What's the best way of partitioning a class when its functionality needs to be externally accessed in different ways by different classes? Hopefully the following example will make the question clear :)

I have a Java class which accesses a single location in a directory allowing external classes to perform read/write operations to it. Read operations return usage stats on the directory (e.g. available disk space, number of writes, etc.); write operations, obviously, allow external classes to write data to the disk. These methods always work on the same location, and receive their configuration (e.g. which directory to use, min disk space, etc.) from an external source (passed to the constructor).

This class looks something like this:

public class DiskHandler {
    public DiskHandler(String dir, int minSpace) {
        ...
    }
    public void writeToDisk(String contents, String filename) {
        int space = getAvailableSpace();
        ...
    }
    public void getAvailableSpace() {
        ...
    }
}

There's quite a bit more going on, but this will do to suffice.

This class needs to be accessed differently by two external classes. One class needs access to the read operations; the other needs access to both read and write operations.

public class DiskWriter {
    DiskHandler diskHandler;

    public DiskWriter() {
        diskHandler = new DiskHandler(...);
    }
    public void doSomething() {
        diskHandler.writeToDisk(...);
    }
}

public class DiskReader {
    DiskHandler diskHandler;

    public DiskReader() {
        diskHandler = new DiskHandler(...);
    }
    public void doSomething() {
       int space = diskHandler.getAvailableSpace(...);
    }    
}

At this point, both classes share the same class, but the class which should only read has access to the write methods.

Solution 1

I could break this class into two. One class would handle read operations, and the other would handle writes:

// NEW "UTILITY" CLASSES
public class WriterUtil {
    private ReaderUtil diskReader;

    public WriterUtil(String dir, int minSpace) {
        ...
        diskReader = new ReaderUtil(dir, minSpace);
    }
    public void writeToDisk(String contents, String filename) {
        int = diskReader.getAvailableSpace();
        ...
    }
}
public class ReaderUtil {
    public ReaderUtil(String dir, int minSpace) {
        ...
    }
    public void getAvailableSpace() {
        ...
    }
}

// MODIFIED EXTERNALLY-ACCESSING CLASSES
public class DiskWriter {
    WriterUtil diskWriter;

    public DiskWriter() {
        diskWriter = new WriterUtil(...);
    }
    public void doSomething() {
        diskWriter.writeToDisk(...);
    }
}

public class DiskReader {
    ReaderUtil diskReader;

    public DiskReader() {
        diskReader = new ReaderUtil(...);
    }
    public void doSomething() {
       int space = diskReader.getAvailableSpace(...);
    }    
}

This solution prevents classes from having access to methods they should not, but it also breaks encapsulation. The original DiskHandler class was completely self-contained and only needed config parameters via a single constructor. By breaking apart the functionality into read/write classes, they both are concerned with the directory and both need to be instantiated with their respective values. In essence, I don't really care to duplicate the concerns.

Solution 2

I could implement an interface which only provisions read operations, and use this when a class only needs access to those methods.

The interface might look something like this:

public interface Readable {
    int getAvailableSpace();
}

The Reader class would instantiate the object like this:

Readable diskReader;
public DiskReader() {
    diskReader = new DiskHandler(...);
}

This solution seems brittle, and prone to confusion in the future. It doesn't guarantee developers will use the correct interface in the future. Any changes to the implementation of the DiskHandler could also need to update the interface as well as the accessing classes. I like it better than the previous solution, but not by much.

Frankly, neither of these solutions seems perfect, but I'm not sure if one should be preferred over the other. I really don't want to break the original class up, but I also don't know if the interface buys me much in the long run.

Are there other solutions I'm missing?