I am finding it difficult to model polymorphism and instances in UML.
For example if i have an abstract, parent or base class called "Bird", i would imagine that you could say that "duck" is one form of polymorphism but it could also be an instance.
Maybe, i'm confusing where one starts and ends. Are there visual examples of these?
It is simple enough.
If one concrete class Cage has reference to abstract class Bird, and concrete classes Woodpecker and Canary are derived from the last, this is polymorphism. You'll have to choose what bird really will sit in the cage, for abstract class has no instances. The same for Interface.
The question of inheritance vs instance depends on functionality. If there are any differences in your data model between ducks and other types of birds then you would want a Duck class that inherits from Bird. Otherwise you're looking at your duck simply as an instance of Bird.
Polymorphism only comes into play when you are calling the same method across different Bird implementations.
For UML modeling here are a couple points to help you out.
This book is required reading for many Software Engineeing courses and has served me well for many years.
http://www.amazon.com/UML-Distilled-Standard-Modeling-Language/dp/0321193687
This blog does a pretty good job of showing the different use cases and the corresponding OOP models. http://usna86-techbits.blogspot.com/2012/11/uml-class-diagram-relationships.html
First, I think that your question is how to model polymorphism. To illustrate, see these Java codes:
Drawable.java
package examples.simple.model;
public interface Drawable {
public void draw();
}
Shape.java
package examples.simple.model;
public abstract class Shape implements Drawable {
private Point center;
public Point getCenter() {
return center;
}
public void setCenter(Point center) {
this.center = center;
}
}
Rectangle.java
package examples.simple.model;
public class Rectangle extends Shape {
public void draw() {
System.out.println("Drawing a rectangle....");
}
}
Circle.java
package examples.simple.model;
public class Circle extends Shape {
public void draw() {
System.out.println("Drawing a circle....");
}
}
Line.java
package examples.simple.model;
public class Line implements Drawable{
public void draw() {
System.out.println("Drawing a line");
}
}
Plotter.java
package examples.simple.client;
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
import examples.simple.model.Circle;
import examples.simple.model.Drawable;
import examples.simple.model.Rectangle;
import examples.simple.model.Shape;
import examples.simple.model.Line;
class Plotter {
public static void main(String[] args) {
List<Drawable> drawables = new ArrayList<Drawable>();
Shape s = new Circle();
drawables.add(s);
s = new Rectangle();
drawables.add(s);
Line l = new Line();
drawables.add(l);
for (Drawable drawable : drawables) {
drawable.draw();
}
}
}
These are a classical example of polymorphism. The class diagram is
In this situation, using a sequence diagram, the polymorphic invocations are modeled by multiples scenarios controlled by the guard conditions. Therefore, for each polymorphic scenario, the dynamic binding (polymorphic invocation) is represented for a "scenario box". So, this is a single model (sequence diagram) to show polymorphic invocations.
Finally, representing polymorphic invocations using UML is actually a challenge.
Related
I have an interface, say IVehicle, which is implemented in 100s of classes, some of them are variety of 4 wheeler and some are two wheeler dervied types.
I need to introduce a new method for all the 4 wheeler classes, lets say there are 50 of them. My challenge is to reduce the effort as much as I can.
I suggested, to introduce a new interface / abstract class with a method definition. But this require to change every 4 wheeler class declaration and extend with an extra parent.
Is there any possible way?
If you really want to avoid changing all those classes and want a solution that can be considered to be OO, one thing you can do is decorate those classes where they are used and need this extra behaviour.
I'll use C# for example code as you mentioned you're looking for C#/Java solution.
interface IVehicle
{
void DoThisNormalThing();
// ...
}
interface IBetterVehicle : IVehicle
{
void DoThisNeatThing();
}
class FourWheelVehicle : IVehicle
{
public void DoThisNormalThing()
{
// ...
}
// ...
}
class BetterFourWheelVehicle : IBetterVehicle
{
private readonly _vehicle;
public BetterFourWheelVehicle(IVehicle vehicle)
{
_vehicle = vehicle;
}
public void DoThisNormalThing()
{
_vehicle.DoThisNormalThing();
}
public void DoThisNeatThing()
{
// ...
}
// ...
}
Then usage:
var vehicle = new FourWheelVehicle();
var betterVehicle = new BetterFourWheelVehicle(vehicle);
betterVehicle.DoThisNeatThing();
This can be done using extension methods as well (and would result in a little less code and fewer allocated objects), but as this question is tagged with [oop] I wouldn't say extension methods are an OO construct. They're much more aligned with procedural style as they turn your objects into bags of procedures.
Why does object's type refer to its interface? Why the term type is used here? In terms of C++ I am not able to understand it.
Gamma, Erich. Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented
Software (Addison-Wesley Professional Computing Series) (Kindle
Locations 593-596). Pearson Education. Kindle Edition.
An object’s class defines how the object is implemented. The class
defines the object’s internal state and the implementation of its
operations. In contrast, an object’s type only refers to its
interface—the set of requests to which it can respond. An object can
have many types, and objects of different classes can have the same
type.
An oversimplification...
Interface - a list of things that a class have and the things that it can do... a list of things that answer the "Whats"
Implementation - answers the question on "How" the "Whats" are accomplished.
Example:
An interface IPackageMover that does 2 things and 2 classes (types) that actually implements the interface (and also do other things aside from the interface requires)
// the interface
public interface IPackageMover
{
string GetName();
void public void MoveTo(Package package, string newAddress);
}
// the "type" that has the implementation
public class JoeThePackageMover : IPackageMover
{
public string GetName()
{
return "Joe";
}
public void MoveTo(Package package, string newAddress)
{
PickUp(package);
Drive(newAddress);
DropOff(package);
}
public void PickUp(Package package)
{
// do stuff
}
public void Drive(string newAddress)
{
// do stuff
}
public void DropOff(Package package)
{
// do stuff
}
}
// another "type" with the same interface
public class PassTheBuckPackageMover : IPackageMover
{
public string GetName()
{
return "What do you want it to be?";
}
public void MoveTo(Package package, string newAddress)
{
var joe = new JoeThePackageMover();
joe.MoveTo(package, newAddress);
}
public void Chill()
{
//do stuff
}
}
Why does object's type refer to its interface? Why the term type is used here? In terms of C++ I am not able to understand it.
Objects in OOP are not very different from the real world. For example :
A Car IS-A Vehicle. By this definition, a Car has the ability to transport people/cargo from one place to another.
A Car is also a Car. By this definition, it has the ability to be driven using a steering wheel.
In the above example, a Car IS-A Car and a Car is also a Vehicle because it can be driven using a steering wheel to move cargo/people from one place to another. In other words, the type of an object in the real world is defined by the things you can do with it (vis-à-vis it's interface.)
If we use the above analogy in programming, Car is a subclass of Vehicle and code that has a Car object can use all functions from Vehicle as well as Car. This would mean that a Car IS-A Vehicle and a Car. In conclusion, the type of object is defined by its interface, i.e the set of operations it supports.
The Open/Closed Principle states that software entities (classes, modules, etc.) should be open for extension, but closed for modification. I learned about this today and my teacher said that this concept is intrinsically connected to the concept of polymorphism. I can´t really see how both concepts are connected, can anyone explain please?
Here's my exaplanation.
Look at the following example:
public interface IShape
{
void Draw();
}
public class Square : IShape
{
public void Draw()
{
// DRAW SQUARE
}
}
public class Circle : IShape
{
public void Draw()
{
// DRAW CIRCLE
}
}
public class Renderer
{
public void DrawShapes(ICollection<IShape> shapes)
{
foreach (var shape in shapes)
{
shape.Draw();
}
}
}
This code is open to extensions and closed to modifications therefore it follows the OCP principle. Why? In case you need to make the application able to draw a new shape (e.g. Triangle), you don't need to modify the DrawShapes method of the Render class.
You only need to create a new class "Triangle" that implements the interface IShape and pass it to the DrawShapes method.
This code is also polymorphic because the "DrawShapes" method does not need to know the types of the shapes that it is rendering.
Pay attention to one thing: the closure of the O.C.P. principle is always strategic. What does it mean? It means that you cannot have code that is 100% closed to modifications. Example: what happens if you need to draw all the squares before the circles? In that case you have to modify the DrawShapes method; maybe with a Strategy pattern you can inject the policy to sort the drawing of the shapes.
I'm trying to find a good example for the use of multiple inheritance what cannot be done with normal interfaces.
I think it's pretty hard to find such an example which cannot be modeled in another way.
Edit: I mean, can someone name me a good real-world example of when you NEED to use multiple inheritance to implement this example as clean as possible. And it should not make use of multiple interfaces, just the way you can inherit multiple classes in C++.
The following is a classic:
class Animal {
public:
virtual void eat();
};
class Mammal : public Animal {
public:
virtual void breathe();
};
class WingedAnimal : public Animal {
public:
virtual void flap();
};
// A bat is a winged mammal
class Bat : public Mammal, public WingedAnimal {
};
Source: wiki.
One example where multiple class inheritance makes sense is the Observer pattern. This pattern describes two actors, the observer and the observable, and the former wants to be notified when the latter changes its object state.
A simplified version for notifying clients can look like this in C#:
public abstract class Observable
{
private readonly List<IObserver> _observers = new List<IObserver>();
// Objects that want to be notified when something changes in
// the observable can call this method
public void Subscribe(IObserver observer)
{
_observers.Add(observer);
}
// Subclasses can call this method when something changes
// to notify all observers
protected void Notify()
{
foreach (var observer in _observers)
observer.Notify();
}
}
This basically is the core logic you need to notify all the registered observers. You could make any class observable by deriving from this class, but as C# does only support single class inheritance, you are limited to not derive from another class. Something like this wouldn't work:
public class ImportantBaseClass { /* Members */ }
public class MyObservableSubclass : ImportantBaseClass, Observable { /* Members */ }
In these cases you often have to replicate the code that makes subclasses observable in all of them, basically violating the Don't Repeat Yourself and the Single Point of Truth principles (if you did MVVM in C#, think about it: how often did you implement the INotifyPropertyChanged interface?). A solution with multiple class inheritance would be much cleaner in my opinion. In C++, the above example would compile just fine.
Uncle Bob wrote an interesting article about this, that is where I got the example from. But this problem often applies to all interfaces that are *able (e.g. comparable, equatable, enumerable, etc.): a multiple class inheritance version is often cleaner in these cases, as stated by Bertrand Meyer in his book "Object-Oriented Software Construction".
I'm reading some books about Design Patterns and while some describe the relation between the abstraction and the implementation as a composition, some describe it as an aggregation. Now I wonder: is this dependant on the implementation? On the language? Or context?
The terms "composition" and "aggregation" mean more or less the same thing and may be used interchangeably. Aggregation may be used more frequently when describing container classes such as lists, dynamic arrays, maps, and queues where the elements are all of the same type; however, both terms may be found to describe classes defined in terms of other classes, regardless of whether those types are homogenous (all of the same type) or heterogenous (objects of different types).
To make this clearer:
class Car {
// ...
private:
Engine engine;
Hood hood;
};
// The car is *composed* of an engine and a hood. Hence, composition. You are
// also bringing together (i.e. *aggregating*) an engine and hood into a car.
The relationship between abstraction and implementation typically implies inheritance, rather than composition/aggregation; typically the abstraction is an interface or virtual base class, and the implementation is a fully concrete class that implements the given interface. But, to make things confusing, composition/aggregation can be a part of the interface (because, for example, you may need to set/get the objects that are used as building blocks), and they are also an approach to implementation (because you might use delegation to provide the definition for methods in your implementation).
To make this clearer:
interface Car {
public Engine getEngine();
public Hood getHood();
public void drive();
}
// In the above, the fact that a car has these building blocks
// is a part of its interface (the abstraction).
class HondaCivic2010 implements Car {
public void drive(){ getEngine().drive(); }
// ...
}
// In the above, composition/delegation is an implementation
// strategy for providing the drive functionality.
Since you have tagged your question "bridge", I should point out that the definition of the bridge pattern is a pattern where you use composition rather than inheritance to allow for variation at multiple different levels. An example that I learned at college... using inheritance you might have something like:
class GoodCharacter;
class BadCharacter;
class Mage;
class Rogue;
class GoodMage : public GoodCharacter, Mage;
class BadMage : public BadCharacter, Mage;
class GoodRogue : public GoodCharacter, Rogue;
class BadRogue : public BadCharacter, Rogue;
As you can see, this kind of thing goes pretty crazy, and you get a ridiculous number of classes. The same thing, with the bridge pattern, would look like:
class Personality;
class GoodPersonality : public Personality;
class BadPersonality : public Personality;
class CharacterClass;
class Mage : public CharacterClass;
class Rogue : public CharacterClass;
class Character {
public:
// ...
private:
CharacterClass character_class;
Personality personality;
};
// A character has both a character class and a personality.
// This is a perfect example of the bridge pattern, and we've
// reduced MxN classes into a mere M+N classes, and we've
// arguably made the system even more flexible than before.
the bridge pattern must use delegation (aggregation/composition and not inheritance). from the gang-of-four book:
Use the Bridge pattern when
* you want to avoid a permanent binding between an abstraction and its implementation. This might be the case, for example, when the implementation must be selected or switched at run-time.
* both the abstractions and their implementations should be extensible by subclassing. In this case, the Bridge pattern lets you combine the different abstractions and implementations and extend them independently.
* changes in the implementation of an abstraction should have no impact on clients; that is, their code should not have to be recompiled.
* (C++) you want to hide the implementation of an abstraction completely from clients. In C++ the representation of a class is visible in the class interface.
* you have a proliferation of classes as shown earlier in the first Motivation diagram. Such a class hierarchy indicates the need for splitting an object into two parts. Rumbaugh uses the term "nested generalizations" [RBP+91] to refer to such class hierarchies.
* you want to share an implementation among multiple objects (perhaps using reference counting), and this fact should be hidden from the client. A simple example is Coplien's String class [Cop92], in which multiple objects can share the same string representation (StringRep).
Standard UML of Bridge pattern clears out all air around the confusion. Below is an explanation with a brief example to clear the air around this.
Apologies for this lengthy code, best way is to copy this code to Visual Studio to easily understand it.
Read through the explanation written at the end of code
interface ISpeak
{
void Speak();
}
class DogSpeak : ISpeak
{
public void Speak()
{
Console.WriteLine("Dog Barks");
}
}
class CatSpeak : ISpeak
{
public void Speak()
{
Console.WriteLine("Cat Meows");
}
}
abstract class AnimalBridge
{
protected ISpeak Speech;
protected AnimalBridge(ISpeak speech)
{
this.Speech = speech;
}
public abstract void Speak();
}
class Dog : AnimalBridge
{
public Dog(ISpeak dogSpeak)
: base(dogSpeak)
{
}
public override void Speak()
{
Speech.Speak();
}
}
class Cat : AnimalBridge
{
public Cat(ISpeak catSpeak)
: base(catSpeak)
{
}
public override void Speak()
{
Speech.Speak();
}
}
-- ISpeak is the abstraction that bot Dog and Cat has to implement
-- Decoupled Dog and Cat classes by introducing a bridge "Animal" that is composed of ISpeak
-- Dog and Cat classes extend Animal class and thus are decoupled from ISpeak.
Hope this clarifies