我知道有很多关于这两种模式之间差异的帖子,但有一些东西我找不到。

From what I have been reading, I see that the factory method pattern allows you to define how to create a single concrete product but hiding the implementation from the client as they will see a generic product. My first question is about the abstract factory. Is its role to allow you to create families of concrete objects in (that can depend on what specific factory you use) rather than just a single concrete object? Does the abstract factory only return one very large object or many objects depending on what methods you call?

我最后两个问题是关于一句我在很多地方都见过的引语,我不能完全理解:

两者之间的一个区别是 使用抽象工厂模式,a 类委托的责任 对象实例化到另一个对象 通过合成,而工厂 方法模式使用继承和 类依赖于子类来处理 所需的对象实例化。

我的理解是,工厂方法模式有一个Creator接口,它将使ConcreteCreator负责知道要实例化哪个ConcreteProduct。这就是使用继承来处理对象实例化的意思吗?

现在,关于引用,抽象工厂模式是如何通过组合将对象实例化的责任委托给另一个对象的?这是什么意思?在我看来,抽象工厂模式似乎也使用继承来完成构造过程,但我仍然在学习这些模式。

任何帮助,特别是最后一个问题,将非常感激。


当前回答

AbstractFactory和Factory设计模式之间的区别如下:

Factory Method is used to create one product only but Abstract Factory is about creating families of related or dependent products. Factory Method pattern exposes a method to the client for creating the object whereas in the case of Abstract Factory they expose a family of related objects which may consist of these Factory methods. Factory Method pattern hides the construction of a single object whereas Abstract Factory hides the construction of a family of related objects. Abstract factories are usually implemented using (a set of) factory methods. Abstract Factory pattern uses composition to delegate the responsibility of creating an object to another class while Factory Method design pattern uses inheritance and relies on a derived class or subclass to create an object. The idea behind the Factory Method pattern is that it allows for the case where a client doesn't know what concrete classes it will be required to create at runtime, but just wants to get a class that will do the job while Abstract Factory pattern is best utilized when your system has to create multiple families of products or you want to provide a library of products without exposing the implementation details.!

工厂方法模式实现:

抽象工厂模式实现:

其他回答

抽象工厂与工厂方法的主要区别在于,抽象工厂是由组合实现的;但是工厂方法是通过继承实现的。

是的,您没有看错:这两种模式之间的主要区别在于古老的组合与继承之争。

UML图可以在(GoF)书中找到。我想提供代码示例,因为我认为将本文中前两个答案中的示例结合起来会比单独一个答案提供更好的演示。此外,我在类名和方法名中使用了书中的术语。

抽象工厂

The most important point to grasp here is that the abstract factory is injected into the client. This is why we say that Abstract Factory is implemented by Composition. Often, a dependency injection framework would perform that task; but a framework is not required for DI. The second critical point is that the concrete factories here are not Factory Method implementations! Example code for Factory Method is shown further below. And finally, the third point to note is the relationship between the products: in this case the outbound and reply queues. One concrete factory produces Azure queues, the other MSMQ. The GoF refers to this product relationship as a "family" and it's important to be aware that family in this case does not mean class hierarchy.

public class Client {
    private final AbstractFactory_MessageQueue factory;

    public Client(AbstractFactory_MessageQueue factory) {
        // The factory creates message queues either for Azure or MSMQ.
        // The client does not know which technology is used.
        this.factory = factory;
    }

    public void sendMessage() {
        //The client doesn't know whether the OutboundQueue is Azure or MSMQ.
        OutboundQueue out = factory.createProductA();
        out.sendMessage("Hello Abstract Factory!");
    }

    public String receiveMessage() {
        //The client doesn't know whether the ReplyQueue is Azure or MSMQ.
        ReplyQueue in = factory.createProductB();
        return in.receiveMessage();
    }
}

public interface AbstractFactory_MessageQueue {
    OutboundQueue createProductA();
    ReplyQueue createProductB();
}

public class ConcreteFactory_Azure implements AbstractFactory_MessageQueue {
    @Override
    public OutboundQueue createProductA() {
        return new AzureMessageQueue();
    }

    @Override
    public ReplyQueue createProductB() {
        return new AzureResponseMessageQueue();
    }
}

public class ConcreteFactory_Msmq implements AbstractFactory_MessageQueue {
    @Override
    public OutboundQueue createProductA() {
        return new MsmqMessageQueue();
    }

    @Override
    public ReplyQueue createProductB() {
        return new MsmqResponseMessageQueue();
    }
}

工厂方法

The most important point to grasp here is that the ConcreteCreator is the client. In other words, the client is a subclass whose parent defines the factoryMethod(). This is why we say that Factory Method is implemented by Inheritance. The second critical point is to remember that the Factory Method Pattern is nothing more than a specialization of the Template Method Pattern. The two patterns share an identical structure. They only differ in purpose. Factory Method is creational (it builds something) whereas Template Method is behavioral (it computes something). And finally, the third point to note is that the Creator (parent) class invokes its own factoryMethod(). If we remove anOperation() from the parent class, leaving only a single method behind, it is no longer the Factory Method pattern. In other words, Factory Method cannot be implemented with less than two methods in the parent class; and one must invoke the other.

public abstract class Creator {
    public void anOperation() {
        Product p = factoryMethod();
        p.whatever();
    }

    protected abstract Product factoryMethod();
}

public class ConcreteCreator extends Creator {
    @Override
    protected Product factoryMethod() {
        return new ConcreteProduct();
    }
}

混杂。&杂项工厂图案

请注意,尽管GoF定义了两种不同的工厂模式,但它们并不是唯一存在的工厂模式。它们甚至不一定是最常用的工厂模式。第三个著名的例子是Josh Bloch的《Effective Java》中的静态工厂模式。《头部优先设计模式》一书还包括另一种被称为简单工厂的模式。

不要落入假设每个工厂模式都必须匹配GoF中的一个模式的陷阱。

Understand the differences in the motivations: Suppose you’re building a tool where you’ve objects and a concrete implementation of the interrelations of the objects. Since you foresee variations in the objects, you’ve created an indirection by assigning the responsibility of creating variants of the objects to another object (we call it abstract factory). This abstraction finds strong benefit since you foresee future extensions needing variants of those objects. Another rather intriguing motivation in this line of thoughts is a case where every-or-none of the objects from the whole group will have a corresponding variant. Based on some conditions, either of the variants will be used and in each case all objects must be of same variant. This might be a bit counter intuitive to understand as we often tend think that - as long as the variants of an object follow a common uniform contract (interface in broader sense), the concrete implementation code should never break. The intriguing fact here is that, not always this is true especially when expected behavior cannot be modeled by a programming contract. A simple (borrowing the idea from GoF) is any GUI applications say a virtual monitor that emulates look-an-feel of MS or Mac or Fedora OS’s. Here, for example, when all widget objects such as window, button, etc. have MS variant except a scroll-bar that is derived from MAC variant, the purpose of the tool fails badly. These above cases form the fundamental need of Abstract Factory Pattern. On the other hand, imagine you’re writing a framework so that many people can built various tools (such as the one in above examples) using your framework. By the very idea of a framework, you don’t need to, albeit you could not use concrete objects in your logic. You rather put some high level contracts between various objects and how they interact. While you (as a framework developer) remain at a very abstract level, each builders of the tool is forced to follow your framework-constructs. However, they (the tool builders) have the freedom to decide what object to be built and how all the objects they create will interact. Unlike the previous case (of Abstract Factory Pattern), you (as framework creator) don’t need to work with concrete objects in this case; and rather can stay at the contract level of the objects. Furthermore, unlike the second part of the previous motivations, you or the tool-builders never have the situations of mixing objects from variants. Here, while framework code remains at contract level, every tool-builder is restricted (by the nature of the case itself) to using their own objects. Object creations in this case is delegated to each implementer and framework providers just provide uniform methods for creating and returning objects. Such methods are inevitable for framework developer to proceed with their code and has a special name called Factory method (Factory Method Pattern for the underlying pattern). Few Notes: If you’re familiar with ‘template method’, then you’d see that factory methods are often invoked from template methods in case of programs pertaining to any form of framework. By contrast, template methods of application-programs are often simple implementation of specific algorithm and void of factory-methods. Furthermore, for the completeness of the thoughts, using the framework (mentioned above), when a tool-builder is building a tool, inside each factory method, instead of creating a concrete object, he/she may further delegate the responsibility to an abstract-factory object, provided the tool-builder foresees variations of the concrete objects for future extensions. Sample Code: //Part of framework-code BoardGame { Board createBoard() //factory method. Default implementation can be provided as well Piece createPiece() //factory method startGame(){ //template method Board borad = createBoard() Piece piece = createPiece() initState(board, piece) } } //Part of Tool-builder code Ludo inherits BoardGame { Board createBoard(){ //overriding of factory method //Option A: return new LudoBoard() //Lodu knows object creation //Option B: return LudoFactory.createBoard() //Lodu asks AbstractFacory } …. } //Part of Tool-builder code Chess inherits BoardGame { Board createBoard(){ //overriding of factory method //return a Chess board } …. }

之前的很多回答都没有提供抽象工厂和工厂方法模式之间的代码比较。下面是我试图用Java来解释它。我希望它能帮助那些需要简单解释的人。

正如GoF所言:抽象工厂提供了一个接口,无需指定就可以创建相关或依赖的对象族 具体的阶级。

public class Client {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        ZooFactory zooFactory = new HerbivoreZooFactory();
        Animal animal1 = zooFactory.animal1();
        Animal animal2 = zooFactory.animal2();
        animal1.sound();
        animal2.sound();

        System.out.println();

        AnimalFactory animalFactory = new CowAnimalFactory();
        Animal animal = animalFactory.createAnimal();
        animal.sound();
    }
}

public interface Animal {
    public void sound();
}

public class Cow implements Animal {

    @Override
    public void sound() {
        System.out.println("Cow moos");
    }
}

public class Deer implements Animal {

    @Override
    public void sound() {
        System.out.println("Deer grunts");
    }

}

public class Hyena implements Animal {

    @Override
    public void sound() {
        System.out.println("Hyena.java");
    }

}

public class Lion implements Animal {

    @Override
    public void sound() {
        System.out.println("Lion roars");
    }

}

public interface ZooFactory {
    Animal animal1();

    Animal animal2();
}

public class CarnivoreZooFactory implements ZooFactory {

    @Override
    public Animal animal1() {
        return new Lion();
    }

    @Override
    public Animal animal2() {
        return new Hyena();
    }

}

public class HerbivoreZooFactory implements ZooFactory {

    @Override
    public Animal animal1() {
        return new Cow();
    }

    @Override
    public Animal animal2() {
        return new Deer();
    }

}

public interface AnimalFactory {
    public Animal createAnimal();
}

public class CowAnimalFactory implements AnimalFactory {

    @Override
    public Animal createAnimal() {
        return new Cow();
    }

}

public class DeerAnimalFactory implements AnimalFactory {

    @Override
    public Animal createAnimal() {
        return new Deer();
    }

}

public class HyenaAnimalFactory implements AnimalFactory {

    @Override
    public Animal createAnimal() {
        return new Hyena();
    }

}

public class LionAnimalFactory implements AnimalFactory {

    @Override
    public Animal createAnimal() {
        return new Lion();
    }

}

两者的区别

“工厂方法”和“抽象工厂”的主要区别在于,工厂方法是方法,而抽象工厂是对象。我想很多人都把这两个词搞混了,开始交替使用。我记得当我学习它们的时候,我很难找到它们之间的确切区别。

因为工厂方法只是一个方法,它可以在子类中被重写,因此引用的后半部分:

... 工厂方法模式使用的 继承并依赖于一个子类 来处理所需的对象 实例化。

引用假设对象在这里调用自己的工厂方法。因此,唯一可以改变返回值的是子类。

抽象工厂是一个具有多个工厂方法的对象。看看你引言的前半部分:

... 使用抽象工厂模式,一个类 委托对象的职责 实例化到另一个对象 作文……

他们说的是,有一个对象A,想要创建一个Foo对象。而不是创建Foo对象本身(例如,使用工厂方法),它将获得一个不同的对象(抽象工厂)来创建Foo对象。

代码示例

为了向你展示区别,这里有一个正在使用的工厂方法:

class A {
    public void doSomething() {
        Foo f = makeFoo();
        f.whatever();   
    }

    protected Foo makeFoo() {
        return new RegularFoo();
    }
}

class B extends A {
    protected Foo makeFoo() {
        //subclass is overriding the factory method 
        //to return something different
        return new SpecialFoo();
    }
}

这是一个正在使用的抽象工厂:

class A {
    private Factory factory;

    public A(Factory factory) {
        this.factory = factory;
    }

    public void doSomething() {
        //The concrete class of "f" depends on the concrete class
        //of the factory passed into the constructor. If you provide a
        //different factory, you get a different Foo object.
        Foo f = factory.makeFoo();
        f.whatever();
    }
}

interface Factory {
    Foo makeFoo();
    Bar makeBar();
    Aycufcn makeAmbiguousYetCommonlyUsedFakeClassName();
}

//need to make concrete factories that implement the "Factory" interface here

抽象工厂创建了一个基类,其抽象方法定义了应该创建的对象的方法。派生基类的每个工厂类都可以创建每种对象类型的自己的实现。

工厂方法只是一个用于在类中创建对象的简单方法。它通常添加在聚合根中(Order类有一个名为CreateOrderLine的方法)

抽象工厂

在下面的示例中,我们设计了一个接口,这样我们就可以将队列创建与消息传递系统分离,因此可以为不同的队列系统创建实现,而不必更改代码库。

interface IMessageQueueFactory
{
  IMessageQueue CreateOutboundQueue(string name);
  IMessageQueue CreateReplyQueue(string name);
}

public class AzureServiceBusQueueFactory : IMessageQueueFactory
{
      IMessageQueue CreateOutboundQueue(string name)
      {
           //init queue
           return new AzureMessageQueue(/*....*/);
      }

      IMessageQueue CreateReplyQueue(string name)
      {
           //init response queue
           return new AzureResponseMessageQueue(/*....*/);
      }

}

public class MsmqFactory : IMessageQueueFactory
{
      IMessageQueue CreateOutboundQueue(string name)
      {
           //init queue
           return new MsmqMessageQueue(/*....*/);
      }

      IMessageQueue CreateReplyQueue(string name)
      {
           //init response queue
           return new MsmqResponseMessageQueue(/*....*/);
      }
}

工厂方法

HTTP服务器的问题在于,我们总是需要为每个请求提供响应。

public interface IHttpRequest
{
    // .. all other methods ..

    IHttpResponse CreateResponse(int httpStatusCode);
}

如果没有工厂方法,HTTP服务器用户(即程序员)将被迫使用特定于实现的类,这就违背了IHttpRequest接口的目的。

因此,我们引入工厂方法,以便响应类的创建也被抽象出来。

总结

区别在于,包含工厂方法的类的预期目的不是创建对象,而抽象工厂应该只用于创建对象。

使用工厂方法时应该小心,因为在创建对象时很容易破坏LSP(里斯科夫替换原则)。