Why Applying SOLID to real code in LLD? - Purpose & Use Cases

The Big Idea

Discover how simple rules can turn messy code into a smooth-running machine!

The Scenario

Imagine building a big software project by writing all code in one giant block without clear rules. When you want to fix a small bug or add a new feature, you have to dig through tangled code, risking breaking other parts.

The Problem

This manual way is slow because changes affect many places. It's easy to make mistakes since everything is connected tightly. Testing becomes hard, and teamwork slows down as everyone struggles to understand the messy code.

The Solution

Applying SOLID principles breaks code into clear, simple parts with well-defined roles. Each part does one job and can be changed without breaking others. This makes code easier to read, fix, and grow over time.

Before vs After

✗ Before

class User {
  void save() { /* save user and send email */ }
  void sendEmail() { /* email code here */ }
}

✓ After

interface UserRepository { void save(User u); }
interface EmailService { void sendEmail(User u); }
class UserService {
  UserRepository repo;
  EmailService email;
  void register(User u) {
    repo.save(u);
    email.sendEmail(u);
  }
}

What It Enables

It enables building software that is easy to change, test, and grow without fear of breaking things.

Real Life Example

Think of a delivery app where adding a new payment method or changing how orders are tracked can be done quickly without rewriting the whole system.

Key Takeaways

SOLID makes code clear and focused.

It reduces bugs and speeds up changes.

Teams can work better together on clean code.

Practice

1. Which SOLID principle encourages a class to have only one reason to change?

easy

A. Dependency Inversion Principle

B. Open/Closed Principle

C. Liskov Substitution Principle

D. Single Responsibility Principle

Solution

1. Step 1: Understand the principle names

   Single Responsibility Principle means one class should do one job only.

2. Step 2: Match principle to description

   Only Single Responsibility Principle talks about one reason to change.

3. Final Answer:

   Single Responsibility Principle -> Option D

4. Quick Check:

   One class, one reason to change = Single Responsibility Principle [OK]

Hint: One class, one job means Single Responsibility Principle [OK]

Common Mistakes:

• Confusing Single Responsibility with Open/Closed
• Thinking Dependency Inversion means single responsibility
• Mixing Liskov Substitution with class responsibilities

2. Which of the following code snippets correctly applies the Dependency Inversion Principle?

easy

A. class Car { Engine engine = new Engine(); }

B. interface Engine { void start(); } class Car { Engine engine; Car(Engine e) { engine = e; } }

C. class Car { void start() { Engine engine = new Engine(); engine.start(); } }

D. class Engine { void start() {} } class Car extends Engine {}

Solution

1. Step 1: Identify Dependency Inversion Principle

   It says depend on abstractions (interfaces), not concrete classes.

2. Step 2: Check which code uses interfaces

   interface Engine { void start(); } class Car { Engine engine; Car(Engine e) { engine = e; } } uses interface Engine and injects it into Car, following DIP.

3. Final Answer:

   Interface with injection to depend on abstraction -> Option B

4. Quick Check:

   Depend on interface, not concrete class = DIP [OK]

Hint: Look for interface usage and constructor injection [OK]

Common Mistakes:

• Creating concrete objects inside classes (violates DIP)
• Extending concrete classes instead of using interfaces
• Not using constructor or setter injection

3. Given this code snippet, what will be the output?

interface Shape { double area(); }
class Rectangle implements Shape {
  double width, height;
  Rectangle(double w, double h) { width = w; height = h; }
  public double area() { return width * height; }
}
class Circle implements Shape {
  double radius;
  Circle(double r) { radius = r; }
  public double area() { return 3.14 * radius * radius; }
}
class AreaCalculator {
  double totalArea(Shape[] shapes) {
    double total = 0;
    for (Shape s : shapes) total += s.area();
    return total;
  }
}
public class Main {
  public static void main(String[] args) {
    Shape[] shapes = { new Rectangle(2,3), new Circle(1) };
    System.out.println(new AreaCalculator().totalArea(shapes));
  }
}

medium

A. 9.14

B. 12.14

C. 15.42

D. Error at runtime

Solution

1. Step 1: Calculate Rectangle area

   Rectangle area = 2 * 3 = 6

2. Step 2: Calculate Circle area

   Circle area = 3.14 * 1 * 1 = 3.14

3. Step 3: Sum areas

   Total area = 6 + 3.14 = 9.14

4. Final Answer:

   9.14 -> Option A

5. Quick Check:

   6 + 3.14 = 9.14 [OK]

Hint: Add areas of shapes using interface method calls [OK]

Common Mistakes:

• Using wrong formula for circle area
• Adding radius instead of area
• Forgetting to sum both shapes

4. Identify the violation of the Open/Closed Principle in this code:

class Report {
  void printReport(String type) {
    if (type.equals("PDF")) { System.out.println("Printing PDF"); }
    else if (type.equals("HTML")) { System.out.println("Printing HTML"); }
  }
}

medium

A. Adding new report types requires changing printReport method

B. Using if-else is always correct for Open/Closed Principle

C. The class is closed for modification

D. The method uses polymorphism correctly

Solution

1. Step 1: Understand Open/Closed Principle

   Classes should be open for extension but closed for modification.

2. Step 2: Analyze printReport method

   Adding new types means editing if-else, so modifying existing code.

3. Final Answer:

   Adding new report types requires changing printReport method -> Option A

4. Quick Check:

   Modifying code to add features breaks Open/Closed Principle [OK]

Hint: If adding features needs code change, Open/Closed is violated [OK]

Common Mistakes:

• Thinking if-else is always fine
• Confusing Open/Closed with Single Responsibility
• Ignoring need for polymorphism

5. You have a payment system with classes for CreditCardPayment and PayPalPayment. To follow the Interface Segregation Principle, how should you design the interfaces?

hard

A. Create one large interface Payment with all methods for all payment types

B. Make CreditCardPayment inherit from PayPalPayment

C. Create separate interfaces like CreditCardPaymentInterface and PayPalPaymentInterface with only relevant methods

D. Use a single abstract class with all payment methods implemented

Solution

1. Step 1: Understand Interface Segregation Principle

   Clients should not depend on methods they do not use; interfaces should be small and specific.

2. Step 2: Apply to payment system

   Separate interfaces for each payment type avoid forcing classes to implement unused methods.

3. Final Answer:

   Create separate interfaces like CreditCardPaymentInterface and PayPalPaymentInterface with only relevant methods -> Option C

4. Quick Check:

   Small, specific interfaces = Interface Segregation Principle [OK]

Hint: Split interfaces by client needs to avoid unused methods [OK]

Common Mistakes:

• Using one big interface for all payment types
• Inheriting unrelated payment classes
• Using abstract class forcing all methods