Specification pattern: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 04:07, 20 August 2017

Revision as of 15:39, 22 April 2019

Line 258:

== Criticisms ==

The Specification Pattern could be considered a software [[Antianti-pattern|Anti-Pattern]]:

* [[Cargo cult programming|Cargo Cult Programming]] - There lacks a well-defined purpose for this pattern, and there's no guide when to implement it or not. Also, see [[Law of the instrument]].

* [[Inner-platform effect]] - And() function which directly replicate [[Short-circuiting operator|&&]] in [[C Sharp (programming language)|C#]]. Also, Not() and potentially more. Also, see [[Reinventing the wheel|Reinventing the square wheel]].

* [[Spaghetti code#Lasagna code|Spaghetti/Lasagna Code]] - Separate classes for each part of the specification fragments what could be a cohesive object. In the example above, OverDue is an extra layer between the Logiclogic for <code>SendToCollection</code> and the <code>OverDueSpecification</code> implementation.

Most natural programming languages can accommodate ___domain-driven design with the core Object Orientedobject-oriented concepts.

Alternative example, without the Specification Pattern:

Line 278:

private bool ShouldSendToCollection() => currentInvoice.OverDue && currentInvoice.NoticeSent && !currentInvoice.InCollection;

</source>This alternative uses foundation concepts of Getget-Onlyonly Propertiesproperties, Condition-Logiccondition logic, and Functionsfunctions. The key alternative here is Get-Only Properties, which are well-named to maintain the Domain___domain-Drivendriven language, and enable the continued use of the natural <code>&&</code> operator, instead of the Specification Pattern's <code>And()</code> function. Furthermore, the creation of a well-named function <code>SendToCollectionIfNecessary</code> is potentially more useful and descriptive, than the previous example (which could also be contained in such a function, except not directly on the object apparently).

==References==