我听说利斯科夫替换原则(LSP)是面向对象设计的基本原则。它是什么?它的一些使用例子是什么?
当前回答
LSP说“对象应该被它们的子类型替换”。 另一方面,这一原则指向
子类永远不应该破坏父类的类型定义。
通过以下示例,可以更好地理解LSP。
没有太阳能发电:
public interface CustomerLayout{
public void render();
}
public FreeCustomer implements CustomerLayout {
...
@Override
public void render(){
//code
}
}
public PremiumCustomer implements CustomerLayout{
...
@Override
public void render(){
if(!hasSeenAd)
return; //it isn`t rendered in this case
//code
}
}
public void renderView(CustomerLayout layout){
layout.render();
}
LSP修复:
public interface CustomerLayout{
public void render();
}
public FreeCustomer implements CustomerLayout {
...
@Override
public void render(){
//code
}
}
public PremiumCustomer implements CustomerLayout{
...
@Override
public void render(){
if(!hasSeenAd)
showAd();//it has a specific behavior based on its requirement
//code
}
}
public void renderView(CustomerLayout layout){
layout.render();
}
其他回答
Liskov's Substitution Principle(LSP) All the time we design a program module and we create some class hierarchies. Then we extend some classes creating some derived classes. We must make sure that the new derived classes just extend without replacing the functionality of old classes. Otherwise, the new classes can produce undesired effects when they are used in existing program modules. Liskov's Substitution Principle states that if a program module is using a Base class, then the reference to the Base class can be replaced with a Derived class without affecting the functionality of the program module.
例子:
Below is the classic example for which the Liskov's Substitution Principle is violated. In the example, 2 classes are used: Rectangle and Square. Let's assume that the Rectangle object is used somewhere in the application. We extend the application and add the Square class. The square class is returned by a factory pattern, based on some conditions and we don't know the exact what type of object will be returned. But we know it's a Rectangle. We get the rectangle object, set the width to 5 and height to 10 and get the area. For a rectangle with width 5 and height 10, the area should be 50. Instead, the result will be 100
// Violation of Likov's Substitution Principle
class Rectangle {
protected int m_width;
protected int m_height;
public void setWidth(int width) {
m_width = width;
}
public void setHeight(int height) {
m_height = height;
}
public int getWidth() {
return m_width;
}
public int getHeight() {
return m_height;
}
public int getArea() {
return m_width * m_height;
}
}
class Square extends Rectangle {
public void setWidth(int width) {
m_width = width;
m_height = width;
}
public void setHeight(int height) {
m_width = height;
m_height = height;
}
}
class LspTest {
private static Rectangle getNewRectangle() {
// it can be an object returned by some factory ...
return new Square();
}
public static void main(String args[]) {
Rectangle r = LspTest.getNewRectangle();
r.setWidth(5);
r.setHeight(10);
// user knows that r it's a rectangle.
// It assumes that he's able to set the width and height as for the base
// class
System.out.println(r.getArea());
// now he's surprised to see that the area is 100 instead of 50.
}
}
结论: 这个原则只是开闭原则的延伸 意味着我们必须确保新的派生类正在扩展 基类而不改变它们的行为。
参见:开闭原则
对于更好的结构,还有一些类似的概念:约定优于配置
到目前为止,我发现LSP最清晰的解释是“利斯科夫替换原则说,派生类的对象应该能够替换基类的对象,而不会给系统带来任何错误,也不会修改基类的行为”。文中给出了违反LSP的代码示例并进行了修复。
使用指向基类的指针或引用的函数必须能够在不知道它的情况下使用派生类的对象。
当我第一次阅读LSP时,我认为这是一个非常严格的含义,本质上等同于接口实现和类型安全强制转换。这意味着语言本身要么保证LSP,要么不保证LSP。例如,在严格意义上,ThreeDBoard当然可以取代Board,就编译器而言。
在阅读了更多关于LSP的概念之后,我发现LSP的解释通常比这更广泛。
简而言之,对于客户端代码来说,“知道”指针后面的对象是派生类型而不是指针类型的含义并不仅限于类型安全。对LSP的遵守也可以通过探测对象的实际行为进行测试。也就是说,检查对象的状态和方法参数对方法调用结果或从对象抛出的异常类型的影响。
再次回到示例,理论上Board方法可以在ThreeDBoard上很好地工作。然而,在实践中,在不妨碍ThreeDBoard打算添加的功能的情况下,防止客户端可能无法正确处理的行为差异是非常困难的。
掌握了这些知识后,评估LSP粘附性可以成为一个很好的工具,可以确定何时组合机制更适合扩展现有功能,而不是继承。
罗伯特·马丁有一篇关于利斯科夫替换原理的优秀论文。它讨论了可能违反原则的微妙和不那么微妙的方式。
论文的一些相关部分(注意,第二个例子被大量压缩):
A Simple Example of a Violation of LSP One of the most glaring violations of this principle is the use of C++ Run-Time Type Information (RTTI) to select a function based upon the type of an object. i.e.: void DrawShape(const Shape& s) { if (typeid(s) == typeid(Square)) DrawSquare(static_cast<Square&>(s)); else if (typeid(s) == typeid(Circle)) DrawCircle(static_cast<Circle&>(s)); } Clearly the DrawShape function is badly formed. It must know about every possible derivative of the Shape class, and it must be changed whenever new derivatives of Shape are created. Indeed, many view the structure of this function as anathema to Object Oriented Design. Square and Rectangle, a More Subtle Violation. However, there are other, far more subtle, ways of violating the LSP. Consider an application which uses the Rectangle class as described below: class Rectangle { public: void SetWidth(double w) {itsWidth=w;} void SetHeight(double h) {itsHeight=w;} double GetHeight() const {return itsHeight;} double GetWidth() const {return itsWidth;} private: double itsWidth; double itsHeight; }; [...] Imagine that one day the users demand the ability to manipulate squares in addition to rectangles. [...] Clearly, a square is a rectangle for all normal intents and purposes. Since the ISA relationship holds, it is logical to model the Square class as being derived from Rectangle. [...] Square will inherit the SetWidth and SetHeight functions. These functions are utterly inappropriate for a Square, since the width and height of a square are identical. This should be a significant clue that there is a problem with the design. However, there is a way to sidestep the problem. We could override SetWidth and SetHeight [...] But consider the following function: void f(Rectangle& r) { r.SetWidth(32); // calls Rectangle::SetWidth } If we pass a reference to a Square object into this function, the Square object will be corrupted because the height won’t be changed. This is a clear violation of LSP. The function does not work for derivatives of its arguments. [...]
我建议您阅读这篇文章:违反利斯科夫替换原则(LSP)。
你可以在那里找到一个解释,什么是利斯科夫替换原则,一般线索帮助你猜测你是否已经违反了它,一个方法的例子,将帮助你使你的类层次结构更安全。