I have a base Address class which defines basic address properties and acts as an CRUD object:
Name
Company
Address Line 1
Address Line 2
Address Line 3
City
State
Postal Code
Country
I have a 'ShipToAddress' class which extends Address and includes two more properties:
Phone Number
Email Address
Address includes validation methods for each of its properties, and ShipToAddress includes validation for only its properties (Phone Number and Email Address).
My issue is, I also want to account for both USA and International addresses for both of these classes without duplicating code, so that I can have different validation methods for State and Postal Code. USA State validation would ensure that the value is one of the 50 States. International validation would simply ensure that it does not exceed the length allowed in the database.
How can I design this to allow for any number of different types of addresses (USA, Canada, etc.) but also have the base Address class and the ShipToAddress class, without duplicating the code? I basically want the following:
Address Base Class
ShipToAddress
USAAddress
USAShipToAddress
***Address
***ShipToAddress
Define AddressValidator as a separate interface.
public interface AddressValidator {
boolean validateAddress(ShipToAddress add);
}
Create different implementations of it - USAAddressValidator, CanadaAddressValidator etc.
You can have a Factory to give you the appropriate AddressValidator object based on the country.
public class AddressValidatorFactory {
public static AddressValidator GetValidator(Address address) { ... }
}
You should also consider whether ShipToAddress should extend Address or contain it. Are you going to pass ShipToAddress object where Address is expected? If not, then there is no need for ShipToAddress to extend Address.
I would probably make it a template, with the validator passed as a template parameter:
class US_validator { /* ... */ };
class Int_validator { /* .. */ };
template <class Validator>
class Address {
// ...
};
template <class Validator>
class Shipping_address : public Address {
// ...
};
typedef Address<US_validator> US_Address;
typedef Address<Int_validator> Int_Address;
typedef Shipping_address<US_validator> US_Shipping_address;
typedef Shipping_address<Int_validator> Int_Shipping_address;
Another possibility would be to use multiple inheritance, with the validator as a base class.
class US_validator { /* ... */ };
class Int_validator { /* ... */ };
class Address { /* ... */ };
class Shipping_Address : public Address { /* ... */ };
class US_Shipping_Address : public US_validator, public Shipping_Address { /* ... */ };
class Int_Shipping_Address : public Int_validator, public Shipping_Address { /* ... */ };
The latter isn't used nearly as often nor (probably) viewed as favorably by most, but can still work perfectly well.
Related
Imagine we have a number of related objects (equivalently DB tables), for example:
public class Person {
private String name;
private Date birthday;
private int height;
private Job job;
private House house;
..
}
public class Job {
private String company;
private int salary;
..
}
public class House {
private Address address;
private int age;
private int numRooms;
..
}
public class Address {
private String town;
private String street;
..
}
How to best design a system for easily defining and accessing widely varying subsets of data on these objects/tables? Design patterns, pros and cons, are very welcome. I'm using Java, but this is a more general problem.
For example, I want to easily say:
I'd like some object with (Person.name, Person.height, Job.company, Address.street)
I'd like some object with (Job.company, House.numRooms, Address.town)
Etc.
Other assumptions:
We can assume that we're always getting a known structure of objects on the input, e.g. a Person with its Job, House, and Address.
The resulting object doesn't necessarily need to know the names of the fields it was constructed from, i.e. for subset defined as (Person.name, Person.height, Job.company, Address.street) it can be the array of Objects {"Joe Doe", 180, "ACompany Inc.", "Main Street"}.
The object/table hierarchy is complex, so there are hundreds of data fields.
There may be hundreds of subsets that need to be defined.
A minority of fields to obtain may be computed from actual fields, e.g. I may want to get a person's age, computed as (now().getYear() - Person.birtday.getYear()).
Here are some options I see:
A SQL view for each subset.
Minuses:
They will be almost the same for similar subsets. This is OK just for field names, but not great for the joins part, which could ideally be refactored out to a common place.
Less testable than a solution in code.
Using a DTO assembler, e.g. http://www.genericdtoassembler.org/
This could be used to flatten the complex structure of input objects into a single DTO.
Minuses:
I'm not sure how I'd then proceed to easily define subsets of fields on this DTO. Perhaps if I could somehow set the ones irrelevant to the current subset to null? Not sure how.
Not sure if I can do computed fields easily in this way.
A custom mapper I came up with.
Relevant code:
// The enum has a value for each field in the Person objects hierarchy
// that we may be interested in.
public enum DataField {
PERSON_NAME(new PersonNameExtractor()),
..
PERSON_AGE(new PersonAgeExtractor()),
..
COMPANY(new CompanyExtractor()),
..
}
// This is the container for field-value pairs from a given instance of
// the object hierarchy.
public class Vector {
private Map<DataField, Object> fields;
..
}
// Extractors know how to get the value for a given DataField
// from the object hierarchy. There's one extractor per each field.
public interface Extractor<T> {
public T extract(Person person);
}
public class PersonNameExtractor implements Extractor<String> {
public String extract(Person person) {
return person.getName();
}
}
public class PersonAgeExtractor implements Extractor<Integer> {
public int extract(Person person) {
return now().getYear() - person.getBirthday().getYear();
}
}
public class CompanyExtractor implements Extractor<String> {
public String extract(Person person) {
return person.getJob().getCompany();
}
}
// Building the Vector using all the fields from the DataField enum
// and the extractors.
public class FullVectorBuilder {
public Vector buildVector(Person person) {
Vector vector = new Vector();
for (DataField field : DataField.values()) {
vector.addField(field, field.getExtractor().extract(person));
}
return vector;
}
}
// Definition of a subset of fields on the Vector.
public interface Selector {
public List<DataField> getFields();
}
public class SampleSubsetSelector implements Selector {
private List<DataField> fields = ImmutableList.of(PERSON_NAME, COMPANY);
...
}
// Finally, a builder for the subset Vector, choosing only
// fields pointed to by the selector.
public class SubsetVectorBuilder {
public Vector buildSubsetVector(Vector fullVector, Selector selector) {
Vector subsetVector = new Vector();
for (DataField field : selector.getFields()) {
subsetVector.addField(field, fullVector.getValue(field));
}
return subsetVector;
}
}
Minuses:
Need to create a tiny Extractor class for each of hundreds of data fields.
This is a custom solution that I came up with, seems to work and I like it, but I feel this problem must have been encountered and solved before, likely in a better way.. Has it?
Edit
Each object knows how to turn itself into a Map of fields, keyed on an enum of all fields.
E.g.
public enum DataField {
PERSON_NAME,
..
PERSON_AGE,
..
COMPANY,
..
}
public class Person {
private String name;
private Date birthday;
private int height;
private Job job;
private House house;
..
public Map<DataField, Object> toMap() {
return ImmutableMap
.add(DataField.PERSON_NAME, name)
.add(DataField.BIRTHDAY, birthday)
.add(DataField.HEIGHT, height)
.add(DataField.AGE, now().getYear() - birthday.getYear())
.build();
}
}
Then, I could build a Vector combining all the Maps, and select subsets from it like in 3.
Minuses:
Enum name clashes, e.g. if Job has an Address and House has an Address, then I want to be able to specify a subset taking street name of both. But how do I then define the toMap() method in the Address class?
No obvious place to put code doing computed fields requiring data from more than one object, e.g. physical distance from Address of House to Address of Company.
Many thanks!
Over in-memory object mapping in the application, I would favor database processing of the data for better performance. Views, or more elaborate OLAP/datawarehouse tooling could do the trick. If the calculated fields remain basic, as in "age = now - birth", I see nothing wrong with having that logic in the DB.
On the code side, given the large number of DTOs you have to deal with, you could use classless dynamic (available in some JVM languages) or JSON objects. The idea is that when a data structure changes, you only need to modify the DB and the UI, saving you the cost of changing a whole bunch of classes in between.
Let's say you need to build an application that manages cheques. Each cheque contains data about the amount of money, the date, the payee and an additional payment date which may or may not be present. Additionally, each cheque must be related to a current account which belongs to a certain bank.
Now, our application should allow cheques printing under these conditions:
Each bank managed by the app has a different cheque layout (i.e. each field has a different x,y position).
The cheque layout changes slightly if the payment date is present, even with the same related bank object. But, from bank to bank these changes may not be the same (e.g. bank A may vary position for the date field, while bank B changes position for the payee field)
With these restrictions in place, it's difficult to come up with a simple inheritance schema as there is no consistent behavior to factor out accross the different types of cheques there are. One possible solution would be to avoid inheritance and create a class for every cheque - bank combination:
class ChequeNoPaymentDateForBankA
class ChequeWithPaymentDateForBankA
class ChequeNoPaymentDateForBankB
class ChequeWithPaymentDateForBankB, etc.
Each of these classes implement the print() method which takes the fields positions from a Bank object and builds up the cheque layout. So far so good, but this approach leaves me with a strange feeling as there is no room for code reuse. I wonder if I'm misinterpreting the problem and perhaps there is a better way. As this is not a new problem domain at all, I'm sure this is a reinvent-the-wheel effort. Any insights will be kindly appreciated.
Usually in these situations I move from inheritance to delegation. That is, instead of putting the common code in a superclass (which, as you say, is problematic becuase there are two dimensions), I put the common in a field (one field per dimension) and delegate to that field.
Assuming you're speaking about Java:
public interface Bank {
public void print();
}
public class BankA implements Bank {
public void print() { ... }
}
public class BankB implements Bank {
public void print() { ... }
}
public interface PaymentSchedule {
public void print();
}
public class WithPaymentDate implements PaymentSchedule {
public void print() { ... }
}
public class NoPaymentDate implements PaymentSchedule {
public void print() { ... }
}
public class Cheque {
private final Bank bank;
private final PaymentSchedule schedule;
public Cheque(Bank b, PaymentSchedule s) {
bank = b;
schedule = s;
}
public void print() {
bank.print();
schedule.print();
}
}
That's the general structure of the solution.
Depending on the exact details of your print() algorithm you may need to pass some more data into the print methods and/or to pass this data into the constructors of the classes (of the Bank or PaymentSchedule subclasses) and store it in fields.
I would start by separating the domain model (cheques, banks, etc) from the view (the way the cheques are printed). This is the basic idea behind the MVC pattern and one of its aims is to allow the same domain model to be displayed in different ways (which seems to be your case). So, I would first create the domain classes, something like:
class Cheque
{
protected $bank;
protected $money;
...
}
class Bank {...}
Note that these classes are the "M" of the MVC triad and implement the logic of your domain model, not the behavior related to the rendering process. The next step would be to implement the View classes used to render a cheque. Which approach to take heavily depends on how complex your rendering is, but I would start by having a ChequeView class that renders the common parts and that delegates to other sub-view the specific parts that can change (in this case the date):
abstract class ChequeView
{
protected $cheque;
protected $dateView;
public function __construct($cheque)
{
$this->cheque = $cheque;
$this->dateView = //Whatever process you use to decide if the payment date is shown or not
}
public function render()
{
$this->coreRender();
$this->dateView->render();
}
abstract protected function coreRender();
}
class BankACheckView extends ChequeView
{
protected function coreRender() {...}
}
class BankBCheckView extends ChequeView
{
protected function coreRender() {...}
}
abstract class DateView
{
abstract function render()
}
class ShowDateView extends DateView
{
function render() {...}
}
class NullDateView extends DateView
{
function render() {...}
}
And, if there is code to reuse across subclasses, you can of course factor them in ChequeView and make coreRender() call them.
In case your rendering turns to be too complex, this design may not scale. In that case I would go for splitting your view in meaningful subparts (e.g. HeaderView, AmountView, etc) so that rendering a cheque becomes basically rendering its different sub-parts. In this case the ChequeView may end basically working as a Composite. Finally, if you reach this case and setting up the ChequeView turns out to be a complex task you may want to use a Builder.
Edit based on the OP comments
The Builder is mostly used when the instantiation of the final object is a complex process (e.g. there are many things to sync between the sub-parts in order to get a consistent whole). There is generally one builder class and different clients, that send messages (potentially in different orders and with different arguments) to create a variety of final objects. So, while not prohibited, it is not usual to have one builder per type of object that you want to build.
If you are looking for a class that represents the creation of a particular instance you may want to check the Factory family of patterns (maybe the Abstract Factory resembles closely to what you had in mind).
HTH
I have an object in C# that I want to use as a primary key in a database that auto-increments when new objects are added. The object is basically a wrapper of a ulong value that uses some bits of the value for additional hints. I want to store it as a 'pure' ulong value in a database but I would like get an automatic conversion when the value is loaded / unloaded from DB. IE, apply the 'hint' bits to the value based on the table they come from.
I went on a journey of implementing my own IUserType object based on number of examples I found online ( tons of help on this forum ).
I have an ObjectId class that acts is an object ID
class ObjectIdType: IUserType
{
private static readonly NHibernate.SqlTypes.SqlType[] SQL_TYPES = { NHibernateUtil.UInt64.SqlType };
public NHibernate.SqlTypes.SqlType[] SqlTypes
{
get { return SQL_TYPES; }
}
public Type ReturnedType
{
get { return typeof(ObjectId); }
}
...
}
I have a mapping class that looks like this:
public class ObjectTableMap()
{
Id(x => x.Id)
.Column("instance_id")
.CustomType<ObjectIdType>()
.GeneratedBy.Native();
}
At this point I get an exception at config that Id can only be an integer. I guess that makes sense but I was half expecting that having the custom type implemented, the native ulong database type would take over and work.
I've tried to go down the path of creating a custom generator but its still a bit out of my skill level so I am stumbling though it.
My question is, is it possible for me to accomplish what I am trying to do with the mapping?
I think, it is not possible, because your mapping uses the native generator for the Id. This can only be used for integral types (and GUIDs). You can try to use assigned Ids with your custom type, so you are responsible for assigning the values to your Id property.
There is another alternative: Why not set your information bits on class level, instead depending on your table? Your entities represent the tables, so you should have the same information in your entity classes. Example:
class Entity
{
protected virtual ulong InternalId { get; set; } // Mapped as Id
public virtual ulong Id // This property is not mapped
{
get
{
var retVal = InternalId;
// Flip your hint bits here based on class information
return retVal;
}
}
}
You could also turn InternalId into a public property and make the setter protected.
Referring to the below link:
http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-11-1998/jw-11-techniques.html?page=2
The composition approach to code reuse provides stronger encapsulation
than inheritance, because a change to a back-end class needn't break
any code that relies only on the front-end class. For example,
changing the return type of Fruit's peel() method from the previous
example doesn't force a change in Apple's interface and therefore
needn't break Example2's code.
Surely if you change the return type of peel() (see code below) this means getPeelCount() wouldn't be able to return an int any more? Wouldn't you have to change the interface, or get a compiler error otherwise?
class Fruit {
// Return int number of pieces of peel that
// resulted from the peeling activity.
public int peel() {
System.out.println("Peeling is appealing.");
return 1;
}
}
class Apple {
private Fruit fruit = new Fruit();
public int peel() {
return fruit.peel();
}
}
class Example2 {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Apple apple = new Apple();
int pieces = apple.peel();
}
}
With a composition, changing the class Fruit doesn't necessary require you to change Apple, for example, let's change peel to return a double instead :
class Fruit {
// Return String number of pieces of peel that
// resulted from the peeling activity.
public double peel() {
System.out.println("Peeling is appealing.");
return 1.0;
}
}
Now, the class Apple will warn about a lost of precision, but your Example2 class will be just fine, because a composition is more "loose" and a change in a composed element does not break the composing class API. In our case example, just change Apple like so :
class Apple {
private Fruit fruit = new Fruit();
public int peel() {
return (int) fruit.peel();
}
}
Whereas if Apple inherited from Fruit (class Apple extends Fruit), you would not only get an error about an incompatible return type method, but you'd also get a compilation error in Example2.
** Edit **
Lets start this over and give a "real world" example of composition vs inheritance. Note that a composition is not limited to this example and there are more use case where you can use the pattern.
Example 1 : inheritance
An application draw shapes into a canvas. The application does not need to know which shapes it has to draw and the implementation lies in the concrete class inheriting the abstract class or interface. However, the application knows what and how many different concrete shapes it can create, thus adding or removing concrete shapes requires some refactoring in the application.
interface Shape {
public void draw(Graphics g);
}
class Box implement Shape {
...
public void draw(Graphics g) { ... }
}
class Ellipse implements Shape {
...
public void draw(Graphics g) { ... }
}
class ShapeCanvas extends JPanel {
private List<Shape> shapes;
...
protected void paintComponent(Graphics g) {
for (Shape s : shapes) { s.draw(g); }
}
}
Example 2 : Composition
An application is using a native library to process some data. The actual library implementation may or may not be known, and may or may not change in the future. A public interface is thus created and the actual implementation is determined at run-time. For example :
interface DataProcessorAdapter {
...
public Result process(Data data);
}
class DataProcessor {
private DataProcessorAdapter adapter;
public DataProcessor() {
try {
adapter = DataProcessorManager.createAdapter();
} catch (Exception e) {
throw new RuntimeException("Could not load processor adapter");
}
}
public Object process(Object data) {
return adapter.process(data);
}
}
static class DataProcessorManager {
static public DataProcessorAdapter createAdapter() throws ClassNotFoundException, InstantiationException, IllegalAccessException {
String adapterClassName = /* load class name from resource bundle */;
Class<?> adapterClass = Class.forName(adapterClassName);
DataProcessorAdapter adapter = (DataProcessorAdapter) adapterClass.newInstance();
//...
return adapter;
}
}
So, as you can see, the composition may offer some advantage over inheritance in the sense that it allows more flexibility in the code. It allows the application to have a solid API while the underlaying implementation may still change during it's life cycle. Composition can significantly reduce the cost of maintenance if properly used.
For example, when implementing test cases with JUnit for Exemple 2, you may want to use a dummy processor and would setup the DataProcessorManager to return such adapter, while using a "real" adapter (perhaps OS dependent) in production without changing the application source code. Using inheritance, you would most likely hack something up, or perhaps write a lot more initialization test code.
As you can see, compisition and inheritance differ in many aspects and are not preferred over another; each depend on the problem at hand. You could even mix inheritance and composition, for example :
static interface IShape {
public void draw(Graphics g);
}
static class Shape implements IShape {
private IShape shape;
public Shape(Class<? extends IShape> shape) throws InstantiationException, IllegalAccessException {
this.shape = (IShape) shape.newInstance();
}
public void draw(Graphics g) {
System.out.print("Drawing shape : ");
shape.draw(g);
}
}
static class Box implements IShape {
#Override
public void draw(Graphics g) {
System.out.println("Box");
}
}
static class Ellipse implements IShape {
#Override
public void draw(Graphics g) {
System.out.println("Ellipse");
}
}
static public void main(String...args) throws InstantiationException, IllegalAccessException {
IShape box = new Shape(Box.class);
IShape ellipse = new Shape(Ellipse.class);
box.draw(null);
ellipse.draw(null);
}
Granted, this last example is not clean (meaning, avoid it), but it shows how composition can be used.
Bottom line is that both examples, DataProcessor and Shape are "solid" classes, and their API should not change. However, the adapter classes may change and if they do, these changes should only affect their composing container, thus limit the maintenance to only these classes and not the entire application, as opposed to Example 1 where any change require more changes throughout the application. It all depends how flexible your application needs to be.
If you would change Fruit.peel()'s return type, you would have to modify Apple.peel() as well. But you don't have to change Apple's interface.
Remember: The interface are only the method names and their signatures, NOT the implementation.
Say you'd change Fruit.peel() to return a boolean instead of a int. Then, you could still let Apple.peel() return an int. So: The interface of Apple stays the same but Fruit's changed.
If you would have use inheritance, that would not be possible: Since Fruit.peel() now returns a boolean, Apple.peel() has to return an boolean, too. So: All code that uses Apple.peel() has to be changed, too. In the composition example, ONLY Apple.peel()'s code has to be changed.
The key word in the sentence is "interface".
You'll almost always need to change the Apple class in some way to accomodate the new return type of Fruit.peel, but you don't need to change its public interface if you use composition rather than inheritance.
If Apple is a Fruit (ie, inheritance) then any change to the public interface of Fruit necessitates a change to the public interface of Apple too. If Apple has a Fruit (ie, composition) then you get to decide how to accomodate any changes to the Fruit class; you're not forced to change your public interface if you don't want to.
Return type of Fruit.peel() is being changed from int to Peel. This doesn't meant that the return type of Apple.peel() is being forced to change to Peel as well. In case of inheritance, it is forced and any client using Apple has to be changed. In case of composition, Apple.peel() still returns an integer, by calling the Peel.getPeelCount() getter and hence the client need not be changed and hence Apple's interface is not changed ( or being forced to be changed)
Well, in the composition case, Apple.peel()'s implementation needs to be updated, but its method signature can stay the same. And that means the client code (which uses Apple) does not have to be modified, retested, and redeployed.
This is in contrast to inheritance, where a change in Fruit.peel()'s method signature would require changes all way into the client code.
I am new to OOP. Though I understand what polymorphism is, but I can't get the real use of it. I can have functions with different name. Why should I try to implement polymorphism in my application.
Classic answer: Imagine a base class Shape. It exposes a GetArea method. Imagine a Square class and a Rectangle class, and a Circle class. Instead of creating separate GetSquareArea, GetRectangleArea and GetCircleArea methods, you get to implement just one method in each of the derived classes. You don't have to know which exact subclass of Shape you use, you just call GetArea and you get your result, independent of which concrete type is it.
Have a look at this code:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class Shape
{
public:
virtual float GetArea() = 0;
};
class Rectangle : public Shape
{
public:
Rectangle(float a) { this->a = a; }
float GetArea() { return a * a; }
private:
float a;
};
class Circle : public Shape
{
public:
Circle(float r) { this->r = r; }
float GetArea() { return 3.14f * r * r; }
private:
float r;
};
int main()
{
Shape *a = new Circle(1.0f);
Shape *b = new Rectangle(1.0f);
cout << a->GetArea() << endl;
cout << b->GetArea() << endl;
}
An important thing to notice here is - you don't have to know the exact type of the class you're using, just the base type, and you will get the right result. This is very useful in more complex systems as well.
Have fun learning!
Have you ever added two integers with +, and then later added an integer to a floating-point number with +?
Have you ever logged x.toString() to help you debug something?
I think you probably already appreciate polymorphism, just without knowing the name.
In a strictly typed language, polymorphism is important in order to have a list/collection/array of objects of different types. This is because lists/arrays are themselves typed to contain only objects of the correct type.
Imagine for example we have the following:
// the following is pseudocode M'kay:
class apple;
class banana;
class kitchenKnife;
apple foo;
banana bar;
kitchenKnife bat;
apple *shoppingList = [foo, bar, bat]; // this is illegal because bar and bat is
// not of type apple.
To solve this:
class groceries;
class apple inherits groceries;
class banana inherits groceries;
class kitchenKnife inherits groceries;
apple foo;
banana bar;
kitchenKnife bat;
groceries *shoppingList = [foo, bar, bat]; // this is OK
Also it makes processing the list of items more straightforward. Say for example all groceries implements the method price(), processing this is easy:
int total = 0;
foreach (item in shoppingList) {
total += item.price();
}
These two features are the core of what polymorphism does.
Advantage of polymorphism is client code doesn't need to care about the actual implementation of a method.
Take look at the following example.
Here CarBuilder doesn't know anything about ProduceCar().Once it is given a list of cars (CarsToProduceList) it will produce all the necessary cars accordingly.
class CarBase
{
public virtual void ProduceCar()
{
Console.WriteLine("don't know how to produce");
}
}
class CarToyota : CarBase
{
public override void ProduceCar()
{
Console.WriteLine("Producing Toyota Car ");
}
}
class CarBmw : CarBase
{
public override void ProduceCar()
{
Console.WriteLine("Producing Bmw Car");
}
}
class CarUnknown : CarBase { }
class CarBuilder
{
public List<CarBase> CarsToProduceList { get; set; }
public void ProduceCars()
{
if (null != CarsToProduceList)
{
foreach (CarBase car in CarsToProduceList)
{
car.ProduceCar();// doesn't know how to produce
}
}
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
CarBuilder carbuilder = new CarBuilder();
carbuilder.CarsToProduceList = new List<CarBase>() { new CarBmw(), new CarToyota(), new CarUnknown() };
carbuilder.ProduceCars();
}
}
Polymorphism is the foundation of Object Oriented Programming. It means that one object can be have as another project. So how does on object can become other, its possible through following
Inheritance
Overriding/Implementing parent Class behavior
Runtime Object binding
One of the main advantage of it is switch implementations. Lets say you are coding an application which needs to talk to a database. And you happen to define a class which does this database operation for you and its expected to do certain operations such as Add, Delete, Modify. You know that database can be implemented in many ways, it could be talking to file system or a RDBM server such as MySQL etc. So you as programmer, would define an interface that you could use, such as...
public interface DBOperation {
public void addEmployee(Employee newEmployee);
public void modifyEmployee(int id, Employee newInfo);
public void deleteEmployee(int id);
}
Now you may have multiple implementations, lets say we have one for RDBMS and other for direct file-system
public class DBOperation_RDBMS implements DBOperation
// implements DBOperation above stating that you intend to implement all
// methods in DBOperation
public void addEmployee(Employee newEmployee) {
// here I would get JDBC (Java's Interface to RDBMS) handle
// add an entry into database table.
}
public void modifyEmployee(int id, Employee newInfo) {
// here I use JDBC handle to modify employee, and id to index to employee
}
public void deleteEmployee(int id) {
// here I would use JDBC handle to delete an entry
}
}
Lets have File System database implementation
public class DBOperation_FileSystem implements DBOperation
public void addEmployee(Employee newEmployee) {
// here I would Create a file and add a Employee record in to it
}
public void modifyEmployee(int id, Employee newInfo) {
// here I would open file, search for record and change values
}
public void deleteEmployee(int id) {
// here I search entry by id, and delete the record
}
}
Lets see how main can switch between the two
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
Employee emp = new Employee();
... set employee information
DBOperation dboper = null;
// declare your db operation object, not there is no instance
// associated with it
if(args[0].equals("use_rdbms")) {
dboper = new DBOperation_RDBMS();
// here conditionally, i.e when first argument to program is
// use_rdbms, we instantiate RDBM implementation and associate
// with variable dboper, which delcared as DBOperation.
// this is where runtime binding of polymorphism kicks in
// JVM is allowing this assignment because DBOperation_RDBMS
// has a "is a" relationship with DBOperation.
} else if(args[0].equals("use_fs")) {
dboper = new DBOperation_FileSystem();
// similarly here conditionally we assign a different instance.
} else {
throw new RuntimeException("Dont know which implemnation to use");
}
dboper.addEmployee(emp);
// now dboper is refering to one of the implementation
// based on the if conditions above
// by this point JVM knows dboper variable is associated with
// 'a' implemenation, and it will call appropriate method
}
}
You can use polymorphism concept in many places, one praticle example would be: lets you are writing image decorer, and you need to support the whole bunch of images such as jpg, tif, png etc. So your application will define an interface and work on it directly. And you would have some runtime binding of various implementations for each of jpg, tif, pgn etc.
One other important use is, if you are using java, most of the time you would work on List interface, so that you can use ArrayList today or some other interface as your application grows or its needs change.
Polymorphism allows you to write code that uses objects. You can then later create new classes that your existing code can use with no modification.
For example, suppose you have a function Lib2Groc(vehicle) that directs a vehicle from the library to the grocery store. It needs to tell vehicles to turn left, so it can call TurnLeft() on the vehicle object among other things. Then if someone later invents a new vehicle, like a hovercraft, it can be used by Lib2Groc with no modification.
I guess sometimes objects are dynamically called. You are not sure whether the object would be a triangle, square etc in a classic shape poly. example.
So, to leave all such things behind, we just call the function of derived class and assume the one of the dynamic class will be called.
You wouldn't care if its a sqaure, triangle or rectangle. You just care about the area. Hence the getArea method will be called depending upon the dynamic object passed.
One of the most significant benefit that you get from polymorphic operations is ability to expand.
You can use same operations and not changing existing interfaces and implementations only because you faced necessity for some new stuff.
All that we want from polymorphism - is simplify our design decision and make our design more extensible and elegant.
You should also draw attention to Open-Closed Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open/closed_principle) and for SOLID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_%28Object_Oriented_Design%29) that can help you to understand key OO principles.
P.S. I think you are talking about "Dynamic polymorphism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_polymorphism), because there are such thing like "Static polymorphism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_metaprogramming#Static_polymorphism).
You don't need polymorphism.
Until you do.
Then its friggen awesome.
Simple answer that you'll deal with lots of times:
Somebody needs to go through a collection of stuff. Let's say they ask for a collection of type MySpecializedCollectionOfAwesome. But you've been dealing with your instances of Awesome as List. So, now, you're going to have to create an instance of MSCOA and fill it with every instance of Awesome you have in your List<T>. Big pain in the butt, right?
Well, if they asked for an IEnumerable<Awesome>, you could hand them one of MANY collections of Awesome. You could hand them an array (Awesome[]) or a List (List<Awesome>) or an observable collection of Awesome or ANYTHING ELSE you keep your Awesome in that implements IEnumerable<T>.
The power of polymorphism lets you be type safe, yet be flexible enough that you can use an instance many many different ways without creating tons of code that specifically handles this type or that type.
Tabbed Applications
A good application to me is generic buttons (for all tabs) within a tabbed-application - even the browser we are using it is implementing Polymorphism as it doesn't know the tab we are using at the compile-time (within the code in other words). Its always determined at the Run-time (right now! when we are using the browser.)