什么是胖接口？

Question

Ciao, I work in movie industry to simulate and apply studio effects. May I ask what is a fat interface as I hear someone online around here stating it?

Edit: It is here said by Nicol Bolas (very good pointer I believe)

Answer 1

fat interface - an interface with more member functions and friends than are logically necessary. TC++PL 24.4.3 source

Answer 2

very simple explanation is here :

The Fat Interface approach [...]: in addition to the core services (that are part of the thin interface) it also offers a rich set of services that satisfy common needs of client code. Clearly, with such classes the amount of client code that needs to be written is smaller.

When should we use fat interfaces? If a class is expected to have a long life span or if a class is expected to have many clients it should offer a fat interface.

Answer 3

Maxim quotes Stroustrup's glossary:

fat interface - an interface with more member functions and friends than are logically necessary. TC++PL 24.4.3

Maxim provides no explanation, and other existing answers to this question mis interpret the above - or sans the Stroustrup quote the term itself - as meaning an interface with an arguably excessive number of members. It's not.

It's actually not about the number of members , but whether the members make sense for all the implementations .

That subtle aspect that doesn't come through very clearly in Stroustrup's glossary, but at least in the old version of TC++PL I have - is clear where the term's used in the text. Once you understand the difference, the glossary entry is clearly consistent with it, but "more member functions and friends than are logically necessary" is a test that should be applied from the perspective of each of the implementations of a logical interface. (My understanding's also supported by Wikipedia , for whatever that's worth;-o.)

Specifically when you have an interface over several implementations, and some of the interface actions are only meaningful for some of the implementations, then you have a fat interface in which you can ask the active implementation to do something that it has no hope of doing, and you have to complicate the interface with some "not supported" discovery or reporting , which soon adds up to make it harder to write reliable client code .

For example, if you have a Shape base class and derived Circle and Square classes, and contemplate adding a double get_radius() const member: you could do so and have it throw or return some sentinel value like NaN or -1 if called on a Square - you'd then have a fat interface.

---

"Uncle Bob" puts a different emphasis on it below (boldfacing mine) in the context of the Interface Segregation Principle (ISP) (a SOLID principle that says to avoid fat interfaces):

[ISP] deals with the disadvantages of “fat” interfaces. Classes that have “fat” interfaces are classes whose interfaces are not cohesive . In other words, the interfaces of the class can be broken up into groups of member functions. Each group serves a different set of clients. Thus some clients use one group of member functions, and other clients use the other groups .

This implies you could have eg virtual functions that all derived classes do implementation with non-noop behaviours, but still consider the interface "fat" if typically any given client using that interface would only be interested in one group of its functions. For example: if a string class provided regexp functions and 95% of client code never used any of those, and especially if the 5% that did didn't tend to use the non-regexp string functions, then you should probably separate the regexp functionality from the normal textual string functionality. In that case though, there's a clear distinction in member function functionality that forms 2 groups, and when you were writing your code you'd have a clear idea whether you wanted regexp functionality or normal text-handling functionality. With the actual std::string class, although it has a lot of functions I'd argue that there's no clear grouping of functions where it would be weird to evolve a need to use some functions (eg begin / end ) after having initially needed only say insert / erase . I don't personally consider the interface "fat", even though it's huge.

---

Of course, such an evocative term will have been picked up by other people to mean whatever they think it should mean, so it's no surprise that the web contains examples of the simpler larger-than-necessary-interface usage, as evidenced by the link in relaxxx's answer, but I suspect that's more people guessing at a meaning than "educated" about prior usage in Computing Science literature....

Answer 4

An interface with more methods or friends than is really necessary.