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

利斯科夫替换原则(来自Mark Seemann的书)指出,我们应该能够在不破坏客户端或实现的情况下,用另一个接口的实现替换一个接口的实现。正是这一原则使我们能够解决未来出现的需求,即使我们今天不能预见它们。

If we unplug the computer from the wall (Implementation), neither the wall outlet (Interface) nor the computer (Client) breaks down (in fact, if it’s a laptop computer, it can even run on its batteries for a period of time). With software, however, a client often expects a service to be available. If the service was removed, we get a NullReferenceException. To deal with this type of situation, we can create an implementation of an interface that does “nothing.” This is a design pattern known as Null Object,[4] and it corresponds roughly to unplugging the computer from the wall. Because we’re using loose coupling, we can replace a real implementation with something that does nothing without causing trouble.

其他回答

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. [...]

以Board数组的形式实现ThreeDBoard会有用吗?

也许你想把不同平面上的ThreeDBoard切片作为一个板。在这种情况下,您可能希望为Board抽象出一个接口(或抽象类),以允许多种实现。

就外部接口而言,您可能希望为TwoDBoard和ThreeDBoard提取一个Board接口(尽管上述方法都不适合)。

利科夫替换原则指出,如果程序模块使用基类,则基类的引用可以被派生类替换,而不会影响程序模块的功能。

派生类型必须能够完全替代它们的基类型。

示例- java中的协变返回类型。

A square is a rectangle where the width equals the height. If the square sets two different sizes for the width and height it violates the square invariant. This is worked around by introducing side effects. But if the rectangle had a setSize(height, width) with precondition 0 < height and 0 < width. The derived subtype method requires height == width; a stronger precondition (and that violates lsp). This shows that though square is a rectangle it is not a valid subtype because the precondition is strengthened. The work around (in general a bad thing) cause a side effect and this weakens the post condition (which violates lsp). setWidth on the base has post condition 0 < width. The derived weakens it with height == width.

因此,可调整大小的正方形不是可调整大小的矩形。

它指出,如果C是E的子类型,则E可以替换为C类型的对象,而不会改变或破坏程序的行为。简单地说,派生类应该可以替代它们的父类。例如,如果一个农民的儿子是农民,那么他可以代替他的父亲工作,但如果一个农民的儿子是板球运动员,那么他就不能代替他的父亲工作。

违反的例子:

public class Plane{

  public void startEngine(){}      

}        
public class FighterJet extends Plane{}
    
public class PaperPlane extends Plane{}

在给定的例子中,fighter和PaperPlane类都扩展了包含startEngine()方法的Plane类。所以很明显,战斗机可以启动引擎,但纸飞机不能,所以它破坏LSP。

PaperPlane类虽然扩展了Plane类,但应该可以替代Plane类,但它不是Plane实例可以被替换的合格实体,因为纸飞机不能启动引擎,因为它没有引擎。好的例子是,

受人尊敬的例子:

public class Plane{ 
} 
public class RealPlane{

  public void startEngine(){} 

}
public class FighterJet extends RealPlane{} 
public class PaperPlane extends Plane{}