A functional solution to interfacitis?

noun: interfacitis
inflammation of a software, most commonly from overuse of interfaces and other abstractions but also from… well… actually it’s mostly just interfaces.

An illness of tedium

Over the years my experience has come to show me that unnecessary abstractions cause some of the most significant overheads and inertia in software projects. Specifically, I want to talk about one of the more tedious and time consuming areas of maintaining abstracted code; that which lies in the overzealous use of interfaces (C#/Java).

Neither C# or Java are particularly terse languages. When compared to F# with its Hindley-Milner type inference, working in these high-level OO languages often feels like filling out forms in triplicate. All too often I have experienced the already verbose syntax of these languages amplified by dozens of lengthy interfaces, each only there to repeat the exact signature of it’s singular implementation. I’m sure you’ve all been there. In my experience this is one of the more painful areas of maintenance, causing slowdowns, distraction and lack of focus. And I’ve been thinking for some time now that we’d probably be better off using interfaces (or even thin abstract classes) only when absolutely necessary.

What is necessary?

I like to apply a simple yard stick here: if you have a piece of application functionality that necessitates the ability to call multiple different implementations of a component then you probably require an interface. This means situations such as plugins or provider-based architectures would use an interface (of course!) but your CustomerRegistrationService that is called only by your CustomerRegistrationController will not. The message is simple, don’t start introducing unnecessary bureaucracy for the sake of it.

There are, I admit, cases where you might feel abstraction is required. What about a component that calls out to a third party system on the network? Surely you want to be able to isolate this behind an interface? And so I put it to you; why do you need an interface here? Why not use a function? After all, C# is now very well equipped with numerous, elegant functional features and many popular DI frameworks support delegate injection. Furthermore if you are following the SOLID practice of interface segregation then chances are your interface will contain only one or two method definitions anyways.

An example

So, for those times when you absolutely must abstract a single implementation, here is a simple example of an MVC controller using ‘functional’ IoC:

public class RegistrationController : Controller

    private readonly Func<string, RegistrationDetails> _registrationDetailsQuery;

    public RegistrationController(Func<string, RegistrationDetails> registrationDetailsQuery)
        _registrationDetailsQuery = registrationDetailsQuery;

    public ActionResult Index()
        var currentRegistration = _registrationDetailsQuery(User.Identity.Name);

        var viewModel = ViewModelMapper.Instance
            .Map<RegistrationDetails, RegistrationDetailsViewModel>(currentRegistration);

        return View(viewModel);



13-March-2018: It has been pointed out to me that a further benefit of this approach is that static providers may also supply IoC dependencies whereas instances are required for interface-based IoC. What are your thoughts on this approach?

A functional solution to interfacitis?

One thought on “A functional solution to interfacitis?

  1. This gets my attention for a few reasons. One is the tendency for classes to grow out of control along with the interfaces they depend on. It’s easy to hide the growth of a class’s responsibilities by adding methods to the interfaces it already depends on. Then those interfaces and their implementations get bloated too. I’ve seen it happen over and over.
    This won’t prevent someone doing that, but it puts up some resistance because if you depend on a function it’s effectively an interface that can only ever have one method. Adding bloat to existing interfaces no longer becomes the easiest option. It signals the intent up front to keep classes small.
    I’m totally going to play around with this.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s