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
简单来说,LSP是指同一超类的对象应该能够在不破坏任何东西的情况下相互交换。
例如,如果我们有一个从Animal类派生的Cat和Dog类,那么任何使用Animal类的函数都应该能够使用Cat或Dog,并且行为正常。
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
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. [...]
设q(x)是关于类型为T的x的对象的可证明属性,那么q(y)对于类型为S的对象y应该是可证明的,其中S是T的子类型。
实际上,公认的答案并不是利斯科夫原理的反例。正方形自然是一个特定的矩形,因此从类矩形继承是完全有意义的。你只需要以这样的方式实现它:
@Override
public void setHeight(double height) {
this.height = height;
this.width = height; // since it's a square
}
@Override
public void setWidth(double width) {
setHeight(width);
}
所以,提供了一个很好的例子,然而,这是一个反例:
class Family:
-- getChildrenCount()
class FamilyWithKids extends Family:
-- getChildrenCount() { return childrenCount; } // always > 0
class DeadFamilyWithKids extends FamilyWithKids:
-- getChildrenCount() { return 0; }
-- getChildrenCountWhenAlive() { return childrenCountWhenAlive; }
在这个实现中,DeadFamilyWithKids不能从FamilyWithKids继承,因为getChildrenCount()返回0,而从FamilyWithKids它应该总是返回大于0的值。
长话短说,让我们留下矩形矩形和正方形,实际的例子,当扩展一个父类时,你必须要么保留确切的父API,要么扩展IT。
假设您有一个基本ItemsRepository。
class ItemsRepository
{
/**
* @return int Returns number of deleted rows
*/
public function delete()
{
// perform a delete query
$numberOfDeletedRows = 10;
return $numberOfDeletedRows;
}
}
以及扩展它的子类:
class BadlyExtendedItemsRepository extends ItemsRepository
{
/**
* @return void Was suppose to return an INT like parent, but did not, breaks LSP
*/
public function delete()
{
// perform a delete query
$numberOfDeletedRows = 10;
// we broke the behaviour of the parent class
return;
}
}
然后,您可以让客户端使用Base ItemsRepository API并依赖它。
/**
* Class ItemsService is a client for public ItemsRepository "API" (the public delete method).
*
* Technically, I am able to pass into a constructor a sub-class of the ItemsRepository
* but if the sub-class won't abide the base class API, the client will get broken.
*/
class ItemsService
{
/**
* @var ItemsRepository
*/
private $itemsRepository;
/**
* @param ItemsRepository $itemsRepository
*/
public function __construct(ItemsRepository $itemsRepository)
{
$this->itemsRepository = $itemsRepository;
}
/**
* !!! Notice how this is suppose to return an int. My clients expect it based on the
* ItemsRepository API in the constructor !!!
*
* @return int
*/
public function delete()
{
return $this->itemsRepository->delete();
}
}
当用子类替换父类破坏了API的契约时,LSP就被破坏了。
class ItemsController
{
/**
* Valid delete action when using the base class.
*/
public function validDeleteAction()
{
$itemsService = new ItemsService(new ItemsRepository());
$numberOfDeletedItems = $itemsService->delete();
// $numberOfDeletedItems is an INT :)
}
/**
* Invalid delete action when using a subclass.
*/
public function brokenDeleteAction()
{
$itemsService = new ItemsService(new BadlyExtendedItemsRepository());
$numberOfDeletedItems = $itemsService->delete();
// $numberOfDeletedItems is a NULL :(
}
}
你可以在我的课程中学习更多关于编写可维护软件的知识:https://www.udemy.com/enterprise-php/
Liskov替换原理(LSP, LSP)是面向对象编程中的一个概念,它指出:
函数使用指针或 基类的引用必须是 能够使用派生类的对象 在不知不觉中。
LSP的核心是关于接口和契约,以及如何决定何时扩展一个类,还是使用另一种策略(如组合)来实现您的目标。
我所见过的说明这一点的最有效的方法是《Head First OOA&D》。它们呈现的场景是,你是一名致力于为策略游戏构建框架的项目开发者。
他们展示了一个类,它代表一个板子,看起来像这样:
所有的方法都以X和Y坐标作为参数来定位tile在二维tile数组中的位置。这将允许游戏开发者在游戏过程中管理棋盘上的单位。
这本书继续改变了要求,说游戏框架工作也必须支持3D游戏板,以适应有飞行的游戏。因此引入了一个ThreeDBoard类,它扩展了Board。
乍一看,这似乎是个不错的决定。Board提供了高度和宽度属性,ThreeDBoard提供了Z轴。
当你看到从董事会继承的所有其他成员时,它就失效了。AddUnit, GetTile, GetUnits等方法在Board类中都采用X和Y参数,但ThreeDBoard也需要Z参数。
因此,您必须使用Z参数再次实现这些方法。Z参数没有Board类的上下文,从Board类继承的方法失去了意义。试图使用ThreeDBoard类作为其基类Board的代码单元将非常不走运。
也许我们应该另想办法。ThreeDBoard应该由Board对象组成,而不是扩展Board。Z轴上每单位一个板子对象。
这允许我们使用良好的面向对象原则,如封装和重用,并且不违反LSP。