Is a "master preferences" class a good idea?

Question

I have a class that manages user preferences for a large software project. Any class in the project that may need to set or retrieve a user preference from a persistent store is to call the static methods on this class. This centralized management allows the preferences to be completely wiped programmatically - which would be impossible if each pref was handled close to its use code, sprinkled throughout the project.

I ran into another implication of the centralization design in the course of this. The software has a public API. That API can be provided by itself in a jar. Classes in that API might refer to the pref management class. So, the pref manager has to go in the API jar.

Each preference might have a default value. Upon software startup, that default might be computed. The algorithm depends on the preference, and thus tends to reside near the use code. So if the pref manager needs to come up with a default, it calls the class in question.

But now that pref manager has become an "octopus class", sucking in all sorts of classes into the API jar that shouldn't be there. If it doesn't, then programs using the API jar quickly run into ClassDef exceptions. If it does, then the API jar is now bloated, as each of those other classes may refer to still others.

In general, do other Java programmers manage their preferences with a centralized class?

Does it make sense to distribute that static pref management class as part of a public API?

Should that pref manager be the keeper of the code for determining defaults?

Answer 1

IMHO, I think that the answer to your first question is "yes" and "no".

Preferences are commonly handled as a centralized class, in the sense that the class is a "sink" for many classes in the project. Trying to do it closer to the calling code means that if the same preference is later useful elsewhere, you are in trouble. In my experience, trying to put the preferences "too close" also results in a very inconsistent handling.

That being said, it is often preferable to use multiple preference classes or "preference set", each supporting a module or submodule. If you look at the main components of your architecture, you will often find that the set of preferences can be logically partitioned. This reduces the mess in each preference class. More importantly, it will allow you to split your program into multiple jars in the future. Now, the "default value" calculators can be placed in the module but still in a global enough area.

I would also suggest not setting preferences directly as static methods, but rather using some getInstance() like operation to obtain a shared instance of the preferences manage, and then operating on it. Depending on your semantics, you may want to lock that object for a while (e.g., while the user is editing preferences in a UI) and this is easier if you have an actual object.

For your other questions, I would say that your public API should have a way of letting users change preferences, but only if you can document well enough what the results of these changes could be.

If you use a single API function to get the "reference manager", you can give users the possibility of providing their own "default values calculator". The preference manager will ask this calculator first before resorting to the one you have provided by default.

Answer 2

Can't you just handle preferences in a really generic way? You'd then just use the preference manager to handle the persistence. So from a class you'd just say to the preference manager PreferenceManager.setPreference(key, value) and it doesn't care what it's saving in terms of the semantics of the data.

Or am I simplifying this too much?