Forum: Ruby Prettier solution to circular dependency

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
F819599bbed80f48013d5acad012a9c3?d=identicon&s=25 Helder Ribeiro (helder)
on 2007-06-11 07:43
(Received via mailing list)
This is an aesthetic problem: I have a method in a module, and I want
to include it in three different classes (they're all in the same
file). This method refers itself to one of those classes. So i have to
include the module into the classes, but for the method to be parsed,
one of those classes needs to be already defined.

module ElementFactory
  def element_factory(what)
    (...)
    Element.new
  end
end

class Element
  include ElementFactory
  (...)
end

class Document
  include ElementFactory
  (...)
end

class ElementCollections
  include ElementFactory
  (...)
end


So for this class Element there's a circular dependency and, as ruby
does single-pass parsing, this can't work. What I've done so far is to
replace the explicit reference to Element in the module instance
method by a call to Object.const_get(:Element) so that when it's
called, Element will already be defined. But this looks a bit ugly.
isn't there a better way to solve this?

The circular dependency hints at not having the module at all and just
putting the instance method element_factory() into Element itself but
there are those other two classes that include it, so I can't do that.

Thanks a lot for any ideas! :-)


Cheers,

Helder


--
http://obvio171.wordpress.com

"Then there were the lonely few of us
who moved back and forth on the strip,
eating rows of beads here and there,
pretending we were Turing machines."
-- xkcd : http://xkcd.com/c205.html
47b1910084592eb77a032bc7d8d1a84e?d=identicon&s=25 Joel VanderWerf (Guest)
on 2007-06-11 07:52
(Received via mailing list)
Helder Ribeiro wrote:
> This is an aesthetic problem: I have a method in a module, and I want
> to include it in three different classes (they're all in the same
> file). This method refers itself to one of those classes. So i have to
> include the module into the classes, but for the method to be parsed,
> one of those classes needs to be already defined.
>

You can define the Element class at the top, and then reopen it later to
include the module and define your methods. Just make sure that if
Element is a subclass of something, the _first_ "class Element" must
have the " < SuperClass". But in this case all you have to do is add
these lines:

class Element
end
Ab870531383eea6e4d9110317f5401e7?d=identicon&s=25 Caleb Clausen (Guest)
on 2007-06-11 08:38
(Received via mailing list)
Your little snippet worked just fine for me.... ruby lets you use a
class before it has been defined. The constant lookup is done at
runtime.
E0526a6bf302e77598ef142d91bdd31c?d=identicon&s=25 Daniel DeLorme (Guest)
on 2007-06-11 08:40
(Received via mailing list)
Helder Ribeiro wrote:
> This is an aesthetic problem: I have a method in a module, and I want
> to include it in three different classes (they're all in the same
> file). This method refers itself to one of those classes. So i have to
> include the module into the classes, but for the method to be parsed,
> one of those classes needs to be already defined.

You're still thinking in terms of static typing. In this case you
*don't* have a circular dependency. You can load ElementFactory first
and it doesn't matter if Element is not yet defined, as long as you
don't invoke the method 'element_factory'

Daniel
E0d864d9677f3c1482a20152b7cac0e2?d=identicon&s=25 Robert Klemme (Guest)
on 2007-06-11 10:22
(Received via mailing list)
On 11.06.2007 08:39, Daniel DeLorme wrote:
> don't invoke the method 'element_factory'
Having said that I'd still consider the cyclic dependency (on the
logical level) bad design.  We do not know more about those classes but
my impression is that this can probably improved upon.

Kind regards

  robert
Fc12729d592e6d8cd98eaa8e0eec4240?d=identicon&s=25 Bas van Gils (Guest)
on 2007-06-11 10:28
(Received via mailing list)
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 05:20:25PM +0900, Robert Klemme wrote:
> Having said that I'd still consider the cyclic dependency (on the
> logical level) bad design.  We do not know more about those classes but
> my impression is that this can probably improved upon.

I'm new to the mailinglist .. so I'm not sure if this has been mentioned
or
not. There's a cool site which discusses the implementation of (the gang
of
four) patterns in Ruby. In this case you may want to check out

  http://www.rubypatterns.org/doku.php/gang_of_four_...

Hope this helps

  Bas

--
Bas van Gils <bas@van-gils.org>, http://www.van-gils.org
[[[ Thank you for not distributing my E-mail address ]]]

Quod est inferius est sicut quod est superius, et quod est superius est
sicut
quod est inferius, ad perpetranda miracula rei unius.
B8cfd5ec0f88bf5b5f2eedda7d1a0746?d=identicon&s=25 unknown (Guest)
on 2007-06-11 13:37
(Received via mailing list)
In message
<9bb72e130706102242y13e635d0ned1020d53376157a@mail.gmail.com>, "Helder
Ribeiro" writ
es:
>The circular dependency hints at not having the module at all and just
>putting the instance method element_factory() into Element itself but
>there are those other two classes that include it, so I can't do that.
>
>Thanks a lot for any ideas! :-)

Forward declaration?

class Element
end

class ElementFactory
...
end

class Element
# actual content goes here!
end

-s
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.