Re: Mutator chaining considered harmful

In reading a completely unrelated article, I found this snippet:

Interaction-based testers do talk more about avoiding 'train wrecks' - method chains of style of getThis().getThat().getTheOther(). Avoiding method chains is also known as following the Law of Demeter. While method chains are a smell, the opposite problem of middle men objects bloated with forwarding methods is also a smell. (I've always felt I'd be more comfortable with the Law of Demeter if it were called the Suggestion of Demeter.)¹

I found it interesting that Fowler links method chaining to users of the state-based testing style. The fact that interaction-based testers view chaining to be a 'train wreck' was also telling.

No real point to this ... just found it interesting. :-)

From Mocks Aren't Stubs by Martin Fowler

Being right, does not endow the right to be rude; politeness costs nothing.
Being unknowing, is not the same as being stupid.
Expressing a contrary opinion, whether to the individual or the group, is more often a sign of deeper thought than of cantankerous belligerence.
Do not mistake your goals as the only goals; your opinion as the only opinion; your confidence as correctness. Saying you know better is not the same as explaining you know better.

Comment on Re: Mutator chaining considered harmful

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Mutator chaining considered harmful by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Dec 29, 2004 at 19:50 UTC
Of course those are aggregate object calling chains, which aren't the same as the mutator chains I talk about. But yeah, there's a lot of different bluffs and cliffs to steer around in the area. Makeshifts last the longest.	[reply]


Clear questions and runnable code get the best and fastest answer
	PerlMonks