Home >Java >javaTutorial >D - Dependency Inversion Principle(DIP)
Before understanding DIP (Dependency Inversion Principle), it's important to know what High-Level and Low-Level modules and abstractions are.
A high-level module refers to the parts of an application that manage core features or business logic. These modules usually handle larger and more critical functions of the application. High-level modules generally perform broader and more complex tasks, and they might depend on other modules to get their work done.
For example, if you're building an e-commerce application, the Order Management System would be a high-level module. It handles major tasks such as taking orders, processing them, managing deliveries, and so on.
Low-level modules, on the other hand, are responsible for specific and smaller tasks. These modules work at a fundamental level of the application and perform more detailed work, like storing data in the database, configuring network settings, etc. Low-level modules typically help the high-level modules carry out their tasks.
Continuing with the e-commerce example, the Payment Gateway Integration would be a low-level module. Its job is specifically to process payments, which is a more specialized task in comparison to the broader functionalities of the order management system.
In simple terms, abstraction refers to a general idea or representation of a system or process. It defines what should happen but does not specify how it will happen. It focuses on the essential functionality without delving into the underlying implementation details.
Imagine you are going to drive a car. The concept of driving the car (i.e., abstraction) includes:
However, the abstraction doesn't specify how these actions will be performed. It doesn't tell you what type of car it is, what kind of engine it has, or the specific mechanisms that make the car start or stop. It only provides the general idea of what needs to be done.
In software design, abstraction means creating a general contract or structure using an interface or an abstract class that defines a set of rules or actions, but the specific implementation of those actions is left separate. This allows you to define what needs to be done without specifying how it will be done.
You could have a PaymentInterface that declares a method for processing payments. The interface specifies that a payment must be processed, but it doesn't define how the payment will be processed. That can be done through different implementations such as PayPal, Stripe, or other payment methods.
In essence, abstraction focuses on the general functionality while leaving the implementation flexible, making it easier to change or extend in the future.
According to the Dependency Inversion Principle (DIP), high-level modules should not depend directly on low-level modules. Instead, both should rely on abstractions, such as interfaces or abstract classes. This allows both high-level and low-level modules to work independently of each other, making the system more flexible and reducing the impact of changes.
Imagine you have an application with multiple features. If one feature directly depends on another, then modifying one will require changes across many parts of the code. The DIP suggests that instead of direct dependency, you should make different parts of your application work through a common interface or abstraction. This way, each module can function independently, and changes to one feature will have minimal impact on the rest of the system.
High-level modules should not depend on low-level modules. Instead, both should rely on abstractions.
There should be a dependency on abstractions, not on concrete (specific implementations).
Consider a payment system where you can use both PayPal and Stripe as payment methods. If you work directly with PayPal or Stripe, adding a new payment gateway later would require extensive code changes throughout your application.
However, if you follow DIP, you would use a general PaymentInterface. Both PayPal and Stripe would implement this interface. This way, if you want to add a new payment gateway in the future, you simply need to implement the existing interface, making the process much easier.
By following this principle, DIP enhances the maintainability and flexibility of your code, allowing for smoother adaptations and extensions without major disruptions.
Let's consider an application where you need to start and stop different types of vehicles. You can create a Vehicle interface that serves as an abstraction. Any vehicle can implement this interface to provide its own functionality.
Java Code:
// Abstraction: Vehicle interface
interface Vehicle {
void start();
void stop();
}
// Car class implements Vehicle interface
class Car implements Vehicle {
public void start() {
System.out.println("Car started");
}
public void stop() {
System.out.println("Car stopped");
}
}
// Bike class implements Vehicle interface
class Bike implements Vehicle {
public void start() {
System.out.println("Bike started");
}
public void stop() {
System.out.println("Bike stopped");
}
}
// Main class
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Vehicle car = new Car(); // Car as Vehicle
car.start();
car.stop();
Vehicle bike = new Bike(); // Bike as Vehicle
bike.start();
bike.stop();
}
}
Here, Vehicle serves as an abstraction that specifies what actions need to be performed (i.e., start and stop), but it does not define how those actions should be executed. The Car and Bike classes implement these methods according to their own logic. This design allows for the easy addition of new vehicle types, such as Truck, without altering the existing code.
Adding a New Vehicle: Truck
To add a new vehicle, you simply need to create a Truck class that implements the Vehicle interface and provides its own implementation of the start() and stop() methods.
Java Code for Truck:
class Truck implements Vehicle {
public void start() {
System.out.println("Truck started");
}
public void stop() {
System.out.println("Truck stopped");
}
}
Using Truck in the Main Class Without Any Changes:
Now, to include the Truck in the Main class, you can create an instance of Truck and use it as a Vehicle. No changes are necessary in the Main class or any other parts of the code.
Java Code for Main Class:
<p>public class Main {<br>
public static void main(String[] args) {<br>
Vehicle car = new Car(); // Car as Vehicle<br>
car.start();<br>
car.stop();</p>
<div class="highlight js-code-highlight">
<pre class="highlight plaintext"> Vehicle bike = new Bike(); // Bike as Vehicle
bike.start();
bike.stop();
// Adding Truck
Vehicle truck = new Truck(); // Truck as Vehicle
truck.start();
truck.stop();
}
}
Output:
Copy code
Car started
Car stopped
Bike started
Bike stopped
Truck started
Truck stopped
Here, the Truck has been added without making any changes to the existing code. The Truck class simply implements its own versions of the start() and stop() functions according to the Vehicle interface. There was no need to modify the Main class or any other part of the application. This demonstrates how the Dependency Inversion Principle (DIP) promotes flexibility and maintainability in code.
Scalability: New classes (like Truck) can be easily added to the system without affecting existing components.
Maintainability: The Main class and other high-level modules do not need to be modified when new features or vehicles are introduced.
Flexibility: It is possible to add new vehicles without relying on existing ones, allowing for easier integration of new functionality.
By adhering to the Dependency Inversion Principle, the system remains extensible and maintainable through the use of abstractions.
In this context, Car, Bike, and Truck do not depend directly on the Main class. Instead, the Main class relies solely on the Vehicle abstraction. This means that if a new vehicle type is introduced, there is no need to make changes to the Main class. As a result, the code is much easier to maintain, and adaptability is significantly enhanced.
This approach not only reduces the risk of introducing bugs during modifications but also encourages better design practices by promoting loose coupling between components.
Let's say you want to create a notification system that can send different types of notifications, such as Email, SMS, or Push Notifications. If you directly rely on the Email or SMS classes, adding a new notification method would require changes throughout your code, violating the Dependency Inversion Principle (DIP).
We will create an abstraction called Notifier, which will only specify what needs to be done (send notification) without defining how to do it. Different notifier classes (Email, SMS, Push) will implement this functionality in their own way.
JavaScript Code:
<br>
// Abstraction: Notifier<br>
class Notifier {<br>
sendNotification(message) {<br>
throw new Error("Method not implemented.");<br>
}<br>
}
<p>// EmailNotifier implements Notifier<br>
class EmailNotifier extends Notifier {<br>
sendNotification(message) {<br>
console.log(Sending email: ${message});<br>
}<br>
}</p>
<p>// SMSNotifier implements Notifier<br>
class SMSNotifier extends Notifier {<br>
sendNotification(message) {<br>
console.log(Sending SMS: ${message});<br>
}<br>
}</p>
<p>// PushNotifier implements Notifier<br>
class PushNotifier extends Notifier {<br>
sendNotification(message) {<br>
console.log(Sending Push Notification: ${message});<br>
}<br>
}</p>
<p>// Usage<br>
function sendAlert(notifier, message) {<br>
notifier.sendNotification(message);<br>
}</p>
<p>// Test different notifiers<br>
const emailNotifier = new EmailNotifier();<br>
const smsNotifier = new SMSNotifier();<br>
const pushNotifier = new PushNotifier();</p>
<p>sendAlert(emailNotifier, "Server is down!"); // Sending email<br>
sendAlert(smsNotifier, "Server is down!"); // Sending SMS<br>
sendAlert(pushNotifier,"Server is down!"); // Sending Push Notification</p>
Notifier is the abstraction that specifies that a notification needs to be sent.
EmailNotifier, SMSNotifier, and PushNotifier implement the Notifier rules in their own ways.
The sendAlert function only depends on the Notifier abstraction, not on any specific notifier. Therefore, if we want to add a new notifier, there will be no need to change the existing code.
To add a new notification method (like WhatsApp), we simply need to create a new class that implements Notifier, and the rest of the code will remain unchanged.
Let’s say you are creating an e-commerce site where payments need to be processed using various payment gateways (like PayPal and Stripe). If you directly rely on PayPal or Stripe, making changes or adding a new gateway would require significant alterations to your code, violating the Dependency Inversion Principle (DIP).
We will create an abstraction called PaymentGateway. Any payment gateway will operate according to this abstraction, so adding a new gateway will not require changes to other parts of the code.
JavaScript Code:
<br>
// Abstraction: PaymentGateway<br>
class PaymentGateway {<br>
processPayment(amount) {<br>
throw new Error("Method not implemented.");<br>
}<br>
}
<p>// PayPal class implements PaymentGateway<br>
class PayPal extends PaymentGateway {<br>
processPayment(amount) {<br>
console.log(Processing $${amount} payment through PayPal);<br>
}<br>
}</p>
<p>// Stripe class implements PaymentGateway<br>
class Stripe extends PaymentGateway {<br>
processPayment(amount) {<br>
console.log(Processing $${amount} payment through Stripe);<br>
}<br>
}</p>
<p>// Usage<br>
function processOrder(paymentGateway, amount) {<br>
paymentGateway.processPayment(amount);<br>
}</p>
<p>// Test different payment gateways<br>
const paypal = new PayPal();<br>
const stripe = new Stripe();</p>
<p>processOrder(paypal, 100); // Processing $100 payment through PayPal<br>
processOrder(stripe, 200); // Processing $200 payment through Stripe</p>
PaymentGateway is an abstraction that specifies the requirement to process payments.
The PayPal and Stripe classes implement this abstraction in their own ways.
The processOrder function only depends on the PaymentGateway abstraction, so if you want to add a new gateway (like Bitcoin), you don’t need to make any changes to the existing code.
If you need to add a new payment gateway, you simply create a new class that implements the PaymentGateway, and there will be no changes to the core code. This makes the code more maintainable and flexible.
1. Maintainability: নতুন কিছু যোগ করতে বা পরিবর্তন করতে হলে বড় কোড পরিবর্তন করতে হয় না। DIP মেনে abstraction ব্যবহার করে সিস্টেমকে সহজে মেইনটেইন করা যায়।
2. Flexibility: নতুন ফিচার যোগ করা অনেক সহজ হয়ে যায় কারণ high-level module এবং low-level module আলাদা থাকে।
3. Scalability: DIP এর মাধ্যমে সিস্টেমে নতুন ফিচার বা ফাংশনালিটি যোগ করা সহজ এবং দ্রুত করা যায়।
4. Decoupling: High-level module এবং low-level module সরাসরি একে অপরের উপর নির্ভর না করে abstraction এর মাধ্যমে কাজ করে, যা সিস্টেমের dependencies কমিয়ে দেয়।
The Dependency Inversion Principle (DIP) can make React applications more modular and maintainable. The core idea of DIP is that high-level components should not depend on low-level components or specific implementations; instead, they should work with a common rule or structure (abstraction).
To implement this concept in React, we typically use props, context, or custom hooks. As a result, components are not directly tied to specific data or logic but operate through abstractions, which facilitates easier changes or the addition of new features in the future.
If you are building an authentication system, instead of directly relying on Firebase, create an abstraction called AuthService. Any authentication service (like Firebase or Auth0) can work according to this abstraction, allowing you to change the authentication system without altering the entire codebase.
Similarly, when making API calls, instead of depending directly on fetch or Axios, you can use an abstraction called ApiService. This ensures that the rules for making API calls remain consistent while allowing changes to the implementation.
By adhering to DIP, your components remain reusable, flexible, and maintainable.
You are building a React application where users need to log in using various authentication services (like Firebase and Auth0). If you directly work with Firebase or Auth0, changing the service would require significant code modifications.
By using the AuthService abstraction and adhering to the Dependency Inversion Principle (DIP), you can create an authentication system that allows different authentication services to work together.
JSX Code:
<br>
import React, { createContext, useContext } from "react";
<p>// Abstraction: AuthService<br>
const AuthServiceContext = createContext();</p>
<p>// FirebaseAuth implementation<br>
const firebaseAuth = {<br>
login: (username, password) => {<br>
console.log(Logging in ${username} using Firebase);<br>
},<br>
logout: () => {<br>
console.log("Logging out from Firebase");<br>
}<br>
};</p>
<p>// Auth0 implementation<br>
const auth0Auth = {<br>
login: (username, password) => {<br>
console.log(Logging in ${username} using Auth0);<br>
},<br>
logout: () => {<br>
console.log("Logging out from Auth0");<br>
}<br>
};</p>
<p>// AuthProvider component for dependency injection<br>
const AuthProvider = ({ children, authService }) => {<br>
return (<br>
fe05d5eac77346ea84deedde2c5fa67a<br>
{children}<br>
5d1ea9ac180cbe596576b5ba761237c4<br>
);<br>
};</p>
<p>// Custom hook to access the AuthService<br>
const useAuthService = () => {<br>
return useContext(AuthServiceContext);<br>
};</p>
<p>// Login component that depends on abstraction<br>
const Login = () => {<br>
const authService = useAuthService();</p>
<p>const handleLogin = () => {<br>
authService.login("username", "password");<br>
};</p>
<p>return c883a3f67e1b99af028c932340f2d8acLogin65281c5ac262bf6d81768915a4a77ac0;<br>
};</p>
<p>// App component<br>
const App = () => {<br>
return (<br>
71e940f84cca9479943a63f90ece4428<br>
c853468068e5ce2b25356d786316be3d<br>
c76493c01919e3cc2f1554665d0ca98b<br>
);<br>
};</p>
<p>export default App;</p>
AuthServiceContext acts as a context that serves as an abstraction for the authentication service.
The AuthProvider component is responsible for injecting a specific authentication service (either Firebase or Auth0) into the context, allowing any child components to access this service.
The Login component does not directly depend on any specific service; instead, it uses the useAuthService hook to access the authentication abstraction. This means that if you change the authentication service in the AuthProvider, the Login component will remain unchanged and continue to work seamlessly.
This design pattern adheres to the Dependency Inversion Principle (DIP), promoting flexibility and maintainability in the application.
You are making various API calls using fetch or Axios. If you work directly with fetch or Axios, changing the API service would require numerous code changes.
We will create an abstraction called ApiService, which will adhere to the Dependency Inversion Principle (DIP) for making API calls. This way, if the service changes, the components will remain unchanged.
JSX Code:
<br>
import React, { createContext, useContext } from "react";
<p>// Abstraction: ApiService<br>
const ApiServiceContext = createContext();</p>
<p>// Fetch API implementation<br>
const fetchApiService = {<br>
get: async (url) => {<br>
const response = await fetch(url);<br>
return response.json();<br>
},<br>
post: async (url, data) => {<br>
const response = await fetch(url, {<br>
method: "POST",<br>
body: JSON.stringify(data),<br>
headers: { "Content-Type": "application/json" }<br>
});<br>
return response.json();<br>
}<br>
};</p>
<p>// Axios API implementation (for example purposes, similar API interface)<br>
const axiosApiService = {<br>
get: async (url) => {<br>
const response = await axios.get(url);<br>
return response.data;<br>
},<br>
post: async (url, data) => {<br>
const response = await axios.post(url, data);<br>
return response.data;<br>
}<br>
};</p>
<p>// ApiProvider for injecting the service<br>
const ApiProvider = ({ children, apiService }) => {<br>
return (<br>
6b264275a8e320357bd39a49ba9ac4e1<br>
{children}<br>
8cab631425ec8c7bf14965faddaa1658<br>
);<br>
};</p>
<p>// Custom hook to use the ApiService<br>
const useApiService = () => {<br>
return useContext(ApiServiceContext);<br>
};</p>
<p>// Component using ApiService abstraction<br>
const DataFetcher = () => {<br>
const apiService = useApiService();</p>
<p>const fetchData = async () => {<br>
const data = await apiService.get("https://jsonplaceholder.typicode.com/todos");<br>
console.log(data);<br>
};</p>
<p>return 30e510242e32dc21a8f77857377a72f1Fetch Data65281c5ac262bf6d81768915a4a77ac0;<br>
};</p>
<p>// App component<br>
const App = () => {<br>
return (<br>
728e439b6de9082b69fb30a1e596e6b4<br>
9823bd4f87bdf0bf7d485827fd44f5aa<br>
5ad2b31ff55d0b689ab3f4e12587c807<br>
);<br>
};</p>
<p>export default App;</p>
ApiServiceContext is a context that serves as an abstraction for making API calls.
The ApiProvider component injects a specific API service.
The DataFetcher component does not directly depend on fetch or Axios; it relies on the abstraction instead. If you need to switch from fetch to Axios, you won't need to modify the component.
You have created a React app where form validation is required. If you write the validation logic directly inside the component, any changes to the validation logic would require modifications throughout the code.
We will create an abstraction called FormValidator. Different validation libraries (such as Yup or custom validation) will work according to this abstraction.
JSX Code:
<br>
import React from "react";
<p>// Abstraction: FormValidator<br>
const FormValidatorContext = React.createContext();</p>
<p>// Yup validator implementation<br>
const yupValidator = {<br>
validate: (formData) => {<br>
console.log("Validating using Yup");<br>
return true; // Dummy validation<br>
}<br>
};</p>
<p>// Custom validator implementation<br>
const customValidator = {<br>
validate: (formData) => {<br>
console.log("Validating using custom logic");<br>
return true; // Dummy validation<br>
}<br>
};</p>
<p>// FormValidatorProvider for injecting the service<br>
const FormValidatorProvider = ({ children, validatorService }) => {<br>
return (<br>
8553961e3a27fe594a74ff19d52fc2be<br>
{children}<br>
8561d8edc91149f5ea3a2f97d62455cc<br>
);<br>
};</p>
<p>// Custom hook to use the FormValidator<br>
const useFormValidator = () => {<br>
return React.useContext(FormValidatorContext);<br>
};</p>
<p>// Form component using FormValidator abstraction<br>
const Form = () => {<br>
const validator = useFormValidator();</p>
<p>const handleSubmit = () => {<br>
const formData = { name: "John Doe" };<br>
const isValid = validator.validate(formData);<br>
console.log("Is form valid?", isValid);<br>
};</p>
<p>return 5f246b67d575bdf323b33dd46abe4228Submit65281c5ac262bf6d81768915a4a77ac0;<br>
};</p>
<p>// App component<br>
const App = () => {<br>
return (<br>
0f14f915bb98fbf6f184fe80b11facb6<br>
28bedc64ab01fc2a6e99f9b156cc3159<br>
4f68b725a5460ba517315003078e8baf<br>
);<br>
};</p>
<p>export default App;</p>
FormValidatorContext acts as an abstraction for form validation.
The FormValidatorProvider component injects a specific validation logic (e.g., Yup or custom logic).
The Form component does not depend directly on Yup or custom validation. Instead, it works with the abstraction. If the validation logic needs to be changed, such as switching from Yup to custom validation, the Form component will remain unchanged.
While the Dependency Inversion Principle (DIP) is a highly beneficial design principle, it also comes with some limitations or disadvantages. Below are some of the key drawbacks of using DIP:
1. Increased Complexity: Following DIP requires creating additional interfaces or abstract classes. This increases the structure's complexity, especially in smaller projects. Directly using low-level modules makes the code simpler, but adhering to DIP requires introducing multiple abstractions, which can add complexity.
2. Overhead of Managing Dependencies: Since high-level and low-level modules are not directly connected, additional design patterns like dependency injection or context are needed to manage dependencies. This increases the maintenance overhead of the project.
3. Unnecessary for Small Projects: In smaller projects or in cases with fewer dependencies or low complexity, using DIP can be unnecessary. Implementing DIP creates additional abstractions that make the code more complicated, while directly using low-level modules can be simpler and more effective.
4. Performance Overhead: By introducing abstractions between high-level and low-level modules, there can be some performance overhead, especially if there are many abstraction layers. Each abstraction adds extra processing, which can slightly impact performance.
5. Misuse of Abstraction: Excessive or incorrect use of abstraction can reduce the readability and maintainability of the code. If abstractions are not thoughtfully implemented, they can create more disadvantages than the intended benefits of DIP.
6. Harder to Debug: Due to the use of abstractions and interfaces, debugging can become more challenging. Without directly working with the implementation, identifying where a problem originates from can take more time.
7. Dependency Injection Tools Required: Implementing DIP often requires using dependency injection frameworks or tools, which take time and effort to learn. Additionally, the use of these frameworks increases the complexity of the project.
Although DIP is a powerful and beneficial principle, it does have its limitations. In smaller projects or less complex contexts, adhering to DIP may be unnecessary. Therefore, proper analysis is needed to determine when and where to apply this principle for the best results.
I regularly share insights on JavaScript, Node.js, React, Next.js, software engineering, data structures, algorithms, and more. Let’s connect, learn, and grow together!
Follow me: Nozibul Islam
The above is the detailed content of D - Dependency Inversion Principle(DIP). For more information, please follow other related articles on the PHP Chinese website!