# Law of Demeter or Principle of Least Knowledge

One of the classical as well as mainly ignored principles of software engineering is the Principle of Least Knowledge aka Law of Demeter. There is many academical essays in the web about this, but the main point it’s not so easy to grasp in my opinion, so I’ll give a shot in explaining this concept from a developer perspective.

Imagine a class Customer that offers a pointer to class Wallet, so for each payment, the Customer just delegates into Wallet.

class Customer
{
public:
Customer() {
myWallet = new Wallet();
}

~Customer(){  delete myWallet; }

Wallet* getWallet() { return myWallet; }

private:
Wallet* myWallet;
};

and the class Wallet takes care of the cash by itself:

class Wallet
{
public:
Wallet()
:currentMoney(0)
{}

currentMoney += amount;
}

const int howMuchMoney() {
return currentMoney;
}

int retrieveMoney(int amount) {
int moneyTaken;
if (amount <= currentMoney) {
moneyTaken = amount;
currentMoney -= amount;
}
else {
moneyTaken = currentMoney;
currentMoney = 0;
}
return moneyTaken;
}

private:
int currentMoney;
};

For each payment, Customer just delegates to Wallet, as you see in the following lines:

int main()

{

Customer customer;
int  customerMoney = customer.getWallet()->howMuchMoney();

std::cout << "Money, " << customerMoney << "!\n"; // Money, 200!

bool waspaid = customer.getWallet()->retrieveMoney(3);

std::cout << "paid, " << (waspaid?"yes":"no") << "!\n"; //paid, yes!
std::cout << "current Money, " << customer.getWallet()->howMuchMoney() << "!\n";
//current Money, 197!

}

So far so good. By just calling customer.getWallet() class Customer shifts the work to Wallet. As Wallet know how to deal with the cash flow, all is well.

Well?, well, let’s say in an update, Customer has to deal with 2 Wallets (I’m old enough to remember the times before €, when I had to carry 2 wallets around, one with Spanish Pesetas and other with German D-Marks. Fortunately not anymore). Translating that to our code, it means the Customer need a second instance of Wallet, a situation we can code like this:

class Customer {

public:
Customer() {
myWallets.push_back(new Wallet());
myWallets.push_back(new Wallet());
}

~Customer(){
for (std::vector<Wallet*>::iterator it = myWallets.begin() ; it != myWallets.end(); ++it)
delete(*it);
}

Wallet* getWallet(unsigned int pos) {
if (pos < 2)
return myWallets[pos];
else
return NULL;
}

private:
std::vector<Wallet*> myWallets;
};

But now, the code inside Main() is broken. We need to rewrite it and tell which Wallet to get the money from.

int main()
{
Customer customer;
int customerMoney = customer.getWallet(0)->getCurrentMoney();
std::cout << "Money, " << customerMoney << "!\n"; //Money, 200!
}

You can imagine that all places where customer.GetWallet() is invoked now need correction. And depending of your code, this can be a lot of work. It’s even worse if Customer is shipped as part of a library and you have no access to the code which makes use of the Wallet.

This is not only a design flow, but sometimes also a security issue. You cannot assume that clients use your API in the way you expect:

int main()
{
//Opps!
Customer* victim = &customer;
victim->getWallet()->retrieveMoney(victim->getWallet()->howMuchMoney());
std::cout << "Money left?, " << victim->getWallet()->howMuchMoney() << "!\n";
//Money left?, 0!
}

But wait a second, why should Main() have to choose between wallets? Why should it know that there are two? This imply a level of knowledge that no one from outside Customer class should know. What’s the problem here?

• We are exposing customer’s internal structure.
• There is a high coupling between Wallet and customer’s clients.
• The relationship has-a between Customer and Wallet is de facto part of the Customer interface to the outside world.

To sum up: We are breaking the Law of Demeter.

### Law of Demeter

According to Wikipedia, The Law of Demeter for functions requires that a method m of an object O may only invoke the methods of the following kinds of objects:

O itself
m's parameters
Any objects created/instantiated within m
O's direct component objects
A global variable, accessible by O, in the scope of m

In particular, an object should avoid invoking methods of a member object returned by another method. Demeter law set restrictions on the Types of objects we can talk with. In side a method, we can only talk to friends:

Myself
Method parameters
Objects created by the method
Direct components of my class
Global variables

All other Types are strangers. It’s not allowed invoking method of an object returned by another method: The friends of my friends are strangers to me.

In the code snipped above, class Wallet is clearly a strange for Main() method.

Note: The concept of friend is used here as in plain language. Nothing to do with the keyword friend in c++

### Keeping the Law

For a better maintenance, it’s better to rewrite the code to abstract Wallet away, so Customer offers 2 methods:

HowMuchMoney
Pay

while the Wallet itself remains unexposed.

class Customer {

public:
Customer() {
myWallet = new Wallet();
}

~Customer(){  delete myWallet; }

const int howMuchMoney() {
return myWallet->howMuchMoney();
}

int pay(int amount) {
return myWallet->retrieveMoney(amount);
}

private:
Wallet* myWallet;
};

class Wallet
{
public:
Wallet()
:currentMoney(0)
{}

currentMoney += amount;
}

const int howMuchMoney() {
return currentMoney;
}

int retrieveMoney(int amount) {
int moneyTaken;
if (amount <= currentMoney) {
moneyTaken = amount;
currentMoney -= amount;
}
else {
moneyTaken = currentMoney;
currentMoney = 0;
}

return moneyTaken;
}

private:

int currentMoney;
};

### Why is this way better?

You can argue that we added more complexity in Customer class and some method of Customer class are just wrapper of Wallet’s ones. Yes, that the price of abstraction. In return, you get

• Code easier to understand: the Customer clients do not need to know about the relationship between Customer and Wallet.
• Better maintainability: If the customer decides to change the Wallet for a payment App, the customer’s client remain unaffected. also changes in the interface of the Wallet does not propagate to the clients of Customer.

But at the end, this models better the relationship in the real world. Do you handover your wallet to the shop assistant at the market when you buy your stuff? I bet you don’t. Instead you handle your wallet by yourself. It’s more complex, as you have to take the cash, check the change, and so on, but for all of us, this effort pays off.

So it should be in software design.

#### References

1. Original paper: [http://www.ccs.neu.edu/research/demeter/papers/law-of-demeter/oopsla88-law-of-demeter.pdf]

2. “The Paperboy, The Wallet,and The Law Of Demeter” . D Bock
3. “An Empirical Validation of the Benefits of Adhering to the Law of Demeter”.Guo, Würsch, Giger and Gall.
4. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Demeter]