How to apply Single Responsibility Principle to a service class

Suppose we are designing a UserServiceImpl class which does CRUD (Create, Read, Update, and Delete) operations. In my view Create, Read, Update, and Delete are four reasons for a class to change. Does this class violates Single Responsibility Principle? If it violates, then should we have four classes like CreateUserServiceImpl, ReadUserServiceImpl, UpdateUserServiceImpl, and DeleteUserServiceImpl. Isn't it an overkill to have lots of classes?

Suppose I def开发者_如何学编程ine 4 interfaces each for create, read, update, and delete operations and my service class implements all the four interfaces. Now I can only have a single implementation class but by separating their interfaces I have decoupled the concepts as far as rest of the application is concerned. Is this the right way or you see some problems in it?

---

That's what I love about patterns and principles - they are a consist way for everyone to disagree on software design as much as agree :-)

My view would be to build the class in whatever way makes it a usable and easy to understand class - depending on the complexity and context within which the class lives. With a simple implementation and context, a single class will do. You could say it does adhere to the SRP because it's responsibility is to manage the CRUD operations. But if the implementation is complex, or there's a lot of shared code that would be suitable for placing in an abstract parent class, then perhaps 4 separate classes, one for each CRUD operation make more sense. it's all about how you look at it.

Patterns and principles are great things, but used incorrectly they can make a simple problem just as complex as not having them.

---

In my view Create, Read, Update, and Delete are four reasons for a class to change.

Why?

If I have a Stack class, are Push and Pop reasons for the class to change?

I don't think so. These are two standard operations people do with a stack. The same with CRUD, it is a simple, established, well-known set of operations over a data storage.

Now your underlying storage technology itself IS a reason for your class to change. That is if your CRUD implementation is hard-coded to only work with a specific instance of an MS SQL 6.0 database, then you violate SRP and the class will not be easily reusable or extandable.

With regards to 4 interfaces, that is closer to another SOLID principle, the ISP, and the need here is determined by the patterns of usage of your data storage. For example, if some classes will only need to Read from the data storage it makes total sense to extract an interface with just the Read method and request that interface as an argument to such methods. By separating this interface you can later on make a separate implementation of it. Who knows, maybe for read-only clients you can issue a better optimized query or use a memory cache, but if not -- you can just pass them the instance of your default data storage implementing this interface.

---

It does not violate the single responsibility principle till the service is responsible for the data services of a single type or business info.