single-responsibility-principle
Compare original and translation side by side
🇺🇸
Original
English🇨🇳
Translation
ChineseSingle Responsibility Principle (SRP)
单一职责原则（SRP）
Overview
概述
A class should have only one reason to change.
Every module, class, or function should have responsibility over a single part of functionality. If you can describe what a class does using "AND", it has too many responsibilities.
一个类应该只有一个变更理由。
每个模块、类或函数都应该只负责单一功能领域的部分。如果你能用“和”来描述一个类的功能，说明它承担了过多职责。
When to Use
适用场景
- Creating any new class, module, or service
- Adding methods to existing classes
- Reviewing code that "does multiple things"
- Feeling pressure to "just add it here"
- 创建任何新类、模块或服务
- 向现有类添加方法
- 评审“身兼数职”的代码
- 迫于压力想“直接加在这里”的时候
The Iron Rule
铁律
NEVER add functionality that introduces a second reason to change.No exceptions:
- Not for "it's faster this way"
- Not for "it's just one more method"
- Not for "refactoring would take too long"
- Not for "my tech lead said so"
- Not for "it's already in production"
Violating SRP under pressure is still violating SRP.
绝不添加会引入第二个变更理由的功能。无一例外：
- 不要以“这样更快”为借口
- 不要以“只是多一个方法”为借口
- 不要以“重构太费时间”为借口
- 不要以“技术主管这么说”为借口
- 不要以“已经上线了”为借口
迫于压力违反SRP仍然是违反SRP。
Detection: The "AND" Test
检测方法：“和”测试
Describe your class in one sentence. If it contains "AND", split it.
| Description | Verdict |
|---|---|
| "Handles user authentication" | ✅ Single responsibility |
| "Handles authentication AND sends emails" | ❌ Two responsibilities |
| "Manages orders AND processes payments AND tracks inventory" | ❌ Three responsibilities |
用一句话描述你的类。如果句子里包含“和”，就拆分它。
| 描述 | 结论 |
|---|---|
| “处理用户认证” | ✅ 单一职责 |
| “处理认证和发送邮件” | ❌ 两个职责 |
| “管理订单、处理支付和跟踪库存” | ❌ 三个职责 |
Detection: Reasons to Change
检测方法：变更理由清单
List why this class might need to change:
typescript
// ❌ BAD: UserManager - 4 reasons to change
class UserManager {
login() {} // Auth logic changes
updateProfile() {} // Profile requirements change
sendEmail() {} // Email provider changes
trackAnalytics() {} // Analytics requirements change
}
// ✅ GOOD: Split by responsibility
class AuthService { login() {} }
class ProfileService { updateProfile() {} }
class NotificationService { sendEmail() {} }
class AnalyticsService { track() {} }列出这个类可能需要变更的理由：
typescript
// ❌ 错误示例：UserManager - 4个变更理由
class UserManager {
login() {} // 认证逻辑变更
updateProfile() {} // 个人资料需求变更
sendEmail() {} // 邮件服务商变更
trackAnalytics() {} // 数据分析需求变更
}
// ✅ 正确示例：按职责拆分
class AuthService { login() {} }
class ProfileService { updateProfile() {} }
class NotificationService { sendEmail() {} }
class AnalyticsService { track() {} }Pressure Resistance Protocol
抗压指南
When pressured to violate SRP, follow this:
当你迫于压力要违反SRP时，请遵循以下步骤：
1. Time Pressure
1. 时间压力
"Just make it work quickly"
Response: Creating a god class takes the same time as creating focused classes. The "quick" solution creates technical debt that costs 10x more later.
Action: Create separate classes. It's not slower.
“先快速搞定就行”
回应： 创建一个全能类和创建多个专注类所花的时间是一样的。这种“快速”方案会产生技术债务，后续成本会是现在的10倍。
行动： 创建独立的类。并不会更慢。
2. Sunk Cost Pressure
2. 沉没成本压力
"The class already exists, just add to it"
Response: Adding to a bloated class makes it worse. The fact that it's already wrong doesn't justify making it more wrong.
Action: Create a new focused class. Refactor the existing one if time permits.
“这个类已经存在了，直接加进去就行”
回应： 向臃肿的类添加功能只会让情况更糟。它本身就设计不合理，不能成为继续错下去的理由。
行动： 创建一个新的专注类。如果时间允许，重构现有类。
3. Authority Pressure
3. 权威压力
"My tech lead said put it all in one class"
Response: Respectfully push back with evidence. If overruled, document your concern and comply—but NEVER silently create god classes.
Action:
"I'd recommend splitting this because [specific reason].
If we keep it together, we'll likely need to refactor when [consequence].
Should I proceed with the split, or document this as tech debt?"“我的技术主管说把所有内容都放在一个类里”
回应： 有理有据地提出反对意见。如果被驳回，记录你的顾虑并执行，但绝不要默默创建全能类。
行动：
“我建议拆分这个类，因为[具体原因]。
如果我们保留在一个类里，当[后果]发生时，我们可能需要重构。
我是应该进行拆分，还是将此记录为技术债务？”4. Scope Creep
4. 范围蔓延
"While you're in there, also add X"
Response: New functionality = new class (or existing appropriate class).
Action: "X belongs in its own service. I'll create XService."
“既然你已经在改了，顺便把X也加上吧”
回应： 新功能应该对应新类（或已有合适的类）。
行动： “X应该属于独立的服务。我会创建XService。”
Red Flags - STOP and Reconsider
危险信号——立即停止并重新考虑
If you notice ANY of these, you're about to violate SRP:
- Adding a method unrelated to the class's core purpose
- Class file exceeds 200 lines
- Class has more than 5-7 public methods
- You need section comments to navigate the class
- Multiple developers would edit this class for unrelated features
- Class name contains "Manager", "Handler", "Processor", "Service" with no specific domain
All of these mean: Split the class.
如果你注意到以下任何一种情况，说明你即将违反SRP：
- 添加与类核心用途无关的方法
- 类文件超过200行
- 类有5-7个以上的公共方法
- 需要用分段注释来导航类的内容
- 多个开发人员会因不相关的功能修改这个类
- 类名包含“Manager”“Handler”“Processor”“Service”但没有具体领域限定
出现以上任何一种情况都意味着：拆分这个类。
Refactoring Existing Violations
重构现有违规代码
When you encounter an existing god class:
- Don't make it worse - Never add more responsibilities
- Extract on touch - When modifying, extract the part you're touching
- Document debt - If you can't refactor now, create a ticket
typescript
// Found: OrderService with 500 lines handling orders, payments, inventory, emails
// ❌ WRONG: Add shipping logic to OrderService
// ✅ RIGHT: Create ShippingService, note that OrderService needs refactoring当你遇到一个全能类时：
- 不要雪上加霜 - 绝不要添加更多职责
- 触达即提取 - 修改时，提取你正在处理的部分
- 记录债务 - 如果现在无法重构，创建一个工单
typescript
// 现状：OrderService有500行代码，处理订单、支付、库存、邮件
// ❌ 错误：向OrderService添加物流逻辑
// ✅ 正确：创建ShippingService，记录OrderService需要重构Common Rationalizations (All Invalid)
常见借口（全不成立）
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|---|
| "It's faster to put it in one class" | It's not. You type the same code either way. |
| "Small classes are over-engineering" | Small classes are correct engineering. |
| "It's just one more method" | That's how god classes start. Every time. |
| "We can refactor later" | You won't. Tech debt compounds. |
| "The class is already big" | That's a reason to stop, not continue. |
| "It's related functionality" | Related ≠ same responsibility. |
| "Section comments help navigate" | If you need navigation, class is too big. |
| 借口 | 真相 |
|---|---|
| “放在一个类里更快” | 并没有。两种方式敲的代码量一样。 |
| “小类是过度设计” | 小类是正确的工程设计。 |
| “只是多一个方法而已” | 全能类都是这么开始的。每次都是。 |
| “我们以后可以重构” | 你们不会的。技术债务会不断累积。 |
| “这个类已经很大了” | 这是停止的理由，不是继续的理由。 |
| “这是相关功能” | 相关≠同一职责。 |
| “分段注释有助于导航” | 如果需要导航，说明类太大了。 |
Quick Reference
速查表
| Symptom | Action |
|---|---|
| Class does X AND Y | Split into XService and YService |
| Adding unrelated method | Create new class |
| File > 200 lines | Look for extraction opportunities |
| Multiple reasons to change | One class per reason |
| "Manager/Handler/Processor" name | Be more specific or split |
| 症状 | 行动 |
|---|---|
| 类做X和Y | 拆分为XService和YService |
| 添加不相关方法 | 创建新类 |
| 文件超过200行 | 寻找提取机会 |
| 多个变更理由 | 一个理由对应一个类 |
| 类名是“Manager/Handler/Processor” | 更具体命名或拆分 |
The Bottom Line
核心结论
One class. One responsibility. One reason to change.
When pressured to violate this: push back, document, or create the right structure anyway.
God classes are never the answer, regardless of time pressure, existing code, or authority demands.
一个类。一个职责。一个变更理由。
当迫于压力要违反这一原则时：提出反对、记录情况，或者无论如何都创建正确的结构。
无论时间压力、现有代码情况或权威要求如何，全能类永远不是解决方案。