A design problem I met again and again.

[一首诗]

You get it.  Sometimes I feel that my head is trained to work in a
procedural way.  I use a big class just as a container of functions.

About the "data-based" approach, what if these functions all shares a
little data, e.g. a socket, but nothing else?

On Apr 2, 5:58 am, Carl Banks <pavlovevide... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 1, 12:44 am, 一首诗 <newpt... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I got the same problem when writing C#/C++ when I have to provide a
> > lot of method to my code's user.  So I create a big class as the entry
> > point of my code.  Although these big classes doesn't contains much
> > logic,  they do grow bigger and bigger.
>
> This seems to be a classic result of "code-based organization", that
> is, you are organizing your code according to how your functions are
> used.  That's appropriate sometimes.  Procedural libraries are often
> organized by grouping functions according to use.  The os module is a
> good example.
>
> However, it's usually much better to organize code according to what
> data it acts upon: "data-based organization".  In other words, go
> though your big class and figure out what data belongs together
> conceptually, make a class for each conceptual set of data, then
> assign methods to classes based on what data the methods act upon.
>
> Consider the os module again.  It's a big collection of functions, but
> there are a group of functions is os that all act on a particular
> piece of data, namely a file descriptor.  This suggests tha all the
> functions that act upon file descriptors (os.open, os.close, os.seek,
> etc.) could instead be methods of a single class, with the file
> descriptor as a class member.
>
> (Note: the os library doesn't do that because functions like os.open
> are supposed to represent low-level operations corresponding to the
> underlying system calls, but never mind that. Ordinarily a bunch of
> functions operating on common data should be organized as a class.)
>
> Carl Banks