Thursday, June 8, 2000

There is no such thing as a Component

I maintain and preach that there is no such thing as a Component in the same way that there is no such thing as a donut hole.  Just as the donut hole doesn't exist without a donut to define it, a Component doesn't exist without a Framework to define it.  Using a printed circuit board as a metaphor for a framework, it's the "sockets", into which IC chips are meant to be plugged, that define components.  So called universal or standalone components are meaningless (and certainly useless) without some framework that expects components of the same purpose and interface.

Ok, so what's your point?  The point is that too many developers (and books on the subject) think about components as standalone chunks of functionality that can be "glued together" after the fact.  They don't realize that the framework has to come first and foremost in conception and design. Szyperski doesn't get around to talking about frameworks until chapter 21 of his Component Software book for heaven's sake.

Even physical components are like this. The prototypical component, the IC chip, always was designed within a family of chips that were meant to work together.  They all needed the same voltage levels for zeroes and ones and tri-states, the same amperage levels, the same clock rates, etc, etc.  Other families used other voltage levels.  The first reusable, interchangeable parts in history were for rifles.  They were meant to be easy and quick to replace (as opposed to the hand crafted muskets they were replacing) but they were meant specifically to make rifles!

You can find all sorts of "widgets" and "gizmos" that you might guess are components to something, but unless you know what framework they were meant to be a part of, they are not good for anything but door stops or paperweights.  In other words, random components don't tend to fit together or work together.

Too many people are trying to make "universal" components without realizing that those components still work within some framework that allows them to be put together and communicate with each other.  The problem is that other people doing the same thing have defined other "generic" frameworks that are none the less incompatible.

For example, the toys that baby boomers played with when they were young abounded with generic frameworks of universal components: Tinker Toys, Lincoln Logs, Erector Sets, LEGOs.  They all had universal components within a generic framework that let you build anything.  BUT, you couldn't mix Tinker Toy parts with Erector Set parts (without glue or duct tape).

Ah, you say.  That's why I like duct tape, weakly typed, languages like Perl that lets me glue together parts.  Also, what about Play-doh?!  You could stick anything together with that!  Yes, but there was a reason you made bridges out of Erector Sets instead of Play-doh...and the same reasons apply to software systems....but Strong versus Weak typing is another discussion...

Objects versus Components

Until I had this epiphany about components as donut holes, I didn't have a good answer to the question "what's the difference between an object and a component?".  I now understand that all objects ARE components, but not all components are objects.  The framework that defines a set of components does not have to be an object oriented framework.  But all object oriented languages define an object framework.  They are generic enough frameworks that any objects programmed in that language may interoperate with each other. Unfortunately though, as with Tinker Toys and Lincoln Logs, Java objects typically can't interact with Smalltalk objects.

In the Java language there are at least two levels of object framework.  There are plain old Java objects (POJOs) and there are so-called JavaBeans.  Whereas any property of a POJO can be accessed (assuming its not protected by the "private" keyword) via a fooObject.barProperty syntax, only special properties may be accessed via the JavaBeans framework. JavaBeans are those objects that have defined special property accessor methods of the form: getBarProperty() and setBarProperty(). "JavaBean" is the name given to any component that works within that specialized framework. To make matters confusing however, it turns out that Javasoft called more than one framework "JavaBeans" (arrgh!).  There are even more specialized versions of JavaBeans that are made to work with fancy GUI toolkits. SO, WITHOUT CLEARLY FOCUSING ON FRAMEWORKS, EVEN JAVASOFT CONFUSES DIFFERENT COMPONENT TYPES WITH EACH OTHER!

The moral?  Don't fret that there is no such thing as a truly "universal" component. Don't spend energy trying to build them, or building "single universal" frameworks.  Focus on what is needed for your situation and design a well crafted framework first and foremost.  If it needs to work with other frameworks (like whatever Microsoft builds that won't integrate with anybody else), you will understand that the Frameworks need bridges to each other, and not mistakenly think that mere component socket adapters are sufficient.