Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #70551

Re: Moving to an OOP model from an classically imperitive one

Show all headers | View raw

On 23/04/2014 21:57, tim.thelion@gmail.com wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am currently writting a program called subuser(subuser.org), which is written as classically imperative code.  Subuser is, essentially, a package manager.  It installs and updates programs from repositories.
>
> I have a set of source files https://github.com/subuser-security/subuser/tree/master/logic/subuserCommands/subuserlib which have functions in them.  Each function does something to a program, it identifies the program by the programs name.  For example, I have an installProgram function defined as such:
>
> def installProgram(programName, useCache):
>
> Now I've run into a flaw in this model.  There are certain situations where a "programName" is not a unique identifier. It is possible for two repositories to each have a program with the same name.  Obviously, I could go through my code and replace all use of the string "programName" with a tuple of (programName, repository).  Or I could define a new class with two attributes: programName and repository, and pass such a simple object arround, or pass a dictionary.  However, I think this would be better solved by moving fully to an OOP model.  That is, I would have a SubuserProgram class which had methods such as "install", "describe", "isInstalled"...
>
> There is one problem though.  Currently, I have these functions logically organized into source files, each between 40 and 170 LOC.  I fear that if I were to put all of these functions into one class, than I would have a single, very large source file.  I don't like working with large source files for practicall reasons.  If I am to define the class SubuserProgram in the file SubuserProgram.py, I do not want all <https://github.com/subuser-security/subuser/blob/master/logic/subuserCommands/subuserlib/run.py#L162> of run.py to be moved into that file as well.
>
> I thought about keeping each method in a separate file, much as I do now, something like:
>
> ###################
> #FileA.py
> ###################
> def a(self):
>    blah
>
> ###################
> #FileB.py
> ###################
> def b(self):
>    blah
>
> ###################
> #Class.py
> ###################
> import FileA, FileB
> class C:
>    a=FileA.a
>    b=FileB.b
>
> This works, but I find that it is hard to read.  When I come across FileA, and I see "self" it just seems very confusing.  I suffer a bout of "who-am-i"ism.
>
> I asked on IRC and it was sugested that I use multiple classes, however I see no logical way to separate a SubuserProgram object into multiple classes.
>
> So I thought I would seek your advice.
>
> Tim
>

You're writing Python, not Java, so put your code into one file and stop 
messing about.

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask 
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Moving to an OOP model from an classically imperitive one tim.thelion@gmail.com - 2014-04-23 13:57 -0700
  Re: Moving to an OOP model from an classically imperitive one Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-04-23 22:15 +0100
  Re: Moving to an OOP model from an classically imperitive one Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2014-04-23 15:23 -0600
    Re: Moving to an OOP model from an classically imperitive one Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2014-04-24 12:26 +1200
  Re: Moving to an OOP model from an classically imperitive one Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2014-04-23 14:42 -0700
    Re: Moving to an OOP model from an classically imperitive one tim.thelion@gmail.com - 2014-04-24 00:32 -0700
  Re: Moving to an OOP model from an classically imperitive one MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2014-04-24 00:08 +0100
    Re: Moving to an OOP model from an classically imperitive one tim.thelion@gmail.com - 2014-04-24 00:21 -0700
      Re: Moving to an OOP model from an classically imperitive one Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-04-24 17:36 +1000
      Re: Moving to an OOP model from an classically imperitive one Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2014-04-24 09:08 +0000
  Re: Moving to an OOP model from an classically imperitive one Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-04-24 09:12 +1000
  Re: Moving to an OOP model from an classically imperitive one Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2014-04-24 12:21 +1200
    Re: Moving to an OOP model from an classically imperitive one tim.thelion@gmail.com - 2014-04-24 09:53 -0700
      Re: Moving to an OOP model from an classically imperitive one Amirouche Boubekki <amirouche.boubekki@gmail.com> - 2014-04-25 19:21 +0200
  Re:Moving to an OOP model from an classically imperitive one Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2014-04-23 22:01 -0400

csiph-web