The Open-Closed Principle, in review (2013)
The Open-Closed Principle, in review

	
	

		
		Background
I’ve been to a few talks on SOLID before. Most of the principles seem pretty reasonable to me – but I’ve never "got" the open-closed principle (OCP from here on). At CodeMash this year, I mentioned this to the wonderful Cori Drew, who said that she’d been at a user group talk where she felt it was explained well. She mailed me a link to the user group video, which I finally managed to get round to watching last week. (The OCP part is at around 1 hour 20.)
Unfortunately I still wasn’t satisfied, so I thought I’d try to hit up the relevant literature. Obviously there are umpteen guides to OCP, but I decided to start with Wikipedia, and go from there. I mentioned my continuing disappointment on Twitter, and the conversation got lively. Uncle Bob Martin (one of the two "canonical sources" for OCP) wrote a follow-up blog post, and I decided it would be worth writing one of my own, too, which you’re now reading.
I should say up-front that in some senses this blog post isn’t so much about the details of the open-closed principle, as about the importance of careful choice of terminology at all levels. As we’ll see later, when it comes to the "true" meaning of OCP, I’m pretty much with Uncle Bob: it’s motherhood and apple pie. But I believe that meaning is much more clearly stated in various other principles, and that OCP as the expression of an idea is doing more harm than good.
Reading material

Wikipedia OCP entry 
Uncle Bob Martin’s 1996 paper 
Craig Larman’s comparison with Protected Variation 
Uncle Bob’s blog response 

So what is it? (Part 1 – high level)
This is where it gets interesting. You see, there appear to be several different interpretation of the principle – some only subtly distinct, others seemingly almost unrelated. Even without looking anything up, I knew an expanded version of the name:

Modules should be open for extension and closed for modification.

The version quoted in Wikipedia and in Uncle Bob’s paper actually uses "Software entities (classes, modules, functions, etc.)" instead of modules, but I’m not sure that really helps. Now I’m not naïve enough to expect everything in a principle to be clear just from the title, but I do expect some light to be shed. In this case, unfortunately I’m none the wiser. "Open" and "closed" sound permissive and restrictive respectively, but without very concrete ideas about what "extension" and "modification" mean, it’s hard to tell much more.
Fair enough – so we read on to the next level. Unfortunately I don’t have Bertrand Meyer’s "Object-Oriented Software Construction" book (which I take to be the original), but Uncle Bob’s paper is freely available. Wikipedia’s summary of Meyer’s version is:

The idea was that once completed, the implementation of a class could only be modified to correct errors; new or changed features would require that a different class be created. That class could reuse coding from the original class through inheritance. The derived subclass might or might not have the same interface as the original class.
Meyer’s definition advocates implementation inheritance. Implementation can be reused through inheritance but interface specifications need not be. The existing implementation is closed to modifications, and new implementations need not implement the existing interface.

And Uncle Bob’s high level description is:

Modules that conform to the open-closed principle have two primary attributes.

They are "Open For Extension". This means that the behavior of the module can be extended. That we can make the module behave in new and different ways as the requirements of the application change, or to meet the needs of new applications. 
They are "Closed for Modiﬁcation". The source code of such a module is inviolate. No one is allowed to make source code changes to it. 


I immediately took a dislike to both of these descriptions. Both of them specifically say that the source code can’t be changed, and the description of Meyer’s approach to "make a change by extending a class" feels like a ghastly abuse of inheritance to me… and goes firmly against my (continued) belief in Josh Bloch’s advice of "design for inheritance or prohibit it" – where in the majority of cases, designing a class for inheritance involves an awful lot of work for little gain. Designing an interface (or pure abstract class) still involves work, but with fewer restrictions and risks.
Craig Larman’s article uses the term "closed" in a much more reasonable way, to my mind:

Also, the phrase "closed with respect to X" means that clients are not affected if X changes.

When I say "more reasonable way" I mean in terms of how I want to write code… not in terms of the use of the word "closed". This is simply not how the word "closed" is used elsewhere in my experience. In the rare cases where "closed" is used with "to", it’s usually in terms of what’s not allowed in: "This bar is closed to under 18s" for example. Indeed, that’s how I read "closed to modification" and that appears to be backed up by the two quotes which say that once a class is complete, the source code cannot be changed.
Likewise the meaning of "open for extension" seems unusual to me. I’d argue that the intuitive meaning is "can be extended" – where the use of the term "extended" certainly nods towards inheritance, even if it’s not intended meaning. If the idea is "we can make the module behave differently" – as Uncle Bob’s description suggests – then "open for extension" is a very odd way of expressing that idea. I’d even argue that in the example given later, it’s not the "open" module that behaves differently – it’s the combination of the module and its collaborators, acting as a unified program, which behaves differently after some aspects are modified.
So what is it? (Part 2 – more detail)
Reading on through the rest of Uncle Bob’s paper, the ideas become much more familiar. There’s a reasonable example of a function which is asked to draw a collection of shapes: the bad code is aware of all the types of shape available, and handles each one separately. The good code uses an abstraction where each shape (Circle, Square) knows how to draw itself and inherits from a common base class (Shape). Great stuff… but what’s that got to do with what was described above? How are the concepts of "open" and "closed" clarified?
The answer is that they’re not. The word "open" doesn’t occur anywhere in the rest of the text, other than as part of the term "open-closed principle" or as a label for "open client". While it’s perhaps rather easier to see this in hindsight, I suspect that any time a section which is meant to clarify a concept doesn’t use some of the key words used to describe the concept in a nutshell, that description should be treated as suspect.
The word "closed" appears more often, but only in terms of "closed against" which is never actually defined. (Is "closed against" the same as "closed for"?) Without Craig Larman’s explanation, sentences like this make little sense to me:

The function DrawAllShapes does not conform to the open-closed principle because it cannot be closed against new kinds of shapes.

Even Craig’s explanation feels somewhat at odds with Uncle Bob’s usage, as it talks about clients being affected. This is another of the issues I have with the original two descriptions: they talk about a single module being open/closed, whereas we’re dealing with abstractions where there are naturally at least two pieces of code involved (and usually three). Craig’s description of changes in one module not affecting clients is describing a relationship – which is a far more useful way of approaching things. Even thinking about the shape example, I’m getting increasingly confused about exactly what’s open and what’s closed. It feels to me like it’s neither the concrete shape classes nor the shape-drawing code which is open or closed – it’s the interface between the two; the abstract Shape class. After all, these statements seem reasonable:

The Shape class is open for extension: there can be many different concrete subclasses, and code which only depends on the Shape class doesn’t need to know about them in order to use them when they are presented as shapes. 
The Shape class is closed for modification: no existing functions can be removed (as they may be relied on by existing clients) and no new pure virtual functions can be added (as they will not be implemented by existing subclasses). 

It’s still not how I’d choose to express it, but at least it feels like it makes sense in very concrete terms. It doesn’t work well with how Uncle Bob uses the term "closed" though, so I still think I may be on a different page when it comes to that meaning. (Uncle Bob does also make the point that any significant program isn’t going to adhere to the principle completely in every part of the code – but in order to judge where it’s appropriate to be closed, I do really need to understand what being closed means.)
Just to make it crystal clear, other than the use of the word "closed," the low-level description of what’s good and what’s bad, and why, is absolutely fine. I really have no problems with it. As I said at the start, the idea being expressed makes perfect sense. It just doesn’t work (for me) when expressed in the terms used at a higher level.
Protected Variation
By contrast, let’s look at a closely related idea which I hadn’t actually heard about before I started all this research: protected variation. This name was apparently coined by Alistair Cockburn, and Craig Larman either quotes or paraphrases this as:

Identify points of predicted variation and create a stable interface around them.

Now that’s a description I can immediately identify with. Every single word of it makes sense to me, even without reading any more of Craig’s article. (I have read the rest, obviously, and I’d encourage others to do so.) This goes back to Josh Bloch’s "design for inheritance or prohibit it" motto: identifying points of predicted variation is hard, and it’s necessary in order to create a stable interface which is neither too constrictive for implementations nor too woolly for clients. With class inheritance there’s the additional concern of interactions within a class hierarchy when a virtual method is called.
So in Uncle Bob’s Shape example, all there is is a point of predicted variation: how the shape is drawn. PV suggests the converse as well – that as well as points of predicted variation, there may be points which will not vary. That’s inherent in the API to some extent – every shape must be capable of drawing itself with no further information (the Draw method has no parameters) but it could also be extended to non-virtual aspects. For example, we could decide that every shape has one (and only one) colour, which will not change during its lifetime. That can be implemented in the Shape class itself – with no predicted variation, there’s no need of polymorphism.
Of course, the costs of incorrectly predicting variation can be high: if you predict more variation than is actually warranted, you waste effort on over-engineering. If you predict less variation than is required, you usually end up either having to change quite a lot of code (if it’s all under your control) or having to come up with an "extended" interface. There’s the other aspect of shirking responsibility on this predicted variation to some extent, by making some parts "optional" – that’s like saying, "We know implementations will vary here in an incompatible way, but we’re not going to try to deal with it in the API. Good luck!" This usually arises in collection APIs, around mutating operations which may or may not be valid (based on whether the collection is mutable or not).
Not only is PV easy to understand – it’s easy to remember for its comedy value, at least if you’re a fan of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. Remember Vroomfondel and Majikthise, the philosophers who invaded Cruxwan University just as Deep Thought was about to announce the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything? Even though they were arguing with programmers, it sounds like they were actually the ones with software engineering experience:

"I’ll tell you what the problem is mate," said Majikthise, "demarcation, that’s the problem!"
[…]
"That’s right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

That sounds like a pretty good alternative description of Protected Variation to me.
Conclusion
So, that’s what I don’t like about OCP. The name, and the broad description – both of which I believe to be unhelpful, and poorly understood. (While I’ve obviously considered the possibility that I’m the only one who finds it confusing, I’ve heard enough variation in the explanations of it to suggest that I’m really not the only one.)
That sounds like a triviality, but I think it’s rather important. I suspect that OCP has been at least mentioned in passing in thousands if not tends of thousands of user groups and conferences. The purpose of such gatherings is largely for communication of ideas – and when a sound idea is poorly expressed, an opportunity is wasted. I suspect that any time Uncle Bob has personally presented it in detail, the idea has sunk in appropriately – possibly after some initial confusion about the terminology. But what about all the misinterpretations and "glancing blows" where OCP is only mentioned as a good thing that clearly everyone wants to adhere to, with no explanation beyond the obscure ones described in part one above? How many times did they shed more confusion than light?
I believe more people are familiar with Uncle Bob’s work on OCP than Bertrand Meyer’s. Further, I suspect that if Bertrand Meyer hadn’t already introduced the name and brief description, Uncle Bob may well have come up with far more descriptive ones himself, and the world would have been a better place. Fortunately, we do have a better name and description for a concept which is at least very closely related. (I’m not going to claim PV and OCP are identical, but close enough for a lot of uses.)
Ultimately, words matter – particularly when it comes to single sentence descriptions which act as soundbytes; shorthand for communicating a complex idea. It’s not about whether the more complex idea can be understood after carefully reading thorough explanations. It’s about whether the shorthand conveys the essence of the idea in a clear way. On that front, I believe the open-closed principle fails – which is why I’d love to see it retired in favour of more accessible ones.
Note for new readers
I suspect this post may end up being read more widely than most of my blog entries. If you’re going to leave a comment, please be aware that the CAPTCHA doesn’t work on Chrome. I’m aware of this, but can’t fix it myself. If you right-click on the broken image and select "open in new tab" you should get a working image. Apologies for the inconvenience.
	
	
	