Last week I wrote about when to add an interface to a class. The article finishes with the claim that classes from the application's domain don't usually need an interface. The reason is that domain code isn't going to be swapped out with something else. This code is the result of careful modelling work that's done based on the business domain that you work with. And even if you'd work on, say, two financial software projects in a row, you'll find that the models you produce for each of them will be different in many subtle (if not radical) ways. Paradoxically you'll find that in practice a domain model can sometimes be reused after all. There are some great examples out there. In this article I explain different scenarios of where and how reuse could work.

I'm currently revising my book "Principles of Package Design". It covers lots of design principles, like the SOLID principles and the lesser known Package (or Component) Design Principles. When discussing these principles in the book, I regularly encourage the reader to add more interfaces to their classes, to make the overall design of the package or application more flexible. However, not every class needs an interface, and not every interface makes sense. I thought it would be useful to enumerate some good reasons for adding an interface to a class. At the end of this post I'll make sure to mention a few good reasons for not adding an interface too.

During the holiday I read a book mentioned to me by Pim Elshoff: "Skin in the game", by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. Discussing this concept of "skin in the game" with Pim had made me curious about the book. It's not such a fat book as one of Taleb's other books, which is possibly more famous, called "Antifragile". "Skin in the game" is a much lighter book, and also quite polemic, making it an often uncomfortable, but fun reading experience. I can easily see how people could get mad about this book or aggressive towards its author (not that I'm encouraging or approving of that aggression!). While reading it, it reminded me of Nietzsche, and his despise of the "common man", who Taleb calls "the intellectual" - someone who has no "skin in the game", let alone "soul in the game". Taleb's ideas are interesting, just like Nietzsche's are, but they could easily be abused, and probably so by misinterpreting them.