Inheritance and Composition
Inheritance and Composition
OOP Guide
Table of Contents
Free Bonus: Click here to get access to a free Python OOP Cheat
Sheet that points you to the best tutorials, videos, and books to learn more
about Object-Oriented Programming with Python.
Remove ads
What’s Inheritance?
Let’s say you have a base class Animal and you derive from it to create
a Horse class. The inheritance relationship states that a Horse is an Animal. This
means that Horse inherits the interface and implementation of Animal,
and Horse objects can be used to replace Animal objects in the application.
This is known as the Liskov substitution principle. The principle states that “in
a computer program, if S is a subtype of T, then objects of type T may be
replaced with objects of type S without altering any of the desired properties of
the program”.
You’ll see in this article why you should always follow the Liskov substitution
principle when creating your class hierarchies, and the problems you’ll run into
if you don’t.
What’s Composition?
In the diagram above, the 1 represents that the Composite class contains one
object of type Component. Cardinality can be expressed in the following ways:
Note: Classes that contain objects of other classes are usually referred to as
composites, where classes that are used to create more complex types are
referred to as components.
For example, your Horse class can be composed by another object of type Tail.
Composition allows you to express that relationship by saying a Horse has
a Tail.
Composition enables you to reuse code by adding objects to other objects, as
opposed to inheriting the interface and implementation of other classes.
Both Horse and Dog classes can leverage the functionality of Tail through
composition without deriving one class from the other.
When you write Python code using classes, you are using inheritance even if
you don’t know you’re using it. Let’s take a look at what that means.
The easiest way to see inheritance in Python is to jump into the Python
interactive shell and write a little bit of code. You’ll start by writing the simplest
class possible:
>>>
>>> class MyClass:
... pass
...
You declared a class MyClass that doesn’t do much, but it will illustrate the
most basic inheritance concepts. Now that you have the class declared, you
can use the dir() function to list its members:
>>>
>>> c = MyClass()
>>> dir(c)
['__class__', '__delattr__', '__dict__', '__dir__', '__doc__', '__eq__',
'__format__', '__ge__', '__getattribute__', '__gt__', '__hash__', '__init__',
'__init_subclass__', '__le__', '__lt__', '__module__', '__ne__', '__new__',
'__reduce__', '__reduce_ex__', '__repr__', '__setattr__', '__sizeof__',
'__str__', '__subclasshook__', '__weakref__']
returns a list of all the members in the specified object. You have not
dir()
declared any members in MyClass, so where is the list coming from? You can
find out using the interactive interpreter:
>>>
>>> o = object()
>>> dir(o)
['__class__', '__delattr__', '__dir__', '__doc__', '__eq__', '__format__',
'__ge__', '__getattribute__', '__gt__', '__hash__', '__init__',
'__init_subclass__', '__le__', '__lt__', '__ne__', '__new__', '__reduce__',
'__reduce_ex__', '__repr__', '__setattr__', '__sizeof__', '__str__',
'__subclasshook__']
As you can see, the two lists are nearly identical. There are some additional
members in MyClass like __dict__ and __weakref__, but every single member of
the object class is also present in MyClass.
This is because every class you create in Python implicitly derives from object.
You could be more explicit and write class MyClass(object):, but it’s redundant and
unnecessary.
Note: In Python 2, you have to explicitly derive from object for reasons beyond
the scope of this article, but you can read about it in the New-style and classic
classes section of the Python 2 documentation.
Every class that you create in Python will implicitly derive from object. The
exception to this rule are classes used to indicate errors by raising
an exception.
You can see the problem using the Python interactive interpreter:
>>>
>>> class MyError:
... pass
...
>>> raise MyError()
BaseException is a base class provided for all error types. To create a new error
type, you must derive your class from BaseException or one of its derived
classes. The convention in Python is to derive your custom error types
from Exception, which in turn derives from BaseException.
>>>
>>> class MyError(Exception):
... pass
...
>>> raise MyError()
The HR system needs to process payroll for the company’s employees, but
there are different types of employees depending on how their payroll is
calculated.
class PayrollSystem:
def calculate_payroll(self, employees):
print('Calculating Payroll')
print('===================')
for employee in employees:
print(f'Payroll for: {employee.id} - {employee.name}')
print(f'- Check amount: {employee.calculate_payroll()}')
print('')
The PayrollSystem implements a .calculate_payroll() method that takes a collection
of employees and prints their id, name, and check amount using
the .calculate_payroll() method exposed on each employee object.
Now, you implement a base class Employee that handles the common interface
for every employee type:
# In hr.py
class Employee:
def __init__(self, id, name):
self.id = id
self.name = name
Employee is the base class for all employee types. It is constructed with
an id and a name. What you are saying is that every Employee must have
an id assigned as well as a name.
For example, administrative workers have a fixed salary, so every week they
get paid the same amount:
# In hr.py
class SalaryEmployee(Employee):
def __init__(self, id, name, weekly_salary):
super().__init__(id, name)
self.weekly_salary = weekly_salary
def calculate_payroll(self):
return self.weekly_salary
You create a derived class SalaryEmployee that inherits Employee. The class is
initialized with the id and name required by the base class, and you
use super() to initialize the members of the base class. You can read all
about super() in Supercharge Your Classes With Python super().
The company also employs manufacturing workers that are paid by the hour,
so you add an HourlyEmployee to the HR system:
# In hr.py
class HourlyEmployee(Employee):
def __init__(self, id, name, hours_worked, hour_rate):
super().__init__(id, name)
self.hours_worked = hours_worked
self.hour_rate = hour_rate
def calculate_payroll(self):
return self.hours_worked * self.hour_rate
The HourlyEmployee class is initialized with id and name, like the base class, plus
the hours_worked and the hour_rate required to calculate the payroll.
The .calculate_payroll() method is implemented by returning the hours worked
times the hour rate.
Finally, the company employs sales associates that are paid through a fixed
salary plus a commission based on their sales, so you create
a CommissionEmployee class:
# In hr.py
class CommissionEmployee(SalaryEmployee):
def __init__(self, id, name, weekly_salary, commission):
super().__init__(id, name, weekly_salary)
self.commission = commission
def calculate_payroll(self):
fixed = super().calculate_payroll()
return fixed + self.commission
You derive CommissionEmployee from SalaryEmployee because both classes have
a weekly_salary to consider. At the same time, CommissionEmployee is initialized
with a commission value that is based on the sales for the employee.
The problem with accessing the property directly is that if the implementation
of SalaryEmployee.calculate_payroll() changes, then you’ll have to also change the
implementation of CommissionEmployee.calculate_payroll(). It’s better to rely on the
already implemented method in the base class and extend the functionality as
needed.
You created your first class hierarchy for the system. The UML diagram of the
classes looks like this:
The diagram shows the inheritance hierarchy of the classes. The derived
classes implement the IPayrollCalculator interface, which is required by
the PayrollSystem. The PayrollSystem.calculate_payroll() implementation requires that
the employee objects passed contain an id, name,
and calculate_payroll() implementation.
Interfaces are represented similarly to classes with the word interface above
the interface name. Interface names are usually prefixed with a capital I.
The application creates its employees and passes them to the payroll system
to process payroll:
# In program.py
import hr
$ python program.py
Calculating Payroll
===================
Payroll for: 1 - John Smith
- Check amount: 1500
Notice how the Employee base class doesn’t define a .calculate_payroll() method.
This means that if you were to create a plain Employee object and pass it to
the PayrollSystem, then you’d get an error. You can try it in the Python
interactive interpreter:
>>>
>>> import hr
>>> employee = hr.Employee(1, 'Invalid')
>>> payroll_system = hr.PayrollSystem()
>>> payroll_system.calculate_payroll([employee])
The Employee class in the example above is what is called an abstract base
class. Abstract base classes exist to be inherited, but never instantiated.
Python provides the abc module to define abstract base classes.
You can use leading underscores in your class name to communicate that
objects of that class should not be created. Underscores provide a friendly
way to prevent misuse of your code, but they don’t prevent eager users from
creating instances of that class.
The abc module in the Python standard library provides functionality to prevent
creating objects from abstract base classes.
You can modify the implementation of the Employee class to ensure that it can’t
be instantiated:
# In hr.py
@abstractmethod
def calculate_payroll(self):
pass
You derive Employee from ABC, making it an abstract base class. Then, you
decorate the .calculate_payroll() method with the @abstractmethod decorator.
1. You’re telling users of the module that objects of type Employee can’t be
created.
2. You’re telling other developers working on the hr module that if they
derive from Employee, then they must override
the .calculate_payroll() abstract method.
You can see that objects of type Employee can’t be created using the
interactive interpreter:
>>>
>>> import hr
>>> employee = hr.Employee(1, 'abstract')
When you derive one class from another, the derived class inherits both:
1. The base class interface: The derived class inherits all the methods,
properties, and attributes of the base class.
2. The base class implementation: The derived class inherits the code
that implements the class interface.
Most of the time, you’ll want to inherit the implementation of a class, but you
will want to implement multiple interfaces, so your objects can be used in
different situations.
Modern programming languages are designed with this basic concept in mind.
They allow you to inherit from a single class, but you can implement multiple
interfaces.
In Python, you don’t have to explicitly declare an interface. Any object that
implements the desired interface can be used in place of another object. This
is known as duck typing. Duck typing is usually explained as “if it behaves
like a duck, then it’s a duck.”
To illustrate this, you will now add a DisgruntledEmployee class to the example
above which doesn’t derive from Employee:
# In disgruntled.py
class DisgruntledEmployee:
def __init__(self, id, name):
self.id = id
self.name = name
def calculate_payroll(self):
return 1000000
The DisgruntledEmployee class doesn’t derive from Employee, but it exposes the
same interface required by the PayrollSystem.
The PayrollSystem.calculate_payroll() requires a list of objects that implement the
following interface:
# In program.py
import hr
import disgruntled
$ python program.py
Calculating Payroll
===================
Payroll for: 1 - John Smith
- Check amount: 1500
Since you don’t have to derive from a specific class for your objects to be
reusable by the program, you may be asking why you should use inheritance
instead of just implementing the desired interface. The following rules may
help you:
You can now clean up the example above to move onto the next topic. You
can delete the disgruntled.py file and then modify the hr module to its original
state:
# In hr.py
class PayrollSystem:
def calculate_payroll(self, employees):
print('Calculating Payroll')
print('===================')
for employee in employees:
print(f'Payroll for: {employee.id} - {employee.name}')
print(f'- Check amount: {employee.calculate_payroll()}')
print('')
class Employee:
def __init__(self, id, name):
self.id = id
self.name = name
class SalaryEmployee(Employee):
def __init__(self, id, name, weekly_salary):
super().__init__(id, name)
self.weekly_salary = weekly_salary
def calculate_payroll(self):
return self.weekly_salary
class HourlyEmployee(Employee):
def __init__(self, id, name, hours_worked, hour_rate):
super().__init__(id, name)
self.hours_worked = hours_worked
self.hour_rate = hour_rate
def calculate_payroll(self):
return self.hours_worked * self.hour_rate
class CommissionEmployee(SalaryEmployee):
def __init__(self, id, name, weekly_salary, commission):
super().__init__(id, name, weekly_salary)
self.commission = commission
def calculate_payroll(self):
fixed = super().calculate_payroll()
return fixed + self.commission
You removed the import of the abc module since the Employee class doesn’t
need to be abstract. You also removed the abstract calculate_payroll() method
from it since it doesn’t provide any implementation.
Basically, you are inheriting the implementation of the id and name attributes of
the Employee class in your derived classes. Since .calculate_payroll() is just an
interface to the PayrollSystem.calculate_payroll() method, you don’t need to
implement it in the Employee base class.
Notice how the CommissionEmployee class derives from SalaryEmployee. This
means that CommissionEmployee inherits the implementation and interface
of SalaryEmployee. You can see how
the CommissionEmployee.calculate_payroll() method leverages the base class
implementation because it relies on the result from super().calculate_payroll() to
implement its own version.
If you are not careful, inheritance can lead you to a huge hierarchical structure
of classes that is hard to understand and maintain. This is known as the class
explosion problem.
Managers: They walk around yelling at people telling them what to do.
They are salaried employees and make more money.
Secretaries: They do all the paper work for managers and ensure that
everything gets billed and payed on time. They are also salaried
employees but make less money.
Sales employees: They make a lot of phone calls to sell products.
They have a salary, but they also get commissions for sales.
Factory workers: They manufacture the products for the company.
They are paid by the hour.
With those requirements, you start to see that Employee and its derived classes
might belong somewhere other than the hr module because now they’re also
used by the ProductivitySystem.
# In employees.py
class Employee:
def __init__(self, id, name):
self.id = id
self.name = name
class SalaryEmployee(Employee):
def __init__(self, id, name, weekly_salary):
super().__init__(id, name)
self.weekly_salary = weekly_salary
def calculate_payroll(self):
return self.weekly_salary
class HourlyEmployee(Employee):
def __init__(self, id, name, hours_worked, hour_rate):
super().__init__(id, name)
self.hours_worked = hours_worked
self.hour_rate = hour_rate
def calculate_payroll(self):
return self.hours_worked * self.hour_rate
class CommissionEmployee(SalaryEmployee):
def __init__(self, id, name, weekly_salary, commission):
super().__init__(id, name, weekly_salary)
self.commission = commission
def calculate_payroll(self):
fixed = super().calculate_payroll()
return fixed + self.commission
The implementation remains the same, but you move the classes to
the employee module. Now, you change your program to support the change:
# In program.py
import hr
import employees
$ python program.py
Calculating Payroll
===================
Payroll for: 1 - John Smith
- Check amount: 1500
# In employees.py
class Manager(SalaryEmployee):
def work(self, hours):
print(f'{self.name} screams and yells for {hours} hours.')
class Secretary(SalaryEmployee):
def work(self, hours):
print(f'{self.name} expends {hours} hours doing office paperwork.')
class SalesPerson(CommissionEmployee):
def work(self, hours):
print(f'{self.name} expends {hours} hours on the phone.')
class FactoryWorker(HourlyEmployee):
def work(self, hours):
print(f'{self.name} manufactures gadgets for {hours} hours.')
First, you add a Manager class that derives from SalaryEmployee. The class
exposes a method work() that will be used by the productivity system. The
method takes the hours the employee worked.
Then you add Secretary, SalesPerson, and FactoryWorker and then implement
the work() interface, so they can be used by the productivity system.
# In productivity.py
class ProductivitySystem:
def track(self, employees, hours):
print('Tracking Employee Productivity')
print('==============================')
for employee in employees:
employee.work(hours)
print('')
The class tracks employees in the track() method that takes a list of employees
and the number of hours to track. You can now add the productivity system to
your program:
# In program.py
import hr
import employees
import productivity
$ python program.py
Calculating Payroll
===================
Payroll for: 1 - Mary Poppins
- Check amount: 3000
The program works as expected, but you had to add four new classes to
support the changes. As new requirements come, your class hierarchy will
inevitably grow, leading to the class explosion problem where your hierarchies
will become so big that they’ll be hard to understand and maintain.
This approach puts some constraints in your designs. You can only inherit the
implementation of one class by directly deriving from it. You can implement
multiple interfaces, but you can’t inherit the implementation of multiple
classes.
This constraint is good for software design because it forces you to design
your classes with fewer dependencies on each other. You will see later in this
article that you can leverage multiple implementations through composition,
which makes software more flexible. This section, however, is about multiple
inheritance, so let’s take a look at how it works.
It turns out that sometimes temporary secretaries are hired when there is too
much paperwork to do. The TemporarySecretary class performs the role of
a Secretary in the context of the ProductivitySystem, but for payroll purposes, it is
an HourlyEmployee.
You look at your class design. It has grown a little bit, but you can still
understand how it works. It seems you have two options:
Then, you remember that Python supports multiple inheritance, so you decide
to derive from both Secretary and HourlyEmployee:
# In employees.py
import hr
import employees
import productivity
$ python program.py
This is because you derived TemporarySecretary first from Secretary and then
from HourlyEmployee, so the interpreter is trying to use Secretary.__init__() to
initialize the object.
Okay, let’s reverse it:
$ python program.py
# In employees.py
$ python program.py
You can evaluate the TemporarySecretary class MRO using the interactive
interpreter:
>>>
>>> from employees import TemporarySecretary
>>> TemporarySecretary.__mro__
(<class 'employees.TemporarySecretary'>,
<class 'employees.HourlyEmployee'>,
<class 'employees.Secretary'>,
<class 'employees.SalaryEmployee'>,
<class 'employees.Employee'>,
<class 'object'>
)
The MRO shows the order in which Python is going to look for a matching
attribute or method. In the example, this is what happens when we create
the TemporarySecretary object:
You can bypass the MRO by reversing the inheritance order and directly
calling HourlyEmployee.__init__() as follows:
$ python program.py
Calculating Payroll
===================
Payroll for: 1 - Mary Poppins
- Check amount: 3000
def calculate_payroll(self):
return HourlyEmployee.calculate_payroll(self)
The calculate_payroll() method directly invokes HourlyEmployee.calculate_payroll()
to
ensure that you get the correct result. You can run the program again to see it
working:
$ python program.py
Calculating Payroll
===================
Payroll for: 1 - Mary Poppins
- Check amount: 3000
As you can see, multiple inheritance can be confusing, especially when you
run into the diamond problem.
The following diagram shows the diamond problem in your class hierarchy:
The diagram shows the diamond problem with the current class
design. TemporarySecretary uses multiple inheritance to derive from two classes
that ultimately also derive from Employee. This causes two paths to reach
the Employee base class, which is something you want to avoid in your designs.
The diamond problem appears when you’re using multiple inheritance and
deriving from two classes that have a common base class. This can cause the
wrong version of a method to be called.
Still, when you run into the diamond problem, it’s better to re-think the design.
You will now make some changes to leverage multiple inheritance, avoiding
the diamond problem.
# In productivity.py
class ProductivitySystem:
def track(self, employees, hours):
print('Tracking Employee Productivity')
print('==============================')
for employee in employees:
result = employee.work(hours)
print(f'{employee.name}: {result}')
print('')
class ManagerRole:
def work(self, hours):
return f'screams and yells for {hours} hours.'
class SecretaryRole:
def work(self, hours):
return f'expends {hours} hours doing office paperwork.'
class SalesRole:
def work(self, hours):
return f'expends {hours} hours on the phone.'
class FactoryRole:
def work(self, hours):
return f'manufactures gadgets for {hours} hours.'
The productivity module implements the ProductivitySystem class, as well as the
related roles it supports. The classes implement the work() interface required
by the system, but they don’t derived from Employee.
# In hr.py
class PayrollSystem:
def calculate_payroll(self, employees):
print('Calculating Payroll')
print('===================')
for employee in employees:
print(f'Payroll for: {employee.id} - {employee.name}')
print(f'- Check amount: {employee.calculate_payroll()}')
print('')
class SalaryPolicy:
def __init__(self, weekly_salary):
self.weekly_salary = weekly_salary
def calculate_payroll(self):
return self.weekly_salary
class HourlyPolicy:
def __init__(self, hours_worked, hour_rate):
self.hours_worked = hours_worked
self.hour_rate = hour_rate
def calculate_payroll(self):
return self.hours_worked * self.hour_rate
class CommissionPolicy(SalaryPolicy):
def __init__(self, weekly_salary, commission):
super().__init__(weekly_salary)
self.commission = commission
def calculate_payroll(self):
fixed = super().calculate_payroll()
return fixed + self.commission
The hr module implements the PayrollSystem, which calculates payroll for the
employees. It also implements the policy classes for payroll. As you can see,
the policy classes don’t derive from Employee anymore.
You can now add the necessary classes to the employee module:
# In employees.py
from hr import (
SalaryPolicy,
CommissionPolicy,
HourlyPolicy
)
from productivity import (
ManagerRole,
SecretaryRole,
SalesRole,
FactoryRole
)
class Employee:
def __init__(self, id, name):
self.id = id
self.name = name
class Manager(Employee, ManagerRole, SalaryPolicy):
def __init__(self, id, name, weekly_salary):
SalaryPolicy.__init__(self, weekly_salary)
super().__init__(id, name)
Notice that you still need to explicitly initialize the salary policies in the
constructors. You probably saw that the initializations
of Manager and Secretary are identical. Also, the initializations
of FactoryWorker and TemporarySecretary are the same.
You will not want to have this kind of code duplication in more complex
designs, so you have to be careful when designing class hierarchies.
Here’s the UML diagram for the new design:
$ python program.py
Calculating Payroll
===================
Payroll for: 1 - Mary Poppins
- Check amount: 3000
Composition in Python
Composition is an object oriented design concept that models a has
a relationship. In composition, a class known as composite contains an
object of another class known to as component. In other words, a composite
class has a component of another class.
1. id to identify an employee.
2. name to contain the name of the employee.
These two attributes are objects that the Employee class has. Therefore, you
can say that an Employee has an id and has a name.
# In contacts.py
class Address:
def __init__(self, street, city, state, zipcode, street2=''):
self.street = street
self.street2 = street2
self.city = city
self.state = state
self.zipcode = zipcode
def __str__(self):
lines = [self.street]
if self.street2:
lines.append(self.street2)
lines.append(f'{self.city}, {self.state} {self.zipcode}')
return '\n'.join(lines)
You implemented a basic address class that contains the usual components
for an address. You made the street2 attribute optional because not all
addresses will have that component.
You implemented __str__() to provide a pretty representation of an Address. You
can see this implementation in the interactive interpreter:
>>>
>>> from contacts import Address
>>> address = Address('55 Main St.', 'Concord', 'NH', '03301')
>>> print(address)
55 Main St.
Concord, NH 03301
When you print() the addressvariable, the special method __str__() is invoked.
Since you overloaded the method to return a string formatted as an address,
you get a nice, readable representation. Operator and Function Overloading in
Custom Python Classes gives a good overview of the special methods
available in classes that can be implemented to customize the behavior of
your objects.
You can now add the Address to the Employee class through composition:
# In employees.py
class Employee:
def __init__(self, id, name):
self.id = id
self.name = name
self.address = None
You initialize the address attribute to None for now to make it optional, but by
doing that, you can now assign an Address to an Employee. Also notice that
there is no reference in the employee module to the contacts module.
You can now modify the PayrollSystem class to leverage the address attribute
in Employee:
# In hr.py
class PayrollSystem:
def calculate_payroll(self, employees):
print('Calculating Payroll')
print('===================')
for employee in employees:
print(f'Payroll for: {employee.id} - {employee.name}')
print(f'- Check amount: {employee.calculate_payroll()}')
if employee.address:
print('- Sent to:')
print(employee.address)
print('')
You check to see if the employee object has an address, and if it does, you print
it. You can now modify the program to assign some addresses to the
employees:
# In program.py
import hr
import employees
import productivity
import contacts
$ python program.py
Calculating Payroll
===================
Payroll for: 1 - Mary Poppins
- Check amount: 3000
- Sent to:
121 Admin Rd
Concord, NH 03301
The Employee class leverages the implementation of the Address class without
any knowledge of what an Address object is or how it’s represented. This type
of design is so flexible that you can change the Address class without any
impact to the Employee class.
Take a look at the multiple inheritance example above. Imagine how new
payroll policies will affect the design. Try to picture what the class hierarchy
will look like if new roles are needed. As you saw before, relying too heavily
on inheritance can lead to class explosion.
The biggest problem is not so much the number of classes in your design, but
how tightly coupled the relationships between those classes are. Tightly
coupled classes affect each other when changes are introduced.
In this section, you are going to use composition to implement a better design
that still fits the requirements of the PayrollSystem and the ProductivitySystem.
# In productivity.py
class ProductivitySystem:
def __init__(self):
self._roles = {
'manager': ManagerRole,
'secretary': SecretaryRole,
'sales': SalesRole,
'factory': FactoryRole,
}
It also exposes the previous functionality in the .track() method, where given a
list of employees it tracks the productivity of those employees.
# In productivity.py
class ManagerRole:
def perform_duties(self, hours):
return f'screams and yells for {hours} hours.'
class SecretaryRole:
def perform_duties(self, hours):
return f'does paperwork for {hours} hours.'
class SalesRole:
def perform_duties(self, hours):
return f'expends {hours} hours on the phone.'
class FactoryRole:
def perform_duties(self, hours):
return f'manufactures gadgets for {hours} hours.'
Each of the roles you implemented expose a .perform_duties() that takes the
number of hours worked. The methods return a string representing the duties.
The role classes are independent of each other, but they expose the same
interface, so they are interchangeable. You’ll see later how they are used in
the application.
# In hr.py
class PayrollSystem:
def __init__(self):
self._employee_policies = {
1: SalaryPolicy(3000),
2: SalaryPolicy(1500),
3: CommissionPolicy(1000, 100),
4: HourlyPolicy(15),
5: HourlyPolicy(9)
}
# In hr.py
class PayrollPolicy:
def __init__(self):
self.hours_worked = 0
class SalaryPolicy(PayrollPolicy):
def __init__(self, weekly_salary):
super().__init__()
self.weekly_salary = weekly_salary
def calculate_payroll(self):
return self.weekly_salary
class HourlyPolicy(PayrollPolicy):
def __init__(self, hour_rate):
super().__init__()
self.hour_rate = hour_rate
def calculate_payroll(self):
return self.hours_worked * self.hour_rate
class CommissionPolicy(SalaryPolicy):
def __init__(self, weekly_salary, commission_per_sale):
super().__init__(weekly_salary)
self.commission_per_sale = commission_per_sale
@property
def commission(self):
sales = self.hours_worked / 5
return sales * self.commission_per_sale
def calculate_payroll(self):
fixed = super().calculate_payroll()
return fixed + self.commission
You first implement a PayrollPolicyclass that serves as a base class for all the
payroll policies. This class tracks the hours_worked, which is common to all
payroll policies.
The other policy classes derive from PayrollPolicy. We use inheritance here
because we want to leverage the implementation of PayrollPolicy.
Also, SalaryPolicy, HourlyPolicy, and CommissionPolicy are a PayrollPolicy.
# In contacts.py
class AddressBook:
def __init__(self):
self._employee_addresses = {
1: Address('121 Admin Rd.', 'Concord', 'NH', '03301'),
2: Address('67 Paperwork Ave', 'Manchester', 'NH', '03101'),
3: Address('15 Rose St', 'Concord', 'NH', '03301', 'Apt. B-1'),
4: Address('39 Sole St.', 'Concord', 'NH', '03301'),
5: Address('99 Mountain Rd.', 'Concord', 'NH', '03301'),
}
# In contacts.py
class Address:
def __init__(self, street, city, state, zipcode, street2=''):
self.street = street
self.street2 = street2
self.city = city
self.state = state
self.zipcode = zipcode
def __str__(self):
lines = [self.street]
if self.street2:
lines.append(self.street2)
lines.append(f'{self.city}, {self.state} {self.zipcode}')
return '\n'.join(lines)
The class manages the address components and provides a pretty
representation of an address.
So far, the new classes have been extended to support more functionality, but
there are no significant changes to the previous design. This is going to
change with the design of the employees module and its classes.
# In employees.py
class EmployeeDatabase:
def __init__(self):
self._employees = [
{
'id': 1,
'name': 'Mary Poppins',
'role': 'manager'
},
{
'id': 2,
'name': 'John Smith',
'role': 'secretary'
},
{
'id': 3,
'name': 'Kevin Bacon',
'role': 'sales'
},
{
'id': 4,
'name': 'Jane Doe',
'role': 'factory'
},
{
'id': 5,
'name': 'Robin Williams',
'role': 'secretary'
},
]
self.productivity = ProductivitySystem()
self.payroll = PayrollSystem()
self.employee_addresses = AddressBook()
@property
def employees(self):
return [self._create_employee(**data) for data in self._employees]
# In employees.py
class Employee:
def __init__(self, id, name, address, role, payroll):
self.id = id
self.name = name
self.address = address
self.role = role
self.payroll = payroll
def calculate_payroll(self):
return self.payroll.calculate_payroll()
The Employee class is initialized with the id, name, and address attributes. It also
requires the productivity role for the employee and the payroll policy.
The class exposes a .work() method that takes the hours worked. This method
first retrieves the duties from the role. In other words, it delegates to
the role object to perform its duties.
In the same way, it delegates to the payroll object to track the work hours.
The payroll, as you saw, uses those hours to calculate the payroll if needed.
productivity_system = ProductivitySystem()
payroll_system = PayrollSystem()
employee_database = EmployeeDatabase()
employees = employee_database.employees
productivity_system.track(employees, 40)
payroll_system.calculate_payroll(employees)
You can run the program to see its output:
$ python program.py
Calculating Payroll
===================
Payroll for: 1 - Mary Poppins
- Check amount: 3000
- Sent to:
121 Admin Rd.
Concord, NH 03301
Policy-based design was introduced in the book Modern C++ Design, and it
uses template metaprogramming in C++ to achieve the results.
Python does not support templates, but you can achieve similar results using
composition, as you saw in the example above.
This type of design gives you all the flexibility you’ll need as requirements
change. Imagine you need to change the way payroll is calculated for an
object at run-time.
If your design relies on inheritance, you need to find a way to change the type
of an object to change its behavior. With composition, you just need to change
the policy the object uses.
Imagine that our manager all of a sudden becomes a temporary employee that
gets paid by the hour. You can modify the object during the execution of the
program in the following way:
# In program.py
productivity_system = ProductivitySystem()
payroll_system = PayrollSystem()
employee_database = EmployeeDatabase()
employees = employee_database.employees
manager = employees[0]
manager.payroll = HourlyPolicy(55)
productivity_system.track(employees, 40)
payroll_system.calculate_payroll(employees)
The program gets the employee list from the EmployeeDatabase and retrieves
the first employee, which is the manager we want. Then it creates a
new HourlyPolicy initialized at $55 per hour and assigns it to the manager
object.
The new policy is now used by the PayrollSystem modifying the existing
behavior. You can run the program again to see the result:
$ python program.py
Calculating Payroll
===================
Payroll for: 1 - Mary Poppins
- Check amount: 2200
- Sent to:
121 Admin Rd.
Concord, NH 03301
Notice how we added that business rule to the program without changing any
of the existing classes. Consider what type of changes would’ve been
required with an inheritance design.
You would’ve had to create a new class and change the type of the manager
employee. There is no chance you could’ve changed the policy at run-time.
You’ve implemented two solutions to the same problem. The first solution
used multiple inheritance, and the second one used composition.
You’ve also seen that Python’s duck typing allows you to reuse objects with
existing parts of a program by implementing the desired interface. In Python, it
isn’t necessary to derive from a base class for your classes to be reused.
The general advice is to use the relationship that creates fewer dependencies
between two classes. This relation is composition. Still, there will be times
where inheritance will make more sense.
The following sections provide some guidelines to help you make the right
choice between inheritance and composition in Python.
Let’s say you have a class A that provides an implementation and interface
you want to reuse in another class B. Your initial thought is that you can
derive B from A and inherit both the interface and implementation. To be sure
this is the right design, you follow theses steps:
If you can justify both relationships, then you should never inherit those
classes from one another. Let’s look at a more concrete example.
You have a class Rectangle which exposes an .area property. You need a
class Square, which also has an .area. It seems that a Square is a special type
of Rectangle, so maybe you can derive from it and leverage both the interface
and implementation.
Before you jump into the implementation, you use Liskov’s substitution
principle to evaluate the relationship.
It makes sense. You can justify the relationship and explain why a Square is
a Rectangle. Let’s reverse the relationship to see if it makes sense.
It also makes sense. You can justify the relationship and describe the special
constraints for each class. This is a good sign that these two classes should
never derive from each other.
You might have seen other examples that derive Square from Rectangle to
explain inheritance. You might be skeptical with the little test you just did. Fair
enough. Let’s write a program that illustrates the problem with
deriving Square from Rectangle.
First, you implement Rectangle. You’re even going to encapsulate the attributes
to ensure that all the constraints are met:
# In rectangle_square_demo.py
class Rectangle:
def __init__(self, length, height):
self._length = length
self._height = height
@property
def area(self):
return self._length * self._height
The Rectangle class is initialized with a length and a height, and it provides
an .area property that returns the area. The length and height are encapsulated
to avoid changing them directly.
Now, you derive Square from Rectangle and override the necessary interface to
meet the constraints of a Square:
# In rectangle_square_demo.py
class Square(Rectangle):
def __init__(self, side_size):
super().__init__(side_size, side_size)
The Square class is initialized with a side_size,
which is used to initialize both
components of the base class. Now, you write a small program to test the
behavior:
# In rectangle_square_demo.py
rectangle = Rectangle(2, 4)
assert rectangle.area == 8
square = Square(2)
assert square.area == 4
print('OK!')
The program creates a Rectangle and a Square and asserts that their .area is
calculated correctly. You can run the program and see that everything is OK so
far:
$ python rectangle_square_demo.py
OK!
The program executes correctly, so it seems that Square is just a special case
of a Rectangle.
Later on, you need to support resizing Rectangle objects, so you make the
appropriate changes to the class:
# In rectangle_square_demo.py
class Rectangle:
def __init__(self, length, height):
self._length = length
self._height = height
@property
def area(self):
return self._length * self._height
# In rectangle_square_demo.py
rectangle.resize(3, 5)
assert rectangle.area == 15
print('OK!')
You resize the rectangle object and assert that the new area is correct. You
can run the program to verify the behavior:
$ python rectangle_square_demo.py
OK!
The assertion passes, and you see that the program runs correctly.
So, what happens if you resize a square? Modify the program, and try to
modify the square object:
# In rectangle_square_demo.py
square.resize(3, 5)
print(f'Square area: {square.area}')
You pass the same parameters to square.resize() that you used with rectangle,
and print the area. When you run the program you see:
$ python rectangle_square_demo.py
Square area: 15
OK!
The program shows that the new area is 15 like the rectangle object. The
problem now is that the square object no longer meets the Square class
constraint that the length and height must be equal.
How can you fix that problem? You can try several approaches, but all of them
will be awkward. You can override .resize() in square and ignore
the height parameter, but that will be confusing for people looking at other parts
of the program where rectangles are being resized and some of them are not
getting the expected areas because they are really squares.
In a small program like this one, it might be easy to spot the causes of the
weird behavior, but in a more complex program, the problem will be harder to
find.
In the example, it doesn’t make sense that Square inherits the interface and
implementation of .resize() from Rectangle. That doesn’t mean that Square objects
can’t be resized. It means that the interface is different because it only needs
a side_size parameter.
This difference in interface justifies not deriving Square from Rectangle like the
test above advised.
A mixin allows other classes to reuse its interface and implementation without
becoming a super class. They implement a unique behavior that can be
aggregated to other unrelated classes. They are similar to composition but
they create a stronger relationship.
Let’s say you want to convert objects of certain types in your application to a
dictionary representation of the object. You could provide a .to_dict() method in
every class that you want to support this feature, but the implementation
of .to_dict() seems to be very similar.
This could be a good candidate for a mixin. You start by slightly modifying
the Employee class from the composition example:
# In employees.py
class Employee:
def __init__(self, id, name, address, role, payroll):
self.id = id
self.name = name
self.address = address
self._role = role
self._payroll = payroll
def calculate_payroll(self):
return self._payroll.calculate_payroll()
The change is very small. You just changed the role and payroll attributes to be
internal by adding a leading underscore to their name. You will see soon why
you are making that change.
# In representations.py
class AsDictionaryMixin:
def to_dict(self):
return {
prop: self._represent(value)
for prop, value in self.__dict__.items()
if not self._is_internal(prop)
}
Note: This is why we made the role and payroll attributes internal in
the Employee class, because we don’t want to represent them in the dictionary.
As you saw at the beginning, creating a class inherits some members
from object, and one of those members is __dict__, which is basically a mapping
of all the attributes in an object to their value.
You iterate through all the items in __dict__ and filter out the ones that have a
name that starts with an underscore using ._is_internal().
# In employees.py
class Employee(AsDictionaryMixin):
def __init__(self, id, name, address, role, payroll):
self.id = id
self.name = name
self.address = address
self._role = role
self._payroll = payroll
def calculate_payroll(self):
return self._payroll.calculate_payroll()
Allyou have to do is inherit the AsDictionaryMixinto support the functionality. It
will be nice to support the same functionality in the Address class, so
the Employee.address attribute is represented in the same way:
# In contacts.py
class Address(AsDictionaryMixin):
def __init__(self, street, city, state, zipcode, street2=''):
self.street = street
self.street2 = street2
self.city = city
self.state = state
self.zipcode = zipcode
def __str__(self):
lines = [self.street]
if self.street2:
lines.append(self.street2)
lines.append(f'{self.city}, {self.state} {self.zipcode}')
return '\n'.join(lines)
You apply the mixin to the Address class to support the feature. Now, you can
write a small program to test it:
# In program.py
import json
from employees import EmployeeDatabase
def print_dict(d):
print(json.dumps(d, indent=2))
$ python program.py
{
"id": "1",
"name": "Mary Poppins",
"address": {
"street": "121 Admin Rd.",
"street2": "",
"city": "Concord",
"state": "NH",
"zipcode": "03301"
}
}
{
"id": "2",
"name": "John Smith",
"address": {
"street": "67 Paperwork Ave",
"street2": "",
"city": "Manchester",
"state": "NH",
"zipcode": "03101"
}
}
{
"id": "3",
"name": "Kevin Bacon",
"address": {
"street": "15 Rose St",
"street2": "Apt. B-1",
"city": "Concord",
"state": "NH",
"zipcode": "03301"
}
}
{
"id": "4",
"name": "Jane Doe",
"address": {
"street": "39 Sole St.",
"street2": "",
"city": "Concord",
"state": "NH",
"zipcode": "03301"
}
}
{
"id": "5",
"name": "Robin Williams",
"address": {
"street": "99 Mountain Rd.",
"street2": "",
"city": "Concord",
"state": "NH",
"zipcode": "03301"
}
}
You leveraged the implementation of AsDictionaryMixin in
both Employee and Address classes even when they are not related.
Because AsDictionaryMixin only provides behavior, it is easy to reuse with other
classes without causing problems.
Other classes like Customer or Vendor can reuse Address without being related
to Employee. They can leverage the same implementation ensuring that
addresses are handled consistently across the application.
A problem you may run into when using composition is that some of your
classes may start growing by using multiple components. Your classes may
require multiple parameters in the constructor just to pass in the components
they are made of. This can make your classes hard to use.
A way to avoid the problem is by using the Factory Method to construct your
objects. You did that with the composition example.
If you look at the implementation of the EmployeeDatabase class, you’ll notice
that it uses ._create_employee() to construct an Employee object with the right
parameters.
This design will work, but ideally, you should be able to construct
an Employee object just by specifying an id, for example employee = Employee(1).
The following changes might improve your design. You can start with
the productivity module:
# In productivity.py
class _ProductivitySystem:
def __init__(self):
self._roles = {
'manager': ManagerRole,
'secretary': SecretaryRole,
'sales': SalesRole,
'factory': FactoryRole,
}
_productivity_system = _ProductivitySystem()
def get_role(role_id):
return _productivity_system.get_role(role_id)
What you are saying is that the _ProductivitySystem is a Singleton, and there
should only be one object created from it.
# In hr.py
class _PayrollSystem:
def __init__(self):
self._employee_policies = {
1: SalaryPolicy(3000),
2: SalaryPolicy(1500),
3: CommissionPolicy(1000, 100),
4: HourlyPolicy(15),
5: HourlyPolicy(9)
}
_payroll_system = _PayrollSystem()
def get_policy(employee_id):
return _payroll_system.get_policy(employee_id)
def calculate_payroll(employees):
_payroll_system.calculate_payroll(employees)
Again, you make the _PayrollSystem internal and provide a public interface to it.
The application will use the public interface to get policies and calculate
payroll.
# In contacts.py
class _AddressBook:
def __init__(self):
self._employee_addresses = {
1: Address('121 Admin Rd.', 'Concord', 'NH', '03301'),
2: Address('67 Paperwork Ave', 'Manchester', 'NH', '03101'),
3: Address('15 Rose St', 'Concord', 'NH', '03301', 'Apt. B-1'),
4: Address('39 Sole St.', 'Concord', 'NH', '03301'),
5: Address('99 Mountain Rd.', 'Concord', 'NH', '03301'),
}
def get_employee_address(self, employee_id):
address = self._employee_addresses.get(employee_id)
if not address:
raise ValueError(employee_id)
return address
_address_book = _AddressBook()
def get_employee_address(employee_id):
return _address_book.get_employee_address(employee_id)
You are basically saying that there should only be one _AddressBook,
one _PayrollSystem, and one _ProductivitySystem. Again, this design pattern is
called the Singleton design pattern, which comes in handy for classes from
which there should only be one, single instance.
Now, you can work on the employees module. You will also make a Singleton
out of the _EmployeeDatabase, but you will make some additional changes:
# In employees.py
class _EmployeeDatabase:
def __init__(self):
self._employees = {
1: {
'name': 'Mary Poppins',
'role': 'manager'
},
2: {
'name': 'John Smith',
'role': 'secretary'
},
3: {
'name': 'Kevin Bacon',
'role': 'sales'
},
4: {
'name': 'Jane Doe',
'role': 'factory'
},
5: {
'name': 'Robin Williams',
'role': 'secretary'
}
}
@property
def employees(self):
return [Employee(id_) for id_ in sorted(self._employees)]
class Employee(AsDictionaryMixin):
def __init__(self, id):
self.id = id
info = employee_database.get_employee_info(self.id)
self.name = info.get('name')
self.address = get_employee_address(self.id)
self._role = get_role(info.get('role'))
self._payroll = get_policy(self.id)
def work(self, hours):
duties = self._role.perform_duties(hours)
print(f'Employee {self.id} - {self.name}:')
print(f'- {duties}')
print('')
self._payroll.track_work(hours)
def calculate_payroll(self):
return self._payroll.calculate_payroll()
employee_database = _EmployeeDatabase()
You first import the relevant functions and classes from other modules.
The _EmployeeDatabase is made internal, and at the bottom, you create a single
instance. This instance is public and part of the interface because you will
want to use it in the application.
The Employee class now is initialized with the id and uses the public functions
exposed in the other modules to initialize its attributes.
# In program.py
import json
employees = employee_database.employees
track(employees, 40)
calculate_payroll(employees)
temp_secretary = Employee(5)
print('Temporary Secretary:')
print_dict(temp_secretary.to_dict())
You import the relevant functions from the hr and productivity modules, as well
as the employee_database and Employee class. The program is cleaner because
you exposed the required interface and encapsulated how objects are
accessed.
Notice that you can now create an Employee object directly just using its id. You
can run the program to see its output:
$ python program.py
Temporary Secretary:
{
"id": "5",
"name": "Robin Williams",
"address": {
"street": "99 Mountain Rd.",
"street2": "",
"city": "Concord",
"state": "NH",
"zipcode": "03301"
}
}
The program works the same as before, but now you can see that a
single Employee object can be created from its id and display its dictionary
representation.
# In employees.py
class Employee(AsDictionaryMixin):
def __init__(self, id):
self.id = id
info = employee_database.get_employee_info(self.id)
self.name = info.get('name')
self.address = get_employee_address(self.id)
self._role = get_role(info.get('role'))
self._payroll = get_policy(self.id)
def calculate_payroll(self):
return self._payroll.calculate_payroll()
The Employee class is a composite that contains multiple objects providing
different functionality. It contains an Address that implements all the
functionality related to where the employee lives.
You are using composition in two different ways. The Address class provides
additional data to Employee where the role and payroll objects provide
additional behavior.
Still, the relationship between Employee and those objects is loosely coupled,
which provides some interesting capabilities that you’ll see in the next section.
# In hr.py
class LTDPolicy:
def __init__(self):
self._base_policy = None
def calculate_payroll(self):
self._check_base_policy()
base_salary = self._base_policy.calculate_payroll()
return base_salary * 0.6
def _check_base_policy(self):
if not self._base_policy:
raise RuntimeError('Base policy missing')
Notice that LTDPolicy doesn’t inherit PayrollPolicy,but implements the same
interface. This is because the implementation is completely different, so we
don’t want to inherit any of the PayrollPolicy implementation.
The public interface first checks that the _base_policy has been applied, and
then implements the functionality in terms of that base policy.
The .track_work() method just delegates to the base policy,
and .calculate_payroll() uses it to calculate the base_salary and then return the
60%.
# In employees.py
class Employee(AsDictionaryMixin):
def __init__(self, id):
self.id = id
info = employee_database.get_employee_info(self.id)
self.name = info.get('name')
self.address = get_employee_address(self.id)
self._role = get_role(info.get('role'))
self._payroll = get_policy(self.id)
def calculate_payroll(self):
return self._payroll.calculate_payroll()
# In program.py
employees = employee_database.employees
sales_employee = employees[2]
ltd_policy = LTDPolicy()
sales_employee.apply_payroll_policy(ltd_policy)
track(employees, 40)
calculate_payroll(employees)
The program accesses sales_employee, which is located at index 2, creates
the LTDPolicy object, and applies the policy to the employee.
When .calculate_payroll() is called, the change is reflected. You can run the
program to evaluate the output:
$ python program.py
Calculating Payroll
===================
Payroll for: 1 - Mary Poppins
- Check amount: 3000
- Sent to:
121 Admin Rd.
Concord, NH 03301
As you can see, you were able to support the changes just by adding a new
policy and modifying a couple interfaces. This is the kind of flexibility that
policy design based on composition gives you.
Sometimes, it’s hard to see what the relationship between two classes should
be, but you can follow these guidelines:
Use inheritance over composition in Python to model a clear is
a relationship. First, justify the relationship between the derived class
and its base. Then, reverse the relationship and try to justify it. If you
can justify the relationship in both directions, then you should not use
inheritance between them.
Use inheritance over composition in Python to leverage both the
interface and implementation of the base class.
Use inheritance over composition in Python to
provide mixin features to several unrelated classes when there is only
one implementation of that feature.
Use composition over inheritance in Python to model a has
a relationship that leverages the implementation of the component
class.
Use composition over inheritance in Python to create components
that can be reused by multiple classes in your Python applications.
Use composition over inheritance in Python to implement groups of
behaviors and policies that can be applied interchangeably to other
classes to customize their behavior.
Use composition over inheritance in Python to enable run-time
behavior changes without affecting existing classes.
Conclusion
You explored inheritance and composition in Python. You learned about
the type of relationships that inheritance and composition create. You also
went through a series of exercises to understand how inheritance and
composition are implemented in Python.