:o)

The problem I’m facing is that my ruby class definition file,
fdefmod.rb, has grown
unmanageably large and I want to split the code up into more manageable
pieces but I can’t
figure out how best to do it.

I would like all the methods used to create the f95 definition code
(i.e. the public
createDefModule and about 20 private methods) to reside in one file, the
methods to create
the f95 binary I/O in another, and similarly for the methods to create
the f95 netCDF I/O
code. E.g.

fdefmod.rb : contains the FDefMod class definition and
associated methods
fdefmod_def.rb : contains the instance methods that create the f95
structure
definition module
fdefmod_binio.rb: contains the instance methods that create the f95
binary I/O module
fdefmod_ncio.rb : contains the instance methods that create the f95
netCDF I/O module

The last three files would be included (in the C sense) in the FDefMod
class definition
file. All of the methods in the three “functional categories” (def,
binio, and ncio) are,
of course, instance methods. Currently, the monolithic fdefmod.rb file
contains everything
and it’s a nightmare to organise the code itself and associated unit
tests – to say
nothing of adding new features.

So: how to split up the code? Module mixins? Subclasses?

The way I see it, the above type of organisational structure, while
logical, is opposite
to how one would typically use modules to mixin methods since the
methods in question
aren’t generic, they’re very specific.

And inheritance doesn’t seem right either since each code component I’m
trying to separate
aren’t really classes in their own right; they’re just a bunch of
methods operating on a
class to create a particular format of output.

In addition, there are a number of class methods that are used by all
three “functional
categories” of code. These class methods are just little utilities for
formatting the
output f95 code are all private to the FDefMod class.

I’ve been thinking myself in circles for a while now, so my explanation
may be malformed.
If so, I apologise.

Any ideas, suggestions, hints, etc much appreciated.

cheers,

paulv

On 08.01.2007 16:50, Paul van Delst wrote:

fdefmod.rb, has grown unmanageably large and I want to split the code up
structure
nightmare to organise the code itself and associated unit tests – to
trying to separate aren’t really classes in their own right; they’re

Any ideas, suggestions, hints, etc much appreciated.

I would keep FDefMod as driver (i.e. the user instantiates it and
invokes a method that does all the work. I’d then go on to create a
class containing configuration information only (this is filled from the
file; an instance of OpenStruct or Hash might be sufficient depending on
your config info). Then I’d go on creating three classes for the three
output types if there is enough different code to justify this. You
could then connect those classes in any way that seems reasonable (i.e.
have a common base class that contains shared code and state, create a
module and include it in all three or other).

Your FDefMod.create_struct(file) will then instantiate those three
classes while it goes along and those instances of your output
generation classes will then create output files.

If you would want to classify this with a pattern name it’s a bit like
nested command object pattern, i.e. you have a major command and sub
commands (i.e. one per output type).

Of course, this is said with the little we know about your code. There
might be potential for further refactorings in the code you have (i.e.
split up methods into several methods, identify common code / patterns
and extract them into additional methods that are invoked in multiple
places etc.). Btw, how many LOC are we talking about?

Kind regards

robert

Robert K. wrote:

The way I do this currently is like so:

fdefmod.rb : contains the FDefMod class definition and
class definition file. All of the methods in the three "functional
specific.

output types if there is enough different code to justify this. You
could then connect those classes in any way that seems reasonable (i.e.
have a common base class that contains shared code and state, create a
module and include it in all three or other).

O.k., I think I grok your meaning, but some implementation details still
escape me (I’m
exposing my ignorance of both OO and ruby below, so please bear with
me… and no
laughing. Groans of disbelief, however, are acceptable :o). This is what
I came up with:

In file basemodule.rb:

module BaseModule
class BaseClass
attr_accessor :name
def initialize
@name=""
end
def self.basem
puts(“This is class method basem”)
end
end
end

In file derivedclass.rb

require ‘basemodule’
class DerivedClass
include BaseModule
def self.output(obj)
puts(“The obj class : #{obj.class}”)
puts(“The config info is: #{obj.config.inspect}”)
end
end

and in mainclass.rb

require ‘basemodule’
require ‘derivedclass’
class MainClass
include BaseModule
attr_accessor :config
def initialize
@config=BaseClass.new
end
def output
DerivedClass.output(self)
end
end

??

Now the above is very messy, so I obviously still need some guidance.
One thing I find
particularly odious is that to get the above to work, I needed to make
the DerivedClass
methods class methods rather than instance methods. For a suitable
definition of “work”,
it does work, though:

lnx:scratch/ruby : irb --simple-prompt

require ‘mainclass’
=> true

f=MainClass.new
=> #<MainClass:0x401081ec @config=#<BaseModule::BaseClass:0x401081c4
@name="">>

f.config.name=“blah”
=> “blah”

f.output
The obj class : MainClass
The config info is: #<BaseModule::BaseClass:0x401081c4 @name=“blah”>
=> nil

MainClass::BaseClass::basem
This is class method basem
=> nil

Further enlightenment would be appreciated.

Your FDefMod.create_struct(file) will then instantiate those three
classes while it goes along and those instances of your output
generation classes will then create output files.

If you would want to classify this with a pattern name it’s a bit like
nested command object pattern, i.e. you have a major command and sub
commands (i.e. one per output type).

That is what I was thinking to do. Sometimes, I just need the definition
module, but not
the I/O ones.

Of course, this is said with the little we know about your code. There
might be potential for further refactorings in the code you have (i.e.
split up methods into several methods, identify common code / patterns
and extract them into additional methods that are invoked in multiple
places etc.).

That is exactly my plan. For each of the so-called “derived classes”,
the same procedure
can be applied again. For example, if my f95 structure is named
“MyStruct”, then the f95
definition module that is created, MyStruct_Define.f90, would contain
the public procedures,
Associated_MyStruct: Check if all the pointer components are
associated
Create_MyStruct : Allocate the pointer components of the structure
Destroy_MyStruct : Deallocate the pointer components
Assign_MyStruct : Deep copy the structure (a simple assignment
just copies
the pointer references, not the actual data)
Equal_MyStruct : Determine if two structures are equal
Info_MyStruct : Print out info on the structure dimensions

The ruby methods to create each individual f95 procedure could be put
into its own class
with one public instance method and a bunch of private methods (for
formatting particular
things in the output procedure.) I could have a separate file (class?)
that handles the
creation of each of the above procedures in the f95 module. Same for the
i/o stuff. It
might make unit testing each part easier too.

There are some methods that are used in several places to create parts
of just the f95
definition module, just as there are common methods used to create parts
of just the f95
I/O module; and then there are common methods used in formatting output
for all three f95
modules.

As I added functionality, I’ve been refactoring a lot - that’s another
reason I want to
split the code into smaller bits: it should allow for much easier
identification of the
common parts (at least, I think so.)

Btw, how many LOC are we talking about?

Hardly any. About 3K loc. In the future I think that can be reduced
quite a bit since
there is still a fair amount of boilerplate Fortran95 code in there that
is just getting
dumped via herefiles.

cheers,

paulv

On 09.01.2007 22:19, Robert K. wrote:

I’ve attached a file to describe what I mean. You can distribute that
code to multiple files (you’ll have to open and close the module once
per file).

If you need to do some preprocessing common to all outputs, you might
want to add a PreProcessor class that converts a Config into something
else that stores the preprocessed state (and maybe also references the
original config). You can then pass that on to individual generators.

Sorry, I made things more complex than necessary. The driver class in
the first example was pretty useless. I’ve changed that to also be more
consistent with the command pattern. I’ve also played a bit further to
give you a better idea what I was thinking. Hope it helps.

Kind regards

robert

On 08.01.2007 20:28, Paul van Delst wrote:

Robert K. wrote:

On 08.01.2007 16:50, Paul van Delst wrote:

O.k., I think I grok your meaning, but some implementation details still
@name=""
end
def self.basem
puts(“This is class method basem”)
end
end
end

Why do you have a module in this file and not in the other files?

end
def output
DerivedClass.output(self)
end
end

??

Now the above is very messy, so I obviously still need some guidance.

Yes, you should start with proper class names. That makes things much
easier.

One thing I find particularly odious is that to get the above to work, I
needed to make the DerivedClass methods class methods rather than
instance methods.

You probably got inheritance and module inclusion mixed up.

Further enlightenment would be appreciated.

class Base
def foo() end
end

class Derived < Base

works:

def bar() foo() end
end

module Foo
def forx() end
end

class Includer
include Foo

works:

def barx() forx() end
end

Your FDefMod.create_struct(file) will then instantiate those three
classes while it goes along and those instances of your output
generation classes will then create output files.

If you would want to classify this with a pattern name it’s a bit like
nested command object pattern, i.e. you have a major command and sub
commands (i.e. one per output type).

That is what I was thinking to do. Sometimes, I just need the definition
module, but not the I/O ones.

I’ve attached a file to describe what I mean. You can distribute that
code to multiple files (you’ll have to open and close the module once
per file).

If you need to do some preprocessing common to all outputs, you might
want to add a PreProcessor class that converts a Config into something
else that stores the preprocessed state (and maybe also references the
original config). You can then pass that on to individual generators.

Associated_MyStruct: Check if all the pointer components are associated
Create_MyStruct : Allocate the pointer components of the structure
Destroy_MyStruct : Deallocate the pointer components
Assign_MyStruct : Deep copy the structure (a simple assignment just
copies
the pointer references, not the actual data)
Equal_MyStruct : Determine if two structures are equal
Info_MyStruct : Print out info on the structure dimensions

Are you talking about Fortran or Ruby code here ^^^^? I was talking
about Ruby code only.

methods used in formatting output for all three f95 modules.
Are you doing this in two steps, i.e. create Fortran modules and then
format and output them? Assuming yes, this does not seem to make much
sense to me - you can create the Fortran code formatted right from the
start, can’t you?

As I added functionality, I’ve been refactoring a lot - that’s another
reason I want to split the code into smaller bits: it should allow for
much easier identification of the common parts (at least, I think so.)

Yep.

Btw, how many LOC are we talking about?

Hardly any. About 3K loc. In the future I think that can be reduced
quite a bit since there is still a fair amount of boilerplate Fortran95
code in there that is just getting dumped via herefiles.

Sounds good, i.e. still early enough that it’s feasible and you can try
out variants.

Kind regards

robert

Hi Paul

Paul van Delst wrote:

Hardly any. About 3K loc.

3,000 is hardly any?! Have I created a monster? :slight_smile:

Regards,

Robert K. wrote:

On 08.01.2007 20:28, Paul van Delst wrote:

Robert K. wrote:

On 08.01.2007 16:50, Paul van Delst wrote:

[stuff snipped]

One thing I find particularly odious is that to get the above to work,
I needed to make the DerivedClass methods class methods rather than
instance methods.

You probably got inheritance and module inclusion mixed up.

Actually, I don’t think I understand either too well. :o(

I’ve attached a file to describe what I mean. You can distribute that
code to multiple files (you’ll have to open and close the module once
per file).

Wow. Thank you very much. I have been bumbling about trying different
things the last
couple of days but your sample code makes everything quite clear. And,
it does things the
way I was thinking about for future enhancements (mostly documentation
related) - two
proverbials with one stone. Excellent.

Equal_MyStruct : Determine if two structures are equal
Info_MyStruct : Print out info on the structure dimensions

Are you talking about Fortran or Ruby code here ^^^^? I was talking
about Ruby code only.

Me too; although the way I constructed my post it may seem like I’ve
conflated the two.
The ruby code creates the Fortran code. The stuff immediately above
refers to the
Fortran95 code that the ruby code generates. Fortran95 (an 11-year old
standard) contains
pointers, allocatables, and modules. Fortran2003 contains classes,
inheritance, and C
interop (although there are no complete f2003 compilers available yet).

used to create parts of just the f95 I/O module; and then there are
common methods used in formatting output for all three f95 modules.

Are you doing this in two steps, i.e. create Fortran modules and then
format and output them? Assuming yes, this does not seem to make much
sense to me - you can create the Fortran code formatted right from the
start, can’t you?

The latter is what I am doing. I use string interpolation (I think
that’s the right term)
within herefiles for the dynamic bits…

Fortran95 code in there that is just getting dumped via herefiles.

Sounds good, i.e. still early enough that it’s feasible and you can try
out variants.

Once again, thanks very much for the sample file. I’m going to be busy
this weekend… :o)

cheers,

paulv

This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.

| Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs