Timeline for Does this class design violate the single responsibility principle?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 13, 2017 at 19:31 | comment | added | Jim Speaker | I agree with your first statement. However, if it came to peer review, I don't think I would because violating SRP is a slippery slope and this could be the first of many broken windows. Cheers. | |
| Jan 26, 2016 at 22:46 | audit | First posts | |||
| Jan 28, 2016 at 15:58 | |||||
| Jan 8, 2016 at 14:30 | comment | added | Niklas H | True. But what if it is not called "Holiday" in this new system, but is "Vacation" or "Free Time". But I agree, with that you typically has the ability to just search for it, or can ask a co-worker. My comment were primarily to get the OP to mentally model the responsibility and where the most obvious place for the logic would be :-) | |
| Jan 8, 2016 at 14:21 | comment | added | NikolaiDante | @NiklasH Agreed. Tho personally I wouldn't look randomly and try and guess the class I would search with studio for the word "Holiday" and see what classes it came up in. :) | |
| Jan 8, 2016 at 13:37 | comment | added | Niklas H | I agree. If the code is as simple as provided here, I would probably let it slide. But in my mind, I should not be the responsibility of the Employee to handle its own holiday. It might not seem like a big deal with where the responsibility is placed, but look at it this way: If you were new to the code base, and had to work on the holiday-specific functionality - where would you look first? For the holiday-logic, I personally would NOT look at the Employee entity to begin with. | |
| Jan 7, 2016 at 22:06 | history | answered | NikolaiDante | CC BY-SA 3.0 |