Develop Reference

Selecting executed method of class at runtime in python?

This question is very generic but I don't think it is opinion based. It is about software design and the example prototype is in python:
I am writing a program which goal it is to simulate some behaviour (doesn't matter). The data on which the simulation works is fixed, but the simulated behaviour I want to change at every startup time. The simulation behaviour can't be changed at runtime.
Example:
Simulation behaviour is defined like:
usedMethod = static
The program than looks something like this:
while(true)
result = static(object) # static is the method specified in the behaviour
# do something with result
The question is, how is the best way to deal with exchangeable defined functions? So another run of the simulation could look like this
while(true)
result = dynamic(object)
if dynamic is specified as usedMethod. The first thing that came in my mind was an if-else block, where I ask, which is the used method and then execute this on. This solution would not be very good, because every time I add new behaviour I have to change the if-else block and the if-else block itself would maybe cost performance, which is important, too. The simulations should be fast.
So a solution I could think of was using a function pointer (output and input of all usedMethods should be well defined and so it should not be a problem). Then I initalize the function pointer at startup, where the used method is defined.
The problem I currently have, that the used method is not a function per-se, but is a method of a class, which depends heavily on the intern members of this class, so the code is more looking like this:
balance = BalancerClass()
while(true)
result = balance.static(object)
...
balance.doSomething(input)
So my question is, what is a good solution to deal with this problem?
I thought about inheriting from the balancerClass (this would then be an abstract class, I don't know if this conecpt exists in python) and add a derived class for every used method. Then I create the correct derived object which is specified in the simulation behaviour an run-time.
In my eyes, this is a good solution, because it encapsulates the methods from the base class itself. And every used method is managed by its own class, so it can add new internal behaviour if needed.
Furthermore the doSomething method shouldn't change, so therefore it is implemented the base class, but depends on the intern changed members of the derived class.
I don't know in general if this software design is good to solve my problem or if I am missing a very basic and easy concept.
If you have a another/better solution please tell me and it would be good, if you provide the advantages/disadvantages. Also could you tell me advantages/disadvantages of my solution, which I didn't think of?

Hey I can be wrong but what you are looking for boils down to either dependency injection or strategy design pattern both of which solve the problem of executing dynamic code at runtime via a common interface without worrying about the actual implementations. There are also much simpler ways just like u desrcibed creating an abstract class(Interface) and having all the classes implement this interface.
I am giving brief examples fo which here for your reference:
Dependecy Injection(From wikipedia):
In software engineering, dependency injection is a technique whereby one object supplies the dependencies of another object. A "dependency" is an object that can be used, for example as a service. Instead of a client specifying which service it will use, something tells the client what service to use. The "injection" refers to the passing of a dependency (a service) into the object (a client) that would use it. The service is made part of the client's state.
Passing the service to the client, rather than allowing a client to build or find the service, is the fundamental requirement of the pattern.
Python does not have such a conecpt inbuilt in the language itself but there are packages out there that implements this pattern.
Here is a nice article about this in python(All credits to the original author):
Dependency Injection in Python
Strategy Pattern: This is an anti-pattern to inheritance and is an example of composition which basically means instead of inheriting from a base class we pass the required class's object to the constructor of classes we want to have the functionality in. For example:
Suppose you want to have a common add() operation but it can be implemented in different ways(add two numbers or add two strings)
Class XYZ():
def __constructor__(adder):
self.adder = adder
The only condition being all adders passed to the XYZ class should have a common Interface.
Here is a more detailed example:
Strategy Pattern in Python
Interfaces:
Interfaces are the simplest, they define a set of common attributes and methods(with or without a default implementation). Any class then can implement an interface with its own functionality or some shared common functionality. In python Interfaces are implemented via abc package.

Python/Django and services as classes

Are there any conventions on how to implement services in Django? Coming from a Java background, we create services for business logic and we "inject" them wherever we need them.
Not sure if I'm using python/django the wrong way, but I need to connect to a 3rd party API, so I'm using an api_service.py file to do that. The question is, I want to define this service as a class, and in Java, I can inject this class wherever I need it and it acts more or less like a singleton. Is there something like this I can use with Django or should I build the service as a singleton and get the instance somewhere or even have just separate functions and no classes?

TL;DR It's hard to tell without more details but chances are you only need a mere module with a couple plain functions or at most just a couple simple classes.
Longest answer:
Python is not Java. You can of course (technically I mean) use Java-ish designs, but this is usually not the best thing to do.
Your description of the problem to solve is a bit too vague to come with a concrete answer, but we can at least give you a few hints and pointers (no pun intended):
1/ Everything is an object
In python, everything (well, everything you can find on the RHS of an assignment that is) is an object, including modules, classes, functions and methods.
One of the consequences is that you don't need any complex framework for dependency injection - you just pass the desired object (module, class, function, method, whatever) as argument and you're done.
Another consequence is that you don't necessarily need classes for everything - a plain function or module can be just enough.
A typical use case is the strategy pattern, which, in Python, is most often implemented using a mere callback function (or any other callable FWIW).
2/ a python module is a singleton.
As stated above, at runtime a python module is an object (of type module) whose attributes are the names defined at the module's top-level.
Except for some (pathological) corner cases, a python module is only imported once for a given process and is garanteed to be unique. Combined with the fact that python's "global" scope is really only "module-level" global, this make modules proper singletons, so this design pattern is actually already builtin.
3/ a python class is (almost) a singleton
Python classes are objects too (instance of type type, directly or indirectly), and python has classmethods (methods that act on the class itself instead of acting on the current instance) and class-level attributes (attributes that belong to the class object itself, not to it's instances), so if you write a class that only has classmethods and class attributes, you technically have a singleton - and you can use this class either directly or thru instances without any difference since classmethods can be called on instances too.
The main difference here wrt/ "modules as singletons" is that with classes you can use inheritance...
4/ python has callables
Python has the concept of "callable" objects. A "callable" is an object whose class implements the __call__() operator), and each such object can be called as if it was a function.
This means that you can not only use functions as objects but also use objects as functions - IOW, the "functor" pattern is builtin. This makes it very easy to "capture" some context in one part of the code and use this context for computations in another part.
5/ a python class is a factory
Python has no new keyword. Pythonc classes are callables, and instanciation is done by just calling the class.
This means that you can actually use a class or function the same way to get an instance, so the "factory" pattern is also builtin.
6/ python has computed attributes
and beside the most obvious application (replacing a public attribute by a pair of getter/setter without breaking client code), this - combined with other features like callables etc - can prove to be very powerful. As a matter of fact, that's how functions defined in a class become methods
7/ Python is dynamic
Python's objects are (usually) dict-based (there are exceptions but those are few and mostly low-level C-coded classes), which means you can dynamically add / replace (and even remove) attributes and methods (since methods are attributes) on a per-instance or per-class basis.
While this is not a feature you want to use without reasons, it's still a very powerful one as it allows to dynamically customize an object (remember that classes are objects too), allowing for more complex objects and classes creation schemes than what you can do in a static language.
But Python's dynamic nature goes even further - you can use class decorators and/or metaclasses to taylor the creation of a class object (you may want to have a look at Django models source code for a concrete example), or even just dynamically create a new class using it's metaclass and a dict of functions and other class-level attributes.
Here again, this can really make seemingly complex issues a breeze to solve (and avoid a lot of boilerplate code).
Actually, Python exposes and lets you hook into most of it's inners (object model, attribute resolution rules, import mechanism etc), so once you understand the whole design and how everything fits together you really have the hand on most aspects of your code at runtime.
Python is not Java
Now I understand that all of this looks a bit like a vendor's catalog, but the point is highlight how Python differs from Java and why canonical Java solutions - or (at least) canonical Java implementations of those solutions - usually don't port well to the Python world. It's not that they don't work at all, just that Python usually has more straightforward (and much simpler IMHO) ways to implement common (and less common) design patterns.
wrt/ your concrete use case, you will have to post a much more detailed description, but "connecting to a 3rd part API" (I assume a REST api ?) from a Django project is so trivial that it really doesn't warrant much design considerations by itself.

In Python you can write the same as Java program structure. You don't need to be so strongly typed but you can. I'm using types when creating common classes and libraries that are used across multiple scripts.
Here you can read about Python typing
You can do the same here in Python. Define your class in package (folder) called services
Then if you want singleton you can do like that:
class Service(object):
instance = None
def __new__(cls):
if cls.instance is not None:
return cls.instance
else:
inst = cls.instance = super(Service, cls).__new__()
return inst
And now you import it wherever you want in the rest of the code
from services import Service
Service().do_action()

Adding to the answer given by bruno desthuilliers and TreantBG.
There are certain questions that you can ask about the requirements.
For example one question could be, does the api being called change with different type of objects ?
If the api doesn't change, you will probably be okay with keeping it as a method in some file or class.
If it does change, such that you are calling API 1 for some scenario, API 2 for some and so on and so forth, you will likely be better off with moving/abstracting this logic out to some class (from a better code organisation point of view).
PS: Python allows you to be as flexible as you want when it comes to code organisation. It's really upto you to decide on how you want to organise the code.

Why "use properties to hide functional implementation" when designing for inheritance?

The following is a paragraph in PEP8. I don't understand "In that case, use properties to hide functional implementation behind simple data attribute access syntax." and the Note 3:
For simple public data attributes, it is best to expose just the attribute name, without complicated accessor/mutator methods. Keep in mind that Python provides an easy path to future enhancement, should you find that a simple data attribute needs to grow functional behavior. In that case, use properties to hide functional implementation behind simple data attribute access syntax.
Note 1: Properties only work on new-style classes.
Note 2: Try to keep the functional behavior side-effect free, although side-effects such as caching are generally fine.
Note 3: Avoid using properties for computationally expensive operations; the attribute notation makes the caller believe that access is (relatively) cheap.

The goal of hiding implementation is to keep an API constant.
If you have designed a class with a simple attribute and later you find out that a subclass needs a computation to return the proper value, you just replace the simple attribute by a computed attribute and the related API remains unchanged. A computed attribute is better known as a property.
Note 3 is a suggestion to keep in mind when designing a class, not when subclassing it.

Should methods in a class be classmethod by default?

I was just working on a large class hierarchy and thought that probably all methods in a class should be classmethods by default.
I mean that it is very rare that one needs to change the actual method for an object, and whatever variables one needs can be passed in explicitly. Also, this way there would be lesser number of methods where people could change the object itself (more typing to do it the other way), and people would be more inclined to be "functional" by default.
But, I am a newb and would like to find out the flaws in my idea (if there are any :).

Having classmethods as a default is a well-known but outdated paradigm. It's called Modular Programming. Your classes become effectively modules this way.
The Object-Oriented Paradigm (OOP) is mostly considered superior to the Modular Paradigm (and it is younger). The main difference is exactly that parts of code are associated by default to a group of data (called an object) — and thus not classmethods.
It turns out in practice that this is much more useful. Combined with other OOP architectural ideas like inheritance this offers directer ways to represent the models in the heads of the developers.
Using object methods I can write abstract code which can be used for objects of various types; I don't have to know the type of the objects while writing my routine. E. g. I can write a max() routine which compares the elements of a list with each other to find the greatest. Comparing then is done using the > operator which is effectively an object method of the element (in Python this is __gt__(), in C++ it would be operator>() etc.). Now the object itself (maybe a number, maybe a date, etc.) can handle the comparison of itself with another of its type. In code this can be written as short as
a > b # in Python this calls a.__gt__(b)
while with only having classmethods you would have to write it as
type(a).__gt__(a, b)
which is much less readable.

If the method doesn't access any of an object's state, but is specific to that object's class, then it's a good candidate for being a classmethod.
Otherwise if it's more general, then just use a function defined at module level, no need to make it belong to a specific class.
I've found that classmethods are actually pretty rare in practice, and certainly not the default. There should be plenty of good code out there (on e.g. github) to get examples from.

What to consider before subclassing list?

I was recently going over a coding problem I was having and someone looking at the code said that subclassing list was bad (my problem was unrelated to that class). He said that you shouldn't do it and that it came with a bunch of bad side effects. Is this true?
I'm asking if list is generally bad to subclass and if so, what are the reasons. Alternately, what should I consider before subclassing list in Python?

The abstract base classes provided in the collections module, particularly MutableSequence, can be useful when implementing list-like classes. These are available in Python 2.6 and later.
With ABCs you can implement the "core" functionality of your class and it will provide the methods which logically depend on what you've defined.
For example, implementing __getitem__ in a collections.Sequence-derived class will be enough to provide your class with __contains__, __iter__, and other methods.
You may still want to use a contained list object to do the heavy lifting.

There are no benefits to subclassing list. None of the methods will use any methods you override, so you can have unexpected bugs. Further, it's very often confusing doing things like self.append instead of self.foos.append or especially self[4] rather than self.foos[4] to access your data. You can make something that works exactly like a list or (better) howevermuch like a list you really want while just subclassing object.

I think the first question I'd ask myself is, "Is my new object really a list?". Does it walk like a list, talk like a list? Or is is something else?
If it is a list, then all the standard list methods should all make sense.
If the standard list methods don't make sense, then your object should contain a list, not be a list.
In old python (2.2?) sub-classing list was a bad idea for various technical reasons, but in a modern python it is fine.

Nick is correct.
Also, while I can't speak to Python, in other OO languages (Java, Smalltalk) subclassing a list is a bad idea. Inheritance in general should be avoided and delegation-composition used instead.
Rather, you make a container class and delegate calls to the list. The container class has a reference to the list and you can even expose the calls and returns of the list in your own methods.
This adds flexibility and allows you to change the implementation (a different list type or data structure) later w/o breaking any code. If you want your list to do different listy-type things then your container can do this and use the plain list as a simple data structure.
Imagine if you had 47 different uses of lists. Do you really want to maintain 47 different subclasses?
Instead you could do this via the container and interfaces. One class to maintain and allow people to call your new and improved methods via the interface(s) with the implementation remaining hidden.