In a recent code review on the Ubiquity XForms project, the question of whether to test for an element by name or properties came up. In this post we look at the benefits that can be had from using duck-typing as a way to manage objects’ functionality, rather than the more usual hierarchical solutions.

OO hierarchies

The usual sort of example given when looking at and explaining object hierarchies, is to say that we have a class called Vehicle, from which we can derive a class Car and Bicycle.

What I’ve always hated about this kind of ordering is that you actually spend more time discussing where to put properties than actually writing code. For example, is a motorbike a type of bicycle, that just happens to have an engine? Is a van a small lorry?

And more to the point, who cares?

Well, the Department for Transport might care, but they also might change their definitions based on all sorts of criteria, such as lead in petrol, engine size, number of wheel axles, and so on. In fact, if you were in charge of building the DfT a system, then you would certainly be asking for trouble if you encoded their definitions of vehicles directly into the object hierarchy of your application.


Many programmers will be familiar with the idea of duck- typing, which is a different way to look at objects in object-oriented systems.

The name comes from the idea that ‘if something walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck’. So if an object has a property of wheels and perhaps engine, then it’s a Vehicle.

This can make for very efficient systems, because the ‘type’ of an object is no longer tied directly to its class in the source code, which as we know is very difficult to change, but is instead something that can be determined at run time. More than that, the ‘type’ of an object is worked out at the point of need, allowing objects to take on many personae, in a way that multiple inheritance is simply not able to cope with. For example, our Vehicle becomes an object of type ‘printable’, merely by the presence of a print() method.


The XForms language wasn’t designed with duck-typing in mind, but as I’ll illustrate, duck-typing is an incredibly powerful way to implement a flexible and extensible XForms processor.

We’ll use the XForms hint element to illustrate.

The hint element

The XForms hint element contains text or mark-up that will be displayed to a user when the hint event is fired, which is usually related to the mouseover event in browser-based processors. When the event occurs, the relevant text or mark-up is displayed to the user, and when some other event occurs (such as a mouseout, a timer expiring, etc.) then the hint is hidden.

The actual text to be displayed can be obtained inline from the element, or via the usual binding techniques, such as using @ref, @value or @bind.

So we have two aspects to a hint; the first concerns its behaviour – and you could say this is the key to its hintyness – whilst the second aspect concerns what should be displayed.

The second aspect – the ‘what to display part’ – is actually common to a number of elements in XForms, such as xf:output, xf:help, xf:alert, and so on; they can all either display inline text, or text that is obtained from the instance data.

In the UXF library, the two aspects of a hint are kept separate, on two separate objects, and these two objects are dynamically added to a hint object at run time. This is different to a traditional object model where we would have a hint object that inherits from the ‘what to display object’, creating a rigid hierarchy; in our model we have a hintyness object that handles the ‘show and hide’ part, and we have a ‘what to display object’ that manages the data, and we bring the two together when we encounter the XForms hint element.

The beauty of this is its flexibility; we can ‘attach’ our ‘what to display’ object to anything, independent of whether it’s a hint, and the object will manage the processing of @ref and @value. And we can also attach our ‘hinty’ object to anything to make it behave like a hint, independent of the ‘what to display’ behaviour; SVG circles or HTML5 video objects could all be given hint behaviour, simply by attaching the hintyness object.

The role attribute

The obvious way to indicate in mark-up that we have an object of a certain type is to use the element directly. For example, in XForms we could write:

<xf:hint>Please enter your name</xf:hint>  


<xf:hint ref="msg" />  

But the role attribute opens up the possibility of assigning functionality to non-XForms elements, for example:

<span role="xf:hint">Please enter your name</span>  

Now we get our duck-typing in reverse; ‘if an element says that it wants to be a duck, give it the waddle and quack methods’.

Ubiquity XForms

The Ubiquity library makes use of this dynamic binding technique to create flexible run-time objects, through the use of a decoration mechanism; a set of rules have been created that indicate which objects to attach to which elements, and when a document loads, the functionality is ‘wired in’ to each element, as expressed in the rules. Adding new elements is easy, since it just requires adding more rules.

But the code review I mentioned earlier related to the other side of this, the original duck-typing question. We had a piece of code that needed to toggle a xf:case, and the natural inclination was to check the name of the element, to ensure we really had a casey element, i.e., one that could be toggled.

Yet to be an element that could be toggled only requires the presence of the toggle() method; just as anything that quacks is a duck, so anything that can be toggled is a case.

So instead of checking the element name:

if (NamespaceManager.compareFullName(oCase, "case", "")) {  

our code now checks for the method:

if (oCase && typeof oCase['toggle'] === 'function') {  

Loosely-coupled Objects

Another key design goal of the Ubiquity suite is that the objects that make up the system are ‘loosely-coupled’. This means that they can change independently of each other, and as a consequence, improvements in one area should immediately benefit other areas.

In this case, imagine that a rule is added to the decorator module such that the presence of @role="xf:case" on a div causes all caseyness functionality to be attached. With the duck-typing way of testing whether to toggle, the following mark-up will just immediately start working:

  <xf:case id="error">...</xf:case>  
  <div id="ok" role="xf:case">...</div>  

With the prior method – checking the name of the element – it would not have worked until we had added code to check for the presence of @role. In other words, we would have been in exactly the same situation as a normal object hierarchy application, adding special code to test for specific things.


Whilst duck-typing can be confusing if used in every aspect of an application, it can work well when its boundaries are clear. In Ubiquity XForms and Ubiquity SMIL, elements can acquire rich combinations of functionality based on their position in a document, the element name, the presence of other attributes, and so on. In this situation, duck-typing is a natural fit, and keeps the architecture open.