what is a helper class ?

[gk]

Hi,

I want to know , what is a helper class ?

i have seen this term is frequently used in EJB, JAVA ,JSP in many
places.

and it seems to me they have different meaning in different context.

is it so ?

I found normal java classes are helper classes.

why they are called helper then ....does it help ? help to whom ?


can you please show me an example of helper class and tell me how it
helps ?

 

[Stefan Ram]

I want to know , what is a helper class ?

The authors using this term are indeed to blame, because it
just shows their lack of ability or desire to search for a
specific designation.

Sometimes, for example, it might be a class lacking proper
cohesion and just containing different (static) methods for
several purposes. A properly modelled class system should not
have "helper classes" in this sense.

Other times, it might mean something else.

why they are called helper then ....does it help ? help to whom ?

Help the user of the term not to think of a better wording.

 

[Jeffrey Schwab]

I want to know , what is a helper class ?

Someone sets out to write a class C that does something. After a while,
the author realizes it would be useful to have a separate class D to do
some of the work. The author writes class D purely to support class C;
D is never used except as part of the implementation of C. D is a
helper class.

I tend to agree with Stefan that if you need a helper class, you're
generally better off designing the class in a generalized fashion, such
that it has the potential to be useful in other contexts than the one
that inspired its creation. For example, Java has an interface called
FileFilter, but in my own code, I have Filter<T>, such that concrete
classes can extend Filter<File>, or Filter<Integer>, or whatever,
without requiring a new interface for each type of filter. If you do
this successfully, you won't end up with any pure "helper" classes. The
name HelperClass is not particularly useful from a documentation
standpoint, either.

 

[Chris Smith]

I tend to agree with Stefan that if you need a helper class, you're
generally better off designing the class in a generalized fashion, such
that it has the potential to be useful in other contexts than the one
that inspired its creation.

This depends on the situation.

If adding the new abstraction causes you to do anything differently from
the way you would do it in a more specific case, then the new way is in
that respect inferior for the originally intended purpose. It's then
time to compare that cost against the potential for re-use, and make an
informed decision. As one input into that informed decision, consider
that reuse is the most over-rated of all the frequently listed
advantages to object oriented programming.

If you do this successfully, you won't end up with any pure "helper"
classes.

Considering that a "helper" class doesn't really have much meaning
beyond a class that handles part of the work of building an abstraction,
eliminating helper classes is a rather poor goal. Well-designed object
oriented applications end up looking like a layered system of
abstractions. From the perspective of any higher level of abstraction,
*any* class belonging to a lower abstraction level can reasonably be
described as a "helper" class.

The name HelperClass is not particularly useful from a documentation
standpoint, either.

Certainly not as end-user documentation, nor as the only description of
what a class does.

 

[gk]

Someone sets out to write a class C that does something. After a while,
the author realizes it would be useful to have a separate class D to do
some of the work. The author writes class D purely to support class C;
D is never used except as part of the implementation of C. D is a
helper class.

ok.

suppose i wrote a bean class

class C
{
D mydobject;
//get

// set
}

class D
{
//get
//set

}



can we say D is now a Helper class ? look i have made D as a member
variable of class C.

 

[Jeffrey Schwab]

ok.

suppose i wrote a bean class

class C
{
D mydobject;
//get

// set
}

class D
{
//get
//set

}



can we say D is now a Helper class ? look i have made D as a member
variable of class C.

It's impossible to tell whether D is a mere helper class from the code
you have shown. The fact that C has a member of type D does not tell us
whether it is a helper, or a concrete type, or just some object with
which C interacts. For example, a graphical component can have a
reference to its parent container, but that does not make the parent
container's type a helper class for the component.

 

[Jeffrey Schwab]

This depends on the situation.

If adding the new abstraction causes you to do anything differently from
the way you would do it in a more specific case, then the new way is in
that respect inferior for the originally intended purpose. It's then
time to compare that cost against the potential for re-use, and make an
informed decision.

You have a good point, but I don't know that a generalized solution is
automatically inferior to a custom solution, any more than hand-made
goods are automatically superior to machine-manufactured alternatives.
Implementing a class in the most general possible way has the nice
side-effect of distilling the exact concept the class is meant to
represent, and helps keep fundamentally separate logic wherever it
really belongs. You're right that generalization isn't always worth the
time, though, nor is it guaranteed to improve the product as a whole.

As one input into that informed decision, consider
that reuse is the most over-rated of all the frequently listed
advantages to object oriented programming.

Is that still true? It certainly used to be. I hear more about
maintainability and logical correctness than about reusability nowadays.
It seems like fat interfaces were in vogue for a while, with classes
trying to be all things to all people in the wan hope of potential
reuse. Now we seem to have swung to the opposite extreme, with lots of
tiny, immutable objects being the hallmarks of best practice.

Considering that a "helper" class doesn't really have much meaning
beyond a class that handles part of the work of building an abstraction,
eliminating helper classes is a rather poor goal.

Nonsense. By that definition, all classes are helper classes. You
might as well throw the term away entirely. Do you actually find that
your released code has lots of classes called DoohickeyHelper? I bet it
doesn't, because you are an experienced developer, and you probably know
better.

Well-designed object
oriented applications end up looking like a layered system of
abstractions.

True. I think that's true of good procedural programs, too, but even
more so of OOP.

From the perspective of any higher level of abstraction,
*any* class belonging to a lower abstraction level can reasonably be
described as a "helper" class.

You could choose to view it that way, but I don't think it would be very
useful. Primitive ints and doubles aren't just "helper types" by virtue
of being low-level. I don't know whether anybody has assigned "helper
class" a formal definition, but this certainly isn't the way it is used
in practice.

Certainly not as end-user documentation, nor as the only description of
what a class does.

The end user shouldn't see the helper class at all, else it's part of
the public interface, and not just a helper. I think a helper is, by de
facto definition, part of the implementation code, but specifically not
part of the interface.

OTOH, if you really have a class that's just a place to dump some code
related to Foo, then I suppose FooHelper is a reasonable name. What
would bother me personally about that name is that it makes me feel the
code probably belongs in Foo proper, else it should not have been
factored into a separate type.

 

[Mark Space]

It's impossible to tell whether D is a mere helper class from the code
you have shown. The fact that C has a member of type D does not tell us

Yes, Jeffrey is correct. My Java is a little rusty still, but I think
this example might help:

// All in file MyBean.java
public class MyBean {
void setA ( ... ){...};
String getA () {...};
// Many more methods...
// ...
}
class MyBeanHelper {
// Methods here to help MyBean
}

Note that the name is unimportant. MyBeanHelper is a private class that
is only accessible from within the MyBean.java file. That means it's
probably got only one function, something to do with MyBean. Since it
isn't the MyBean class itself, it's safe to assume that it's a helper
class for MyBean.

 

[gk]

Yes, Jeffrey is correct. My Java is a little rusty still, but I think
this example might help:

// All in file MyBean.java
public class MyBean {
void setA ( ... ){...};
String getA () {...};
// Many more methods...
// ...
}
class MyBeanHelper {
// Methods here to help MyBean
}

How its going to help MyBean class ?

whats the relationship with MyBeanHelper class and MyBean class.

you told MyBeanHelper helps MyBean class...but how ?

 

[Ed]

gk skrev:

Hi,

I want to know , what is a helper class ?

i have seen this term is frequently used in EJB, JAVA ,JSP in many
places.

and it seems to me they have different meaning in different context.

is it so ?

I found normal java classes are helper classes.

why they are called helper then ....does it help ? help to whom ?


can you please show me an example of helper class and tell me how it
helps ?

Rather than the interesting replies you've received so far, here's some
boring, home-grown examples.

I'd consider the three LocalLibrary classes are helper-classes here:
http://www.edmundkirwan.com/servlet/fractal/cs1/code/all-link0.html

I'd consider the FrequencyAnalysis class a border-line helper-class
(border-line because it seems less transportable, somewhow; just a
feeling):
http://www.edmundkirwan.com/servlet/fractal/cs1/code/package100.html

..ed

 

[maas]

i think you can define a 'helper class' or a 'helper method' as
something that's not 'conceptually' connected to your application,
having no meaning attached to it, serving solely for "helping" other
classes. It has nothing to do with visibility or encapsulation
(public/private...) although you are not expected to use 'helper'
functions from any library.

maas

-
www.marcosaurelio.com

 

[Mark Space]

How its going to help MyBean class ?

Just by being there. Presumably it has some methods for MyBean to
call, but there might be other ways too.

whats the relationship with MyBeanHelper class and MyBean class.

They are in the same file. That's all.

you told MyBeanHelper helps MyBean class...but how ?

Method invocation, or instantiation. There is no formal relationship
other than both classes exist and one (the helper) has no other
relationship with any other part of the program.

 

[sparkle]

Hi,

I want to know , what is a helper class ?

i have seen this term is frequently used in EJB, JAVA ,JSP in many
places.

and it seems to me they have different meaning in different context.

is it so ?

I found normal java classes are helper classes.

why they are called helper then ....does it help ? help to whom ?


can you please show me an example of helper class and tell me how it
helps ?

Although a Java program is sometimes called a class, there are many occasions when a program requires more than one class to get its work done. A multiclass program consists of a main class and any helper classes that are needed. These helper classes earn their name by helping the main class do its work.

Link reference: http://www.informit.com/library/content.aspx?b=STY_Java2_24hours&seqNum=129