The related Posts on Stackover flow for this topic : Post_1 and Post_2
Above posts are good but still I could not get answer to my confusion, hence I am putting it as a new post here.
MY Questions based on the GOF's <em>Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software</em> book content about Pluggable Adapters (mentioned after questions below), hence I would appreciate if the discussions/answers/comments are more focused on the existing examples from GOF regarding the pluggable Adapters rather than other examples Q1) What do we mean by built-in interface adaptation ?
Q2) How is Pluggable Interface special as compared to usual Adapters ? Usual Adapters also adapt one interface to another.
Q3) Even in the both the use cases, we see both the methods of the Extracted "Narrow Interface"
Node is an internal to Toolkit. Is Node same as GraphicNode and is the parameter passed in
CreateGraphicNode only for populating the states like (name, parentID, etc) of an already created Node object ?
As per the GOF (I have marked few words/sentences as bold to emphasis the content related to my Questions)<blockquote>
ObjectWorks\Smalltalk [Par90] uses the term pluggable adapter to describe classes with built-in interface adaptation.
Consider a TreeDisplay widget that can display tree structures graphically. If this were a special-purpose widget for use in just one application, then we might require the objects that it displays to have a specific interface; that is, all must descend from a Tree abstract class. But if we wanted to make TreeDisplay more reusable (say we wanted to make it part of a toolkit of useful widgets), then that requirement would be unreasonable. Applications will define their own classes for tree structures. They shouldn't be forced to use our Tree abstract class. Different tree structures will have different interfaces.
<em>Pluggable adapters</em>. Let's look at three ways to implement pluggable adapters for the TreeDisplay widget described earlier, which can lay out and display a hierarchical structure automatically. The first step, which is common to all three of the implementations discussed here, is to find a "narrow" interface for Adaptee, that is, the smallest subset of operations that lets us do the adaptation. A narrow interface consisting of only a couple of operations is easier to adapt than an interface with dozens of operations. For TreeDisplay, the adaptee is any hierarchical structure. A minimalist interface might include two operations, one that defines how to present a node in the hierarchical structure graphically, and another that retrieves the node's children.</blockquote>
Then there are two use cases<ol><li>
"Narrow Interface" being made as abstract and part of the TreeDisplay Class</li> <li>
Narrow Interface extracted out as a separate interface and having a composition of it in the TreeDisplay class</li> </ol>
(There is a 3rd approach of Parameterized adapter also but skipping it for simplicity, Also this 3rd one is I guess more specific to Small talk)
When we talk about the Adapter design pattern, we typically consider two preexisting APIs that we would like to integrate, but which don't match up because they were implemented at different times with different domains. An Adapter may need to do a lot of mapping from one API to the other, because neither API was designed with this sort of extensibility in mind.
But what if the
Target API had been designed with future adaptations in mind? A
Target API can simplify the job of future Adapters by minimizing assumptions and providing the narrowest possible interface for Adapters to implement. Note this design requires <em>a priori</em> planning. Unlike typical use cases for the Adapter pattern, you cannot insert a Pluggable Adapter between any two APIs. The
Target API must have been designed to support pluggable adaptations.
Q1) This is what the GoF means by built-in interface adaptation: an interface is built into the
Target API in order to support future adaptations.
Q2) As mentioned, this is a relatively unusual scenario for an Adapter, since the typical strength of the pattern is its ability to handle APIs that have no common design.
The GoF lists three different approaches to design a
Target API for adaptation. The first two are recognizable as a couple of their Behavioral design patterns.
Q3) Without getting caught up in details of the GoF's GUI examples, the basic idea behind designing what they call a "narrow interface" is to remove as much domain specificity as possible. In Java, the starting point for a domain-agnostic API would almost certainly be the functional interfaces.
Target API with dependencies on these interfaces should be much simpler to adapt than an API built around domain-specific methods. The former allows for creation of Pluggable Adapters, while the latter would require a more typical Adapter with heavy mapping between APIs.
Let me share a couple of thoughts.
First, since the question has been posted with the Smalltalk tag, I'll use the Smalltalk syntax which is less verbose (e.g.
#children instead of
As an introduction to this issue (which may be useful for some readers), let's say that (generic) frameworks need to use a generic language (e.g.
#children). However, generic terms may not be natural for the specific object you are considering. For example, in the case of a File System, one usually has
#directories, etc., but may not have the selector
#children. Even if adding these selectors won't kill anyone, you don't want to populate your classes with new "generic" selectors every time an "abstract" class imposes its naming conventions. In the real life, if you do that, sooner or later you will end-up having collisions with other frameworks for which the very same selector has a different meaning. This implies that every framework has the potential of producing some impedance (a.k.a. friction) with the objects that try to benefit from it. Well, <em>adapters</em> are meant to mitigate these side effects.
There are several ways to do this. One is making your framework <em>pluggable</em>. This means that you will not require the clients to implement specific behavior. Instead you will ask the clients to provide a selector or a block whose evaluation will produce the required behavior.
In the Directory example, if your class
Directory happens to implement, say
#entities, then instead of creating
#children as a synonym, you will tell the appropriate class in the framework something like
childrenSelector: #entities. The object receiving this method will then "plug" (remember) that it has to send you
#entities when looking for
children. If you don't have such a method, you still can provide the required behavior using a block that does what's needed. In our example the block would look like
childrenSelector: [self directories, self files].
(<em>Side note:</em> the pluggable framwork could provide a synonym
#childrenBlock: so to make its interface more friendly. Alternatively, it could provide a more general selector such as
The receiver will now keep the block in its
childrenGetter ivar and will evaluate it every time it needs the client's children.
Another solution one might want to consider consists in requiring the client to subclass an abstract class. This has the advantage of exposing very clearly the client's behavior. Note however than this solution has some drawbacks because, in Smalltalk, you can only inherit from one parent. So, imposing the superclass may result in an undesirable (or even unfeasible) constraint.
The other option you mention consists in adding one indirection to the previous one: instead of subclassing the main "object" you offer an abstract superclass for subclassing the behavoir your object needs to adapt. This is similar to the first approach in that you don't need to change the client, except that this time you put the adapted protocol in a class by itself. This way, instead of plugging several parameters into the framework, you put them all in an object and pass (or "plug") that object to the framework. Note that these adapting objects act as wrappers in that they know the real thing, and know how to deal with it for translating the few messages the framework needs to send. In general, the use of wrappers provides a lot of flexibility at the cost of populating your system with more classes (which entails the risk of duplicated hierarchies). Moreover, wrapping many objects might impact the performance of your system. Note by the way that
GraphicNode also looks like a wrapper of the intrinsic/actual
I'm not sure I've answered your question, but since you asked me to somehow expand my comment, I've happily tried so.
Q1) Interface adaptation just means adapting one interface to implement another, i.e., what adapters are for. I'm not sure what they mean by "built-in", but it sounds like a specific feature of Smalltalk, with which I'm not familiar.
Q2) A "Pluggable Adapter" is an adapter class that implements the target interface by accepting implementations for its individual methods as constructor arguments. The purpose is to allow adapters to be expressed <em>succinctly</em>. In all cases, this requires the target interface to be small, and it usually requires some kind of language facility for succinctly providing a computation - a lambda or delegate or similar. In Java, the facility for inline classes and functional interfaces means that a specific adapter class that accepts lambda arguments is unnecessary.
Pluggable adapters are a <em>convenience</em>. They are not important beyond that. However...
Q3) The quoted text isn't about pluggable adapters, and neither of the two use cases has a pluggable adapter in it. That part is about the Interface Segregation Principle, and it <em>is</em> important.
In the first example,
TreeDisplay is subclassed. The actual adapter interface is the subset of methods in
TreeDisplay that require implementation. This is less than ideal, because there is no concise definition of the interface that the adapter must implement, and the
DirectoryTreeDisplay cannot simultaneously implement another similar target interface. Also such implementations tend interact with the subclass in complex ways.
In the second example,
TreeDisplay comes with a
TreeAccessorDelegate interface that captures the requirements for things it can display. This is a small interface that that can be easily implemented in a variety of ways, including by a pluggable adapter. (although the example
DirectoryBrowser is not pluggable). Also, interface adaptation does not have to be the sole purpose of the adapter class. You see that
DirectoryBrowser class implements methods that have nothing to do with tree display.
Node type in these examples would be an empty/small interface, i.e., another adapter target, or even a generic type argument so that no adaptation is required. I think this design could be improved, actually, by making
Node the <em>only</em> adaptation target.