Generic Class Name Signals Low Cohesion

06 Jun 2017

I find myself often explaining why to avoid generic non specific class names. The most often classes suffixed with “Util” seem to be harder to perceive as non specific. Even when most classes in project have nice specific name, somehow “Util” suffixed classes seem to be excluded from intuitive naming strategies.

I think the best way to explain why util classes are suboptimal is using concept of cohesion. Cohesion is an important concept, which I also used in my previous post Code Structure Principles.

Let’s see how Wikipedia defines the term:

In computer programming, cohesion refers to the degree to which the elements inside a module belong together.[1] Thus, cohesion measures the strength of relationship between pieces of functionality within a given module. For example, in highly cohesive systems functionality is strongly related.

We can see that the definition uses words: belongs, relationship, related.

So, how do we give a cohesive class good name? That’s easy. Just describe the source of the class’ cohesion in a few specific words and you have it. That is, camel case together relationship, belonging or relation of the class members.

But what to do if you cannot come up with any short specific description? That is harder as that means that the class is not cohesive.

Going back to “Util” suffix, we can see the problem now. Util is as generic as it can be. Util is basically equivalent to “class with static methods and no fields that don’t do business”. Let’s ignore the fact that this already imply lack of object orientation. Adding class name of class with which common parameter of doesn’t make it more specific. It doesn’t describe the source of cohesion any more.

We have two possible cases:

Unfortunately in the first case the momentum is set towards the worse second case. Any programmer stumbling upon this class will see it a mere dumping group for generic methods vaguely related to the prefix.

But Apache Commons Use Utils!

Most common dependencies in Java using Utils are Apache Commons. Sometimes it is argued that since they contain Utils classes, then util classes are good design. However Apache Commons Util classes were created during the reign of Java 1.3. Which was stone age of software development. They definitely shouldn’t be considered a good design. If we are in situation of deciding by authority, I will trust the professionals on voting on Stack Flow than ancient corporate Java code.

Furthermore their utils classes are limited only to adding methods to classes outside its control - in Java Core. Such a limited use, could perhaps not be so bad.

But I can find util class easily!

This is a poor argument for making code quality worse. Somehow all other classes are searchable with non generic names. And when is class used often it is even more important for it to have a good design. Also modern IDEs have a very good search functionality. Instead of “FooUtil” we search “Foo” or “FooConverter”. Or we look at other places were such functionality may be performed and reuse what we see.


Subscribe: Twitter , Facebook , RSS
Share on: Twitter , Facebook , Google+ , LinkedIn , Reddit .