How do you name a class/method that only calls other methods?

Question

Say I follow the Single Responsibility Principle and I have the following classes.

public class Extractor {

   public Container extract(List<Container> list) {

       ... some extraction
   }
}

public class Converter {

   public String convert(Container container) {

       ... some conversion
   }
}

As you can see it's following the principle and all the names of the classes/methods tell what they do. Now I have another class that has a method like this.

public class SomeClass {
   private Extractor extractor = new Extractor();
   private Converter converter = new Converter();
   private Queue queue = new Queue();

   public void someMethod(List<Container> list) {
       Container tmp = extractor.extract(list);
       String result = converter.convert(tmp);

       queue.add(result);
   }
}

As you can see the "someMethod"-Method does call extract, convert and add. My question is now, how do you call such a class/method? It's not actually extracting, converting or adding but it's calling those? If you name the method after its responsibility what would that be?

Your `Converter` class doesn't have `convert` method but `extract` method. — Buhake Sindi, Nov 16 '11 at 10:12

score 2 · Answer 1 · answered Nov 16 '11 at 10:18

2

Well since you seem to add to a queue and you don't return anything I'd call it addToQueue. The fact that you convert + extract is implementation detail that I don't think needs to be exposed.

answered Nov 16 '11 at 10:18

Liviu T.

23,584
10
62
58

Guillaume · Answer 2 · 2011-11-16T10:25:04.473

What about processAndQueueMessage?

Also (not related), you shouldn't create (using new) the Extractor and Converter in your SomeClass, you should rather inject them (at construction or in setters), and use interfaces to them. That will make it easier to test, and reduce coupling between implementations.

// Assuming Converter and Extractor are interfaces to the actual implementations
public class SomeClass {
   private final Extractor extractor ;
   private final Converter converter;
   private Queue queue = new Queue();

   public SomeClass(Extractor extractor, Converter converter) {
       this.converter = converter;
       this.extractor = extractor;
   }

   public void someMethod(List<Container> list) {
       Container tmp = extractor.extract(list);
       String result = converter.convert(tmp);

       queue.add(result);
   } 
}

And you create it using:

final SomeClass myProcessor = new SomeClass(new MyExtractorImplementation(), new MyConverterImplementation());

(Or use a DI container, like Spring or Pico)

I'd argue that the typing overhead added by 'process' and 'Message' (why 'message' anyway?) doesn't add much information. I'd rather go for extractAndQueue(..) or queueExtracted(..). But still, processing or extracting might some implementation detail that shouldn't go into the method name. — sfussenegger, Nov 16 '11 at 11:12

DXM · Answer 3 · 2011-11-16T18:12:03.053

Sounds like some kind of builder class. You get data in one format, convert it and then create some kind of output format. So how about "SomethingSomethingBuilder"?

I'm assuming someone downvoted me because I forgot to provide a good name for the method. Sorry about that.

So this method adds incrementally data into your builder class. I would call it, "Add", "AddData" or "Push" (I'd probably go with push because that has very similar meaning in many standard classes).

Alternative to "Builder" could potentially be "SomeKindOfCreator". Obviously you would name it based on whatever it is your class is actually creating.

score 0 · Answer 4 · edited Nov 16 '11 at 10:56

If you want the name to be really generic, I'd go with addToQueue() or populateQueue() since getting something into that object seems to be the point of the method.

But really at that level I'd call it by what business logic it's trying to accomplish, in which case the name really depends on what it's being used for.

If you can't come up with a good name, it is an indication that your procedural abstraction is rather arbitrary / artificial, and a possible hint that there might be a better way to do it. Or maybe not.

score 0 · Answer 5 · answered Nov 16 '11 at 10:53

What you do is think about the composite meaning of the sequence of method calls, turn that into a concise verb or verb phrase and use that as the name. If you can't come up with a concise name then you could use a generic / neutral name (like "process") or use something completely bogus (like "sploddify").

How do you name a class/method that only calls other methods?

5 Answers5