I have a Layout Manager Class and this class designed for setting datagrid layout.
Code:
class LayoutManager
{
private object _target;
public LayoutManager(object aDataGrid)
{
_target = aDataGrid;
}
public void SaveLayout(string strProfileID)
{
}
public void LoadLayout(string strProfileID)
{
}
//in future I might add below function
public void ResetLayout()//OtherFunction0
{
}
public void OtherFunction1()
{
}
public void OtherFunction2()
{
}
}
According to OCP "a Class should be open for extension, but closed for modification". If I add the new function in LayoutManager Class, is this action violate the OCP? If yes, what is the proper way to design the class?
I don't think that adding methods to a class in general violates the OCP prinicple,
as this in fact extends the class's behviour.
The problem is if you change existing behaviours.
So that if the code on your added methods might change the behaviour of the existing methods
(because it changes the object's state) that would be a violation.
The correct way to follow the SOLID principals, is to make an interface:
ILayoutManager with the interfaces you want , with documented behaviours.
The class LayoutManager would implement this interface.
Other new methods might be added in a new interface, say ILayoutFoo or added to the existing interface, as long as they won't break the contract of the documented behaviour in the existing methods.
It's not possible to directly answer this without some concrete code.
Generally speaking though, the upshot of the OCP is that when classes derive from your base class and then override methods, the internal invariants shouldn't break because that's modification. There shouldn't be any way for the derived class to change those parts of the class' behaviour. The derived classes can change behaviour or add new functionality by using the parts exposed by the base class.
Whenever we speak about Open-Closed Principle, one important issue comes into play, which is called Strategic Closure.
It should be clear that no significant program can be 100% closed. In general, no matter how “closed” a module is, there will always be some kind of change against which it is not closed. Since closure cannot be complete, it must be strategic. That is, the designer must choose the kinds of changes against which to close his design. This takes a certain amount of prescience derived from experience. The experienced designer knows the users and the industry well enough to judge the probability of different kinds of changes. He then makes sure that the open-closed principle is invoked for the most probable changes.
For example in famous sample of Shape class you just grantee that your program (in side of Client and Shape)just is closed for modification about adding new shape.
public class Shape {
public draw() {
}
}
public class Circle extends Shape {
#Override
public void draw() {
// implementation special to Circle
}
}
public class Client {
...
public drawMyShape(Shape shape) {
shape.draw();
}
...
}
According to this Strategy, when you are designing your program, you should make a decision about the sections that you want to be closed to changes. Therefore, in your example, when you were designing your program, if you decided that your entity (in this case it is GraphCalculator class) should be closed for modification and open to extension regarding to adding new functionality, adding new function in this example violates Open-Closed Principle, due to the fact that it changes implementation in side of client and GraphCalculator class. And solution can be using abstraction, which is mentioned in previous answers.
Related
From the perspective of object-oriented best practices, where should I place a variable or method needed in some children of a parent class, but not others?
Ex.
Classes Button, Knob, Lever, and Switch inherit from parent class Device.
Button, Lever, and Switch need a boolean isOn, but Knob does not. Where would you define isOn?
Lever and Switch need a method Throw() that toggles isOn; Button uses isOn but does not use Throw() to handle it. Does this affect your placement of isOn, and where would you define the Throw() method?
The above is purely an example; let's assume that there are distinct properties of each child class that distinguish it and that there are commonalities that make it reasonable to use the inheritence model discussed.
When only a sub-set of sub-classes share functionality, this can be expressed with an interface that contains the methods in question, which is only implemented by the sub-classes that need them.
public interface OnOffable {
boolean isOn();
void toggleOnOff();
void turnOn(boolean is_on);
void turnOn();
void turnOff();
}
class Switch extends Device implements OnOffable...
If one or more of the functions is moderately complicated, you can create a static utility function that helps prevent redundant code. In this example, however, the "complicated-ness" is the need to keep the on-off state.
In this situation, you can create an OnOffableComposer which (my preference) does not implement OnOffable.
And actually, since this particular interface can be completely implemented (meaning it needs no protected or abstract function), it can actually be a "simple" implementation of it:
public class SimpleOnOffable implements OnOffable {
private boolean isOn;
public class OnOffableComposer(boolean is_on) {
turnOn(is_on);
}
public boolean isOn() {
return isOn;
}
public void turnOn(boolean is_on) {
isOn = is_on;
}
public void toggleOnOff() {
turnOn(!isOn());
}
public void turnOn() {
turnOn(true);
}
public void turnOff() {
turnOn(false);
}
}
Here's how it's used:
public class Switch extends Device implements OnOffable {
private final SimpleOnOffable smplOnOff;
public Switch(boolean is_on) {
smplOnOff = new SimpleOnOffable(is_on);
}
public boolean isOn() {
return smplOnOff.isOn();
}
public void turnOn(boolean is_on) {
smplOnOff.turnOn(is_on);
}
public void toggleOnOff() {
smplOnOff.toggleOnOff();
}
public void turnOn() {
smplOnOff.turnOn();
}
public void turnOff() {
smplOnOff.turnOff();
}
}
Although the composer is "simple", this all demonstrates the concept of choosing composition over inheritance. It allows for much more complicated designs than single inheritance allows.
It sounds like the wrong abstraction all around. At the very least, Knob doesn't belong with the others. I might inject a class between Device and the three closely-related devices. Perhaps something like BinaryDevice:
abstract class Device {}
abstract class BinaryDevice : Device {
abstract void Activate();
abstract void Deactivate();
}
class Switch : BinaryDevice {
void Activate() { // activate the switch }
void Deactivate() { // deactivate the switch }
}
// same for Lever, which honestly is really just a Switch with a different styling and may not even need to be a separate object
class Button : BinaryDevice {
void Activate() { // activate the button, then immediately call Deactivate() }
void Deactivate() { // deactivate the button }
}
Knob can also inherit from Device, but at this point there is no common functionality for a Device so it's not clear why that universal common base class is even necessary. As further functionality is added to the various devices there may indeed be common functionality to push up to the base class. Indeed, there are well established refactoring patterns for dealing with generalization like this.
With the classes above, I imagine there would be error handling for trying to invoke an action in an incorrect state. For example, it's difficult to imagine a scenario where a Button would need anybody to call Deactivate() on it, since it de-activates itself. (Though just as a real-life button can become stuck, so too can this one if the action it invokes hangs for some reason.) But in any event even the Activate() and Deactivate() on the other objects would still need to check state. You can't activate a switch that's already active, for example.
The point is, the clarity of an object model starts to make itself more apparent when terminology and real-world modeling is more carefully considered. A lot of times developers try to shoehorn terminology into a handful of common terms in order to maximize their use of things like inheritance, and unfortunately this often results in the wrong abstraction and a confused domain model.
Build your objects as they naturally exist, then look for patterns which can be abstracted into common functionality. Don't try to define the common functionality first and then force objects to fit that mold.
In general, I would say that if an element of a parent class is needed in some but not all of the children then an intermediate parent should be introduced.
When defining an inheritance hierarchy, it's a logical assumption that the children of a parent should share all properties of that common ancestor. This is akin to the way a biological taxonomy would work, and it helps to keep the code clean.
So let's have a look at the objects in your system (we'll use the "is a" relationship to help us figure out the inheritance hierarchy):
Button, Knob, Lever, and Switch
Each of these might indeed be called "Devices", but when we say "devices" most people will probably think of digital devices like phones or tablets. A better word for describing these objects might be "controls" because these objects help you to control things.
Are all objects Controls? Indeed they are, so every object will have Control as a parent in its inheritance hierarchy.
Do we need to further classify? Well your requirements are to have an on/off status, but it does not make sense for every control to have on/off status, but only some of them. So let's further divide these into Control and ToggleControl.
Is every Control a ToggleControl? No, so these are separate classes of objects.
Is every ToggleControl a Control? Yes, so ToggleControl can inherit from Control.
Are all objects properly classified and are all parent attributes shared by all children? Yes, so we're done building our inheritance hierarchy.
Our inheritance hierarchy thus looks like this:
Control (Code shared by all controls)
/ \
/ \
Knob ToggleControl (Code shared by all controls that can also be toggled - Adds isOn)
\
\
Button, Lever, Switch
Now, to the other part of your question:
Lever and Switch need a method Throw() that toggles isOn; Button uses isOn but does not use Throw() to handle it. Does this affect your placement of isOn, and where would you define the Throw() method?
Firstly, "throw" is a reserved word (at least in Java), so using method names that are similar to reserved words might cause confusion. The method might be better named "toggle()".
Button should (in fact it must) use toggle() to toggle it's isOn since it is a togglable control.
I am writing a StateManager for a game (I'm using C++ and SFML, but I tried to hide language specific elements because this is a question about any OOP language).
I have a setup in which a StateManager updates the current active state. However, a State must be able to change the active state (e.g. pressing "Play" in a menu starts a PlayingState), so I keep a reference to the StateManager in my State class.
Here's an UML diagram to make things more clear.
As you see, StateManager and State both reference eachother.
How can I avoid spaghetticode? Should I make the StateManager a singleton class? While we're at it, should the game class be a singleton class? I could easily do this, but I don't really like other classes in my game being able to access the game class or statemanager class, even if I am the only programmer.
You need to design in contracts also known as interfaces. For example, a state (in principle) does not need access to the state machine. The implementation of a state may need access though. Example in C#:
public interface IState
{
void Render();
void Update();
}
public interface IStateMachine
{
void ChangeState(IState newState);
}
public class MenuState : IState
{
private IStateMachine _stateMachine;
public MenuState(IStateMachine stateMachine)
{
_stateMachine = stateMachine;
}
public void Render()
{
}
public void Update()
{
}
}
public class StateMachineImplementation : IStateMachine
{
public void ChangeState(IState newState)
{
}
}
Notice Any implementation of IState is unaware of any IStateMachine implementation, they just work on contracts. Also notice that MenuState is not concerned about where 'IStateMachine' comes from (Inversion of Control), it just uses it.
You could add in another function into IStateMachine for GetStates() if you needed to.
Ultimately, you use these contracts to avoid coupling; which means you can completely replace the implementation of IStateManager and (assuming that adheres to the contract), MenuState will still work fine.
There's nothing wrong with bidirectional references. Look at Qt's parent/child model for QWidgets. If each State can only affect one StateManager, make each State take a pointer to a StateManager "parent" in its construction, or set it later. A StateManager can keep track of its "children" in a collection, and each child knows who its parent is, so it can inform that parent of any changes.
Edit:
I think the first thing to look at would be to break your State class up. Currently it represents both a state and an action to change into that state. Actions should have knowledge of a StateMachine, to tell it to change states. States should be internal to the StateMachine.
I have a base class where all common functions are written. I many classes which override this functions by virtual keyword. Like,
public class Base
{
public virtual void sample()
{
..............
}
}
public class a : Base
{
public override sample()
{
}
}
public class implement
{
public void ToSample()
{
Base baseclass = new Base();
Switch(test)
{
case a: baseclass = a();
break;
case b: baseclass = b();
break;
}
baseclass.sample();
}
}
This perfect code for current situation but now I have more class to be assign in switch case. It is not good practice for adding huge amount of cases so I want something that automatically assign child class.
Is anybody know something to be implement ?
As stated in the comment, you can decouple the implementation by using dependency injection. Note however, that in some cases you have no choice but doing that kind of switch (e.g. when you need to create a class based on a text received in a socket). In such cases the important thing is to always keep the switch statement encapsulated in one method and make your objects rely on it (or, in other words, don't copy-and-paste it everywhere :)). The idea here is too keep your system isolated from a potentially harmful code. Of course that if you add a new class you will have to go and modify that method, however you will only have to do it in one time and in one specific place.
Another approach that I have seen (and sometimes used) is to build a mapping between values an classes. So, if your class-creation switch depends on an integer code, you basically create a mapping between codes and classes. What you are doing here is turning a "static" switch into a dynamic behavior, since you can change the mappings contents at any time and thus alter the way your program behaves. A typical implementation would be something like (sorry for the pseudocode, I'm not familiar with C#):
public class implement
{
public void ToSample()
{
class = this.mapping.valueForKey(test);
Base baseclass = new class();
baseclass.sample();
}
}
Note however that for this example to work you need reflection support, which varies according to the language you are using (again, sorry but I don't know the C# specifics).
Finally, you can also check the creational family of patterns for inspiration regarding object creation issues and some well known forms of solving them.
HTH
A common red flag that an OOP language is not being leveraged properly looks like this:
if (typeof(x) == T1)
{
DoSomethingWithT1(x);
}
else if (typeof(x) == T2)
{
DoSomethingWithT2(x);
}
The standard "fix" for such design issues is to make T1 and T2 both share an interface, either through inheritance of a base type or implementation of a common interface (in languages that support it); for example, in C# a solution might be:
public interface IT
{
void DoSomething();
}
However, sometimes you want to implement functionality that differs based on the type of an object but that functionality does not belong within that object's type; thus polymorphism seems the wrong way to go.
For example, consider the case of a UI that provides a view of a given clump of data. Supposing this view is capable of rendering various layouts and controls depending on the type of data being presented, how would you implement this type-specific rendering without a bunch of if/else statements?
For reasons that I hope are obvious, putting the rendering logic in the type itself strikes me as a very bad decision in this case. On the other hand, without coupling the type of data object to its visual presentation I have a hard time seeing how the if/else scenario is avoided.
Here's a concrete example: I work on a trading application which utilizes many different pricing models for various market products. These different models are represented by types inheriting from a common PricingModel base; and each type is associated with a completely different set of parameters. When the user wants to view the parameters for a particular pricing model (for a particular product), currently these are displayed by a form which detects the type of the model and displays an appropriate set of controls. My question is how this could be implemented more elegantly than it is currently (with a big if/else block).
I realize this probably seems like a very basic question; it's just one of those gaps in my knowledge (of solid OOP principles? design patterns? common sense?) that I figured it's about time to fix.
We are injecting (Spring.Net) such functionality into dictionaries by type.
IDictionary<Type, IBlahImplementor> blahImplementors;
blahImplementors[thingy.GetType()].Do(thingy);
This dictionary could be managed by a kind of repository which provides the functionality.
As an implementation detail, the implementor usually knows the type it depends on an can provide it itself:
interface IBlahImplementor
{
Type ForType { get; }
void Do(object thingy);
}
Then it is added to the dictionary like this:
IEnumerably<IBlahImplementor> blahImplementors;
foreach (var implementor in blahImplementors)
{
blahImplementors.Add(implementor.ForType, implementor);
}
Remark: IMHO, it is very important to understand that some things do NOT belong into a class, even if providing subtype-specific implementations would make life much easier.
Edit: Finally understood your concrete example.
It is actually about instancing the right UI control to show the pricing models parameters. It should be possible with the pattern I described above. If you don't have a single UI control for a pricing model, you either create it or you write a UI configurer or something like this which sets up the required controls.
interface IPricingModelUiConfigurer
{
Type PricingModelType { get; }
void SetupUi(Control parent, IPricingModel model);
}
you can use common interface approach as you describe and Command pattern to trigger methods with "functionality does not belong within that object's type". I think this won't break solid OOP principles.
What you described is pretty much exactly the use case for the Visitor Pattern.
EDIT: For your concrete example, you could apply the visitor pattern like this:
// interface used to add external functionality to pricing models
public interface PricingModelVisitor {
void visitPricingModel1(PricingModel1 m);
void visitPricingModel2(PricingModel2 m);
...
}
// your existing base-class, with added abstract accept() method to accept a visitor
public abstract class PricingModelBase {
public abstract void accept(PricingModelVisitor v);
...
}
// concrete implementations of the PricingModelBase implement accept() by calling the
// appropriate method on the visitor, passing themselves as the argument
public class PricingModel1 : PricingModelBase {
public void accept(PricingModelVisitor v) { v.visitPricingModel1(this); }
...
}
public class PricingModel2 : PricingModel {
public void accept(PricingModelVisitor v) { v.visitPricingModel2(this); }
...
}
// concrete implementation of the visitor interface, in this case with the new
// functionality of adding the appropriate controls to a parent control
public class ParameterGuiVisitor : PricingModelVisitor {
private Control _parent;
public ParameterGuiVisitor(Control parent) { _parent = parent; }
visitPricingModel1(PricingModel1 m) {
// add controls to _parent for PricingModel1
}
visitPricingModel2(PricingModel2 m) {
// add controls to _parent for PricingModel1
}
}
now, instead of using a big if-else block when you need to display the edit-controls for the parameters of a specific subtype of PricingModelVisitor, you can simply call
somePricingModel.accept(new ParameterGuiVisitor(parentControl))
and it will populate the appropriate GUI for you.
I am looking for an alternative to the visitor pattern. Let me just focus on a couple of pertinent aspects of the pattern, while skipping over unimportant details. I'll use a Shape example (sorry!):
You have a hierarchy of objects that implement the IShape interface
You have a number of global operations that are to be performed on all objects in the hierarchy, e.g. Draw, WriteToXml etc...
It is tempting to dive straight in and add a Draw() and WriteToXml() method to the IShape interface. This is not necessarily a good thing - whenever you wish to add a new operation that is to be performed on all shapes, each IShape-derived class must be changed
Implementing a visitor for each operation i.e. a Draw visitor or a WirteToXml visitor encapsulates all the code for that operation in one class. Adding a new operation is then a matter of creating a new visitor class that performs the operation on all types of IShape
When you need to add a new IShape-derived class, you essentially have the same problem as you did in 3 - all visitor classes must be changed to add a method to handle the new IShape-derived type
Most places where you read about the visitor pattern state that point 5 is pretty much the main criteria for the pattern to work and I totally agree. If the number of IShape-derived classes is fixed, then this can be a quite elegant approach.
So, the problem is when a new IShape-derived class is added - each visitor implementation needs to add a new method to handle that class. This is, at best, unpleasant and, at worst, not possible and shows that this pattern is not really designed to cope with such changes.
So, the question is has anybody come across alterative approaches to handling this situation?
You might want to have a look at the Strategy pattern. This still gives you a separation of concerns while still being able to add new functionality without having to change each class in your hierarchy.
class AbstractShape
{
IXmlWriter _xmlWriter = null;
IShapeDrawer _shapeDrawer = null;
public AbstractShape(IXmlWriter xmlWriter,
IShapeDrawer drawer)
{
_xmlWriter = xmlWriter;
_shapeDrawer = drawer;
}
//...
public void WriteToXml(IStream stream)
{
_xmlWriter.Write(this, stream);
}
public void Draw()
{
_drawer.Draw(this);
}
// any operation could easily be injected and executed
// on this object at run-time
public void Execute(IGeneralStrategy generalOperation)
{
generalOperation.Execute(this);
}
}
More information is in this related discussion:
Should an object write itself out to a file, or should another object act on it to perform I/O?
There is the "Visitor Pattern With Default", in which you do the visitor pattern as normal but then define an abstract class that implements your IShapeVisitor class by delegating everything to an abstract method with the signature visitDefault(IShape).
Then, when you define a visitor, extend this abstract class instead of implementing the interface directly. You can override the visit* methods you know about at that time, and provide for a sensible default. However, if there really isn't any way to figure out sensible default behavior ahead of time, you should just implement the interface directly.
When you add a new IShape subclass, then, you fix the abstract class to delegate to its visitDefault method, and every visitor that specified a default behavior gets that behavior for the new IShape.
A variation on this if your IShape classes fall naturally into a hierarchy is to make the abstract class delegate through several different methods; for example, an DefaultAnimalVisitor might do:
public abstract class DefaultAnimalVisitor implements IAnimalVisitor {
// The concrete animal classes we have so far: Lion, Tiger, Bear, Snake
public void visitLion(Lion l) { visitFeline(l); }
public void visitTiger(Tiger t) { visitFeline(t); }
public void visitBear(Bear b) { visitMammal(b); }
public void visitSnake(Snake s) { visitDefault(s); }
// Up the class hierarchy
public void visitFeline(Feline f) { visitMammal(f); }
public void visitMammal(Mammal m) { visitDefault(m); }
public abstract void visitDefault(Animal a);
}
This lets you define visitors that specify their behavior at whatever level of specificity you wish.
Unfortunately, there is no way to avoid doing something to specify how visitors will behave with a new class - either you can set up a default ahead of time, or you can't. (See also the second panel of this cartoon )
I maintain a CAD/CAM software for metal cutting machine. So I have some experience with this issues.
When we first converted our software (it was first released in 1985!) to a object oriented designed I did just what you don't like. Objects and Interfaces had Draw, WriteToFile, etc. Discovering and reading about Design Patterns midway through the conversion helped a lot but there were still a lot of bad code smells.
Eventually I realized that none of these types of operations were really the concern of the object. But rather the various subsystems that needed to do the various operations. I handled this by using what is now called a Passive View Command object, and well defined Interface between the layers of software.
Our software is structured basically like this
The Forms implementing various Form
Interface. These forms are a thing shell passing events to the UI Layer.
UI layer that receives Events and manipulate forms through the Form interface.
The UI Layer will execute commands that all implement the Command interface
The UI Object have interfaces of their own that the command can interact with.
The Commands get the information they need, process it, manipulates the model and then report back to the UI Objects which then does anything needed with the forms.
Finally the models which contains the various objects of our system. Like Shape Programs, Cutting Paths, Cutting Table, and Metal Sheets.
So Drawing is handled in the UI Layer. We have different software for different machines. So while all of our software share the same model and reuse many of the same commands. They handle things like drawing very different. For a example a cutting table is draw different for a router machine versus a machine using a plasma torch despite them both being esstentially a giant X-Y flat table. This because like cars the two machines are built differently enough so that there is a visual difference to the customer.
As for shapes what we do is as follows
We have shape programs that produce cutting paths through the entered parameters. The cutting path knows which shape program produced. However a cutting path isn't a shape. It just the information needed to draw on the screen and to cut the shape. One reason for this design is that cutting paths can be created without a shape program when they are imported from a external app.
This design allows us to separate the design of the cutting path from the design of the shape which are not always the same thing. In your case likely all you need to package is the information needed to draw the shape.
Each shape program has a number of views implementing a IShapeView Interface. Through the IShapeView interface the shape program can tell the generic shape form we have how to setup itself up to show the parameters of that shape. The generic shape form implements a IShapeForm interface and registers itself with the ShapeScreen Object. The ShapeScreen Object registers itself with our application object. The shape views use whatever shapescreen that registers itself with the application.
The reason for the multiple views that we have customers that like to enter shapes in different ways. Our customer base is split in half between those who like to enter shape parameters in a table form and those who like to enter with a graphical representation of the shape in front of them. We also need to access the parameters at times through a minimal dialog rather than our full shape entry screen. Hence the multiple views.
Commands that manipulate shapes fall in one of two catagories. Either they manipulate the cutting path or they manipulate the shape parameters. To manipulate the shape parameters generally we either throw them back into the shape entry screen or show the minimal dialog. Recalculate the shape, and display it in the same location.
For the cutting path we bundled up each operation in a separate command object. For example we have command objects
ResizePath
RotatePath
MovePath
SplitPath
and so on.
When we need to add new functionality we add another command object, find a menu, keyboard short or toolbar button slot in the right UI screen and setup the UI object to ececute that command.
For example
CuttingTableScreen.KeyRoute.Add vbShift+vbKeyF1, New MirrorPath
or
CuttingTableScreen.Toolbar("Edit Path").AddButton Application.Icons("MirrorPath"),"Mirror Path", New MirrorPath
In both instances the Command object MirrorPath is being associated with a desired UI element. In the execute method of MirrorPath is all the code needed to mirror the path in a particular axis. Likely the command will have it's own dialog or use one of the UI elements to ask the user which axis to mirror. None of this is making a visitor, or adding a method to the path.
You will find that a lot can be handled through bundling actions into commands. However I caution that is not a black or white situation. You will still find that certain things work better as methods on the original object. In may experience I found that perhaps 80% of what I used to do in methods were able to be moved into the command. The last 20% just plain work better on the object.
Now some may not like this because it seems to violate encapsulations. From maintaining our software as a object oriented system for the last decade I have to say the MOST important long term thing you can do is clearly document the interactions between the different layers of your software and between the different objects.
Bundling actions into Command objects helps with this goal way better than a slavish devotion to the ideals of encapsulation. Everything that is needs to be done to Mirror a Path is bundled in the Mirror Path Command Object.
Visitor design pattern is a workaround, not a solution to the problem. Short answer would be pattern matching.
Regardless of what path you take, the implementation of alternate functionality that is currently provided by the Visitor pattern will have to 'know' something about the concrete implementation of the interface that it is working on. So there is no getting around the fact that you are going to have to write addition 'visitor' functionality for each additional implementation. That said what you are looking for is a more flexible and structured approach to creating this functionality.
You need to separate out the visitor functionality from the interface of the shape.
What I would propose is a creationist approach via an abstract factory to create replacement implementations for visitor functionality.
public interface IShape {
// .. common shape interfaces
}
//
// This is an interface of a factory product that performs 'work' on the shape.
//
public interface IShapeWorker {
void process(IShape shape);
}
//
// This is the abstract factory that caters for all implementations of
// shape.
//
public interface IShapeWorkerFactory {
IShapeWorker build(IShape shape);
...
}
//
// In order to assemble a correct worker we need to create
// and implementation of the factory that links the Class of
// shape to an IShapeWorker implementation.
// To do this we implement an abstract class that implements IShapeWorkerFactory
//
public AbsractWorkerFactory implements IShapeWorkerFactory {
protected Hashtable map_ = null;
protected AbstractWorkerFactory() {
map_ = new Hashtable();
CreateWorkerMappings();
}
protected void AddMapping(Class c, IShapeWorker worker) {
map_.put(c, worker);
}
//
// Implement this method to add IShape implementations to IShapeWorker
// implementations.
//
protected abstract void CreateWorkerMappings();
public IShapeWorker build(IShape shape) {
return (IShapeWorker)map_.get(shape.getClass())
}
}
//
// An implementation that draws circles on graphics
//
public GraphicsCircleWorker implements IShapeWorker {
Graphics graphics_ = null;
public GraphicsCircleWorker(Graphics g) {
graphics_ = g;
}
public void process(IShape s) {
Circle circle = (Circle)s;
if( circle != null) {
// do something with it.
graphics_.doSomething();
}
}
}
//
// To replace the previous graphics visitor you create
// a GraphicsWorkderFactory that implements AbstractShapeFactory
// Adding mappings for those implementations of IShape that you are interested in.
//
public class GraphicsWorkerFactory implements AbstractShapeFactory {
Graphics graphics_ = null;
public GraphicsWorkerFactory(Graphics g) {
graphics_ = g;
}
protected void CreateWorkerMappings() {
AddMapping(Circle.class, new GraphicCircleWorker(graphics_));
}
}
//
// Now in your code you could do the following.
//
IShapeWorkerFactory factory = SelectAppropriateFactory();
//
// for each IShape in the heirarchy
//
for(IShape shape : shapeTreeFlattened) {
IShapeWorker worker = factory.build(shape);
if(worker != null)
worker.process(shape);
}
It still means that you have to write concrete implementations to work on new versions of 'shape' but because it is completely separated from the interface of shape, you can retrofit this solution without breaking the original interface and software that interacts with it. It acts as a sort of scaffolding around the implementations of IShape.
If you're using Java: Yes, it's called instanceof. People are overly scared to use it. Compared to the visitor pattern, it's generally faster, more straightforward, and not plagued by point #5.
If you have n IShapes and m operations that behave differently for each shape, then you require n*m individual functions. Putting these all in the same class seems like a terrible idea to me, giving you some sort of God object. So they should be grouped either by IShape, by putting m functions, one for each operation, in the IShape interface, or grouped by operation (by using the visitor pattern), by putting n functions, one for each IShape in each operation/visitor class.
You either have to update multiple classes when you add a new IShape or when you add a new operation, there is no way around it.
If you are looking for each operation to implement a default IShape function, then that would solve your problem, as in Daniel Martin's answer: https://stackoverflow.com/a/986034/1969638, although I would probably use overloading:
interface IVisitor
{
void visit(IShape shape);
void visit(Rectangle shape);
void visit(Circle shape);
}
interface IShape
{
//...
void accept(IVisitor visitor);
}
I have actually solved this problem using the following pattern. I do not know if it has a name or not!
public interface IShape
{
}
public interface ICircleShape : IShape
{
}
public interface ILineShape : IShape
{
}
public interface IShapeDrawer
{
void Draw(IShape shape);
/// <summary>
/// Returns the type of the shape this drawer is able to draw!
/// </summary>
Type SourceType { get; }
}
public sealed class LineShapeDrawer : IShapeDrawer
{
public Type SourceType => typeof(ILineShape);
public void Draw(IShape drawing)
{
if (drawing is ILineShape)
{
// Code to draw the line
}
}
}
public sealed class CircleShapeDrawer : IShapeDrawer
{
public Type SourceType => typeof(ICircleShape);
public void Draw(IShape drawing)
{
if (drawing is ICircleShape)
{
// Code to draw the circle
}
}
}
public sealed class ShapeDrawingClient
{
private readonly IDictionary<Type, IShapeDrawer> m_shapeDrawers =
new Dictionary<Type, IShapeDrawer>();
public void Add(IShapeDrawer shapeDrawer)
{
m_shapeDrawers[shapeDrawer.SourceType] = shapeDrawer;
}
public void Draw(IShape shape)
{
Type[] interfaces = shape.GetType().GetInterfaces();
foreach (Type #interface in interfaces)
{
if (m_shapeDrawers.TryGetValue(#interface, out IShapeDrawer drawer))
{
drawer.Draw(drawing);
return;
}
}
}
}
Usage:
LineShapeDrawer lineShapeDrawer = new LineShapeDrawer();
CircleShapeDrawer circleShapeDrawer = new CircleShapeDrawer();
ShapeDrawingClient client = new ShapeDrawingClient ();
client.Add(lineShapeDrawer);
client.Add(circleShapeDrawer);
foreach (IShape shape in shapes)
{
client.Draw(shape);
}
Now if someone as the user of my library defines IRectangleShape and wants to draw it, they can simply define IRectangleShapeDrawer and add it to ShapeDrawingClient's list of drawers!