我不知道这是否解决了您的问题，但我猜您想要做的是将文件的内容迁移到彼此独立的更小的文件中(合计)。 我还了解到，你有大约10个不同版本的软件，你需要在不搞砸的情况下支持它们。

首先，这是不可能的简单，将解决自己在几分钟的头脑风暴。文件中链接的函数对应用程序都非常重要，简单地将它们删除并迁移到其他文件中并不能解决问题。

我认为你只有这些选择:

Don't migrate and stay with what you have. Possibly quit your job and start working on serious software with good design in addition. Extreme programming is not always the best solution if you are working on a long time project with enough funds to survive a crash or two. Work out a layout of how you would love your file to look once it's split up. Create the necessary files and integrate them in your application. Rename the functions or overload them to take an additional parameter (maybe just a simple boolean?). Once you have to work on your code, migrate the functions you need to work on to the new file and map the function calls of the old functions to the new functions. You should still have your main-file this way, and still be able to see the changes that were made to it, once it comes to a specific function you know exactly when it was outsourced and so on. Try to convince your co-workers with some good cake that workflow is overrated and that you need to rewrite some parts of the application in order to do serious business.

合并不会像将来获得30000个LOC文件那样是一个大噩梦。所以:

停止向该文件添加更多代码。 把它。

如果你不能在重构过程中停止编码，你可以暂时保留这个大文件，至少不向它添加更多的代码:因为它包含一个“主类”，你可以从它继承，并将继承的带有重载函数的类保留在几个新的小而设计良好的文件中。

您不应该关注如何减小文件大小，而应该关注如何减小类大小。这几乎是一样的，但让你从不同的角度看问题(正如@Brian Rasmussen所建议的，你的类似乎有很多责任)。

“这个文件基本上包含了我们程序的‘主类’(主要的内部工作调度和协调)，所以每次添加一个特性，它也会影响这个文件，每次它的增长。”

如果这个大的SWITCH(我认为是有的)成为主要的维护问题，你可以重构它，使用字典和命令模式，并从现有的代码中删除所有的开关逻辑到加载器，加载器填充该映射，即:

    // declaration
    std::map<ID, ICommand*> dispatchTable;
    ...

    // populating using some loader
    dispatchTable[id] = concreteCommand;

    ...
    // using
    dispatchTable[id]->Execute();

让我猜猜:10个拥有不同功能集的客户和一个提倡“定制化”的销售经理?我以前做过这样的产品。我们遇到了同样的问题。

您认识到拥有一个巨大的文件是很麻烦的，但更麻烦的是您必须保持10个版本的“最新”。这是多重维护。SCC可以使这更容易，但它不能使它正确。

Before you try to break the file into parts, you need to bring the ten branches back in sync with each other so that you can see and shape all the code at once. You can do this one branch at a time, testing both branches against the same main code file. To enforce the custom behavior, you can use #ifdef and friends, but it's better as much as possible to use ordinary if/else against defined constants. This way, your compiler will verify all types and most probably eliminate "dead" object code anyway. (You may want to turn off the warning about dead code, though.)

一旦所有分支隐式地共享了该文件的一个版本，那么就更容易开始使用传统的重构方法。

#ifdefs主要适用于受影响的代码只在其他分支自定义上下文中有意义的部分。有人可能会说，这也为相同的分支合并方案提供了机会，但不要太疯狂。一次只做一个大项目。

In the short run, the file will appear to grow. This is OK. What you're doing is bringing things together that need to be together. Afterwards, you'll begin to see areas that are clearly the same regardless of version; these can be left alone or refactored at will. Other areas will clearly differ depending on the version. You have a number of options in this case. One method is to delegate the differences to per-version strategy objects. Another is to derive client versions from a common abstract class. But none of these transformations are possible as long as you have ten "tips" of development in different branches.

我认为最好创建一组映射到mainmodule.cpp的API点的命令类。

一旦它们就位，您将需要重构现有的代码库，以通过命令类访问这些API点，一旦完成，您就可以自由地将每个命令的实现重构为新的类结构。

当然，对于一个11 KLOC的类，其中的代码可能是高度耦合和脆弱的，但是创建单独的命令类比任何其他代理/外观策略都更有帮助。

我并不羡慕这项任务，但随着时间的推移，如果不加以解决，这个问题只会变得更糟。

更新

我建议Command模式比Facade更可取。

在一个(相对)单一的Facade上维护/组织许多不同的命令类是可取的。将一个Facade映射到一个11 KLOC文件本身可能需要分解成几个不同的组。

为什么要费心去弄清楚这些门面组呢?使用命令模式，你将能够对这些小类进行有机分组和组织，因此你有更多的灵活性。

当然，这两种选择都比单一的11 KLOC和不断增长的文件要好。