Tester/Doer pattern: Assume the caller conforms to the pattern or be defensive and repeat the check?
Posted
by
Daniel Hilgarth
on Programmers
See other posts from Programmers
or by Daniel Hilgarth
Published on 2013-06-26T16:10:44Z
Indexed on
2013/06/26
16:28 UTC
Read the original article
Hit count: 236
design-patterns
|architecture
Assume a simple class that implements the Tester/Doer pattern:
public class FooCommandHandler : ICommandHandler
{
public bool CanHandle(object command)
{
return command is FooCommand;
}
public void Handle(object command)
{
var fooCommand = (FooCommand)command;
// Do something with fooCommand
}
}
Now, if someone doesn't conform to the pattern and calls Handle
without verifying the command via CanHandle
, the code in Handle
throws an exception.
However, depending on the actual implementation of Handle
this can be a whole range of different exceptions.
The following implementation would check CanHandle
again in Handle
and throw a descriptive exception:
public void Handle(object command)
{
if(!CanHandle(command))
throw new TesterDoerPatternUsageViolationException("Please call CanHandle first");
// actual implementation of handling the command.
}
This has the advantage that the exception is very descriptive.
It has the disadvantage that CanHandle
is called twice for "good" clients.
Is there a consensus on which variation should be used?
© Programmers or respective owner