EECE 310: Software Engineering

EECE 310: Software Engineering

Type Hierarchies and the Substitution Principle

Objectives

• Apply the Liskov Substitution Principle (LSP) to the design of type hierarchies

• Decide when to favor composition over inheritance and vice versa

NonEmptySet Type

• Consider a subtype of IntSet called non-empty set, with the stipulation that it must *never* be empty. i.e., it has at least 1 element always– Constructor takes the element as an argument

and adds it to the els vector (the rep)– insert, size, isIn work as before (no change)– remove must make sure it never leaves the set

empty, otherwise it throws an EmptySetException

3

NonEmptySet: Remove

public class NonEmptySet extends IntSet { …

public void remove(int x) throws EmptySetException {

// EFFECTS: If set has at least two elements, // then remove x from the set

// Otherwise, throw the EmptySetException….

}}

4

RemoveAny procedure

public static boolean removeAny(IntSet s) {// EFFECTS: Remove an arbitrary element from

// the IntSet if the set is not empty, return true // Otherwise do nothing and return false if (s.size() == 0) return false; int x = s.choose(); s.remove(x); return true; }

5

Usage of removeAny

IntSet s = new IntSet();…// Add elements to swhile ( removeAny(s) ) { …}// s is empty at this point

6

What about this one ?

IntSet s = new NonEmptySet(3);…// Add elements to swhile ( removeAny(s) ) { …}// control never reaches here !

Can potentiallythrow an EmptySet exception !

7

Liskov Substitution principle• Intuition

– Users can use and reason about subtypes just using the supertype specification.

• Definition– Subtype specification must support

reasoning based on the super-type specification according to following rules:

1. signature rule2. methods rule3. properties rule

8

Signature Rule

• Every call that is type-correct with the super-type objects must also be type-correct with the sub-type objects – Sub-type objects must have all the methods of the

super-type – Signatures of the subtype’s implementations must

be compatible with the signatures of the corresponding super-type methods

9

Signature Rule in Java1. Subtype’s method can have fewer exceptions

but NOT throw more exceptions

2. Arguments and return type should be identical: (stricter than necessary)

Foo clone();

Foo x = y.clone();

Object clone();

Foo x = (Foo) y.clone();

3. Enforced by the compiler at compile-time

10

NonEmptySet: Remove

public class NonEmptySet extends IntSet { …

public void remove(int x) throws EmptySetException {

// EFFECTS: If set has at least two elements, // then remove x

// Otherwise, throw the EmptySetException….

}}

Violates signature rule – will not compile

11

Will this solve the problem ?

public class NonEmptySet extends IntSet { …

public void remove(int x) {// EFFECTS: If set has at least two elements,

// then remove x

// Otherwise, do nothing….

}}

12

What will happen in this case ?

IntSet s = new NonEmptySet(3);…// Add elements to swhile ( removeAny(s) ) { …}// control never reaches here !

Will loop forever because the set never becomes empty (why ?)

13

What’s the problem here ?

• The remove method of NonEmptyIntSet has a different behavior than the remove method of the IntSet ADT (it’s parent type)– In the IntSet ADT, after you call remove(x), you

are assured that x is no longer part of the set (provided the set was non-empty prior to the call)

– In the NonEmptyIntSet ADT, after you call remove(x), you do not have this assurance anymore which violates the substitution principle

14

Methods rule

• A sub-type method can weaken the pre-condition (REQUIRES) of the parent method and strengthen its post-condition (EFFECTS)– Pre-condition rule: presuper=> presub

– Post-condition rule: presuper && postsub => postsuper

• Both conditions must be satisfied to achieve compatibility between the sub-type and super-type methods

15

Remember …

• Weakening of pre-condition: REQUIRES less– Example: Parent-type requires a non-empty

collection, but the sub-type does not– Example: Parent-type requires a value > 0, sub-

type can take a value >=0 in its required clause

• Strengthening of post-condition: DOES more– Example: Sub-type returns the elements of the set

in sorted order while parent-type returns them in any arbitrary order (sorted => arbitrary)

16

Example of methods rule

• Consider a sub-type of IntSet LogIntSet which keeps track of all elements that were ever in the set even after they are removed

public void insert(int x)// MODIFIES: this// EFFECTS: Adds x to the set and to the log

Does this satisfy the methods rule ?

17

Is the methods rule satisfied here ?

• Consider another sub-type PositiveIntSet which only adds positive Integers to the set

public void insert(int x)// MODIFIED: this// EFFECTS: if x >= 0 adds it to this

// else does nothing

18

Back to the NonEmptySet Typepublic class NonEmptySet { // Not derived from IntSet // A Non-empty IntSet is a mutable set of integers // whose size is at least 1 always

public void removeNonEmpty(int x) {// EFFECTS: If set has at least two elements,

// then remove x// Otherwise, do nothing….

}}

19

Regular IntSet

public class IntSet extends NonEmptySet { // Overview: A regular IntSet as before

public void remove(int x) {// MODIFIES: this// EFFECTS: Removes x from this

… }}

20

What happens in this code ?

public static void findMax (NonEmptySet s) { int max = s.choose(); iterator g = s.elements();

while (g.hasNext() ) {…

}}

Can throw an exception if IntSet is passed in as argument

21

What’s the problem here ?

• The IntSet type has an operation remove which causes it to violate the invariant property of its parent type NonEmptySet– Calling code may be able to make the set empty

by calling remove and then pass it to findMax

• Not enough if the derived methods preserve the parent-type’s invariant, the new methods in sub-type must do so as well

22

Properties Rule

• Subtype must preserve each property of the super-type in each of its methods– Invariant properties (always true)– Evolution properties (evolve over time)

• Examples– Invariant property: The set never becomes empty– Evolution property: The set size never decreases

23

Putting it together: Substitution Principle

• Signature rule: If program is type-correct based on super-type specification, it is also type-correct with respect to the sub-type specification.

• Methods rule: Ensures that reasoning about calls of super-type methods is valid even if the call goes to code that implements a subtype.

• Properties rule: Reasoning about properties of objects based on super-type specification is still valid even when objects belong to the sub-type.

24

In-class exercise

public class Counter {// Overview: Counter should never decrease

public Counter( ); // EFFECTS: Makes this contain 0

public int get( );// EFFECTS: Returns the value of this

public void incr();// MODIFIES: this

// EFFECTS: Increases the value of this

25

In class exercise (contd..)

• Now consider a type Counter2 with the following methods. Can this be a valid sub-type of Counter?

public Counter2( ); // EFFECTS: Makes this contain 0

public void incr( );// MODIFIES: this// EFFECTS: Makes this contain twice its value

26

In class exercise (contd..)

What if you had another sub-type Counter3 with two extra operations. Does it satisfy the LSP ?

public Counter3(int n);// EFFECTS: makes this contain npublic void incr(int n);// MODIFIES: this // EFFECTS: If n > 0, add n to this

27

Summary of LSP

• Liskov Substitution Principle (LSP) is a unifying way of reasoning about the use of sub-types– Signature rule: Syntactic constraint and can be

enforced by compiler– Methods rule and properties rule: Pertain to

semantics (behavior) and must be enforced by programmer

• LSP is essential for locality and modifiability of programs using types and sub-types

28

Objectives

• Apply the Liskov Substitution Principle (LSP) to the design of type hierarchies

• Decide when to favor composition over inheritance and vice versa

Why do we use sub-types ?

• Define relationships among a group of types– SortedList and UnsortedList are sub-types of List

• Specification reuse (common interface)– Using code simply says “give me a list”

• Implementation reuse (code sharing)– SortedList need not re-implement all of List’s methods

• Modifiability of parent type– Client need not change if parent class implementation

changes (if done through public interface)

Why not to use sub-types ?

• Sub-types are not appropriate in many cases– Sub-type must satisfy Liskov Substitution Principle. In

other words, it must not cause existing code to break.– Subtype’s implementation must not depend on the

implementation details of the parent type

• Common rule of thumb: “Sub-types must model is a special kind of relationship”– Not always as simple as we will soon see

Example: Rectangle// A vanilla Rectangle class.public class Rectangle {

private double width;private double height;public Rectangle(double w, double h) {

width = w;height = h;

}public double getWidth() {return width;}public double getHeight() {return height;}public void setWidth(double w) {width = w;}public void setHeight(double h) {height = h;}

}

Example: Square Sub-type ?

• Should we model a square as a sub-type of rectangle (isn’t square a “type of” rectangle ?)– We won’t need two instance variables, height and

width, but this is a minor irritant– Need to override setHeight and setWidth

operations so that width and height cannot be changed independently

– Remember, you cannot change the Rectangle class

Example: Squarepublic class Square extends Rectangle {

private double width;private double height;public Square(double s) {

super(s, s);}public void setWidth(double w) {

super.setWidth(w); super.setHeight(w);}public void setHeight(double h) {

super.setWidth(h); super.setHeight(h);}

}

What is the problem here ?

void testRectangle(Rectangle r) {

r.setWidth(4); r.setHeight(5);assert( r.getHeight() * r.getWidth() ==

20 );}

testRectangle( new Square(3) );

Problem

• Although Square is a type of rectangle in the real world, a square object is NOT a sub-type of a rectangle object because it is more constrained than the rectangle object– Which rule of LSP does it break ?

• We should NOT model square as a sub-type of rectangle because behaviorally, a square object cannot be substituted for a rectangle object.

So how do you fix this ?

• Square and rectangle should not be in an inheritance relationship with one-another– They are really doing two different things, just so

happens they share some (minimal) features– Do not satisfy the LSP (behavioral substitution)

• But, how to share code between two ADTs which are not in inherited from each other ?

One “Solution”: Common base class

public abstract class Quadrilateral {// Represents a generic square or rectangleprotected Quad(); // do we need this ?

public int getHeight();public int getWidth();

public abstract void setWidth(); public abstract void setHeight();}

Class Exercise

• Distributed as a handout in class

Fragile Base Class Problem

• LSP is not the only problem with inheritance. Even if LSP is satisfied, there are other issues

• Assume that you add a new method to IntSetpublic void addAll(Collection c) {

// EFFECTS: Adds all elements of c to IntSetfor (int i: C ) this.add( i );

}

InstrumentedIntSet

• Consider an example InstrumentedIntSet which keeps track of the number of elements ever added to the IntSet ADT (different from its size). Assume this type inherits from IntSet– Must add a new field to keep track of count– Override the add method to increment count– Override the addAll method to increment count

InstrumentedIntSet: Inheritancepublic class InstrumentedIntSet extends IntSet {

private int addCount; // The number of attempted element insertions

public InstrumentedIntSet() { super(); addCount = 0; }

public boolean add(Object o) { addCount++;

return super.add(o);}

public boolean addAll(Collection c) {addCount += c.size();

return super.addAll(c);}

public int getAddCount() {return addCount;

}

What’s the problem here ?

Consider the following code:IntSet s = new InstrumentedIntSet();// Assume that array a has 3 int elementss.addAll( a );int i = s.getAddCount( ); // What does it return ?

How will you fix this problem ?1. Modify addAll to not do the increment,

but what if base class does not call the add method? 2. Write your own version of addAll in the derived class to do the iteration (no reuse)

Solution: Use Composition

• Instead of making InstrumentedIntSet a sub-type of IntSet, make it contain an IntSet– In Java, it holds a reference to an IntSet rather

than a copy, so be careful to not expose it– Do not have to worry about substitution principle

(though that is not a problem in this example)– Make both classes implement a common Set

interface if you want to use one in place of another (why not use abstract base class ?).

InstrumentedIntSet: Composition-1

public class InstrumentedIntSet implements Set{

private IntSet s; private int addCount; public InstrumentedIntSet( ) { addCount = 0;

s = new IntSet(); }

InstrumentedIntSet: Composition-2

public class InstrumentedIntSet implements Set{

public void add(int element) { addCount = addCount + 1;

s.add(element); }

public void addAll(Collection c) {addCount = addCount + c.size();s.addAll( c );

}

Inheritance Vs. Composition

InheritanceEvery A-object is a B-object.–Calling A-object’s methods

automatically executes B’s code, unless overridden (implicit code reuse).

–Call to overridden method from inherited method executes A’s version.

–A’s method code can see B’s protected internals.

CompositionEvery A-object has a B-object.–A must implement all

methods, but may delegate actual work to the internal B-object (explicit code-reuse).

–Call to “non-delegated” method from delegated method runs B’s version.

–B’s internals hidden from A–Interface may help if you want

to substitute one for another

Should B be a subtype of A ?

Start

Do we need to use B in place of

A ?

Does B satisfy

the LSP ?

Do B and A need to share any

code ?

Make B a sub-type of A, but try to use the public

interface of A in B if possible and efficient

Make B contain an object of type A

(common interface if necessary)

Make B and A independent

types (common interface if necessary)

NO

YES

YES

NO

NO

YES

Class Exercise

• Consider the NonEmptySet type that we saw earlier. Can you rewrite it to use an IntSet rather than be derived from an IntSet ?

• How will you make them inherit from a common base class ?

Summary of Sub-typing

• Inheritance is often over-used without regard for its consequences (e.g., Java class library)– Not always straightforward to ensure behavioral

substitutability of parent-type with sub-type– Subtle dependencies of sub-type on parent type’s

implementation details can cause fragility

• Use composition instead of inheritance whenever possible (with interfaces if necessary)