现实生活中的例子。(容易记)

工厂

想象一下，你正在建造一所房子，你找一个木匠开一扇门。你给他门的尺寸和你的要求，他就会为你造一扇门。在这种情况下，木匠是门的工厂。你的规格是工厂的输入，门是工厂的输出或产品。

抽象工厂

现在，考虑同样的门的例子。你可以去找木匠，也可以去塑料门店或PVC店。他们都是门厂。根据情况，你决定你需要接触什么样的工厂。这就像一个抽象工厂。

我在这里解释了工厂方法模式和抽象工厂模式，从不使用它们来解释问题开始，然后通过使用上述模式来解决问题 https://github.com/vikramnagineni/Design-Patterns/tree/master

为了便于理解，考虑这个例子。

电信公司提供什么?例如宽带，电话线和移动电话，你被要求创建一个应用程序，向他们的客户提供他们的产品。

一般来说，你在这里要做的是，通过你的工厂方法创建产品，即宽带，电话线和手机，在那里你知道你为这些产品拥有什么属性，这是非常简单的。

现在，该公司想要为他们的客户提供他们的产品捆绑，即宽带、电话线和移动设备，而抽象工厂就来了。

换句话说，抽象工厂是由其他工厂组成的，他们负责创造自己的产品，抽象工厂知道如何在自己的责任方面把这些产品放在更有意义的地方。

在这种情况下，BundleFactory是抽象工厂，BroadbandFactory, PhonelineFactory和MobileFactory是工厂。为了进一步简化，这些工厂将使用工厂方法初始化各个产品。

运行下面的代码示例:

public class BroadbandFactory : IFactory {
    public static Broadband CreateStandardInstance() {
        // broadband product creation logic goes here
    }
}

public class PhonelineFactory : IFactory {
    public static Phoneline CreateStandardInstance() {
        // phoneline product creation logic goes here
    }
}

public class MobileFactory : IFactory {
    public static Mobile CreateStandardInstance() {
        // mobile product creation logic goes here
    }
}

public class BundleFactory : IAbstractFactory {

    public static Bundle CreateBundle() {
        broadband = BroadbandFactory.CreateStandardInstance();
        phoneline = PhonelineFactory.CreateStandardInstance();
        mobile = MobileFactory.CreateStandardInstance();

        applySomeDiscountOrWhatever(broadband, phoneline, mobile);
    }

    private static void applySomeDiscountOrWhatever(Broadband bb, Phoneline pl, Mobile m) {
        // some logic here
        // maybe manange some variables and invoke some other methods/services/etc.
    }
}

希望这能有所帮助。

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。

工厂设计模式

generation 1 <- generation 2 <- generation 3
//example
(generation 1) shape <- (generation 2) rectangle, oval <- (generation 3) rectangle impressionism, rectangle surrealism, oval impressionism, oval surrealism

工厂

用例:实例化第2代的一个对象

这是一种创造模式，允许你在一个简单的地方创建第2代。它符合SRP和OCP -所有的更改都在一个类中进行。

enum ShapeType {
    RECTANGLE,
    OVAL
}

class Shape {}

//Concrete Products
//generation 2
class Rectangle extends Shape {}
class Oval extends Shape {}

//Factory
class Factory {
    Shape createShape(ShapeType type) {

        switch (type) {
            case RECTANGLE:
                return new Rectangle();
            case OVAL:
                return new Oval();
        }
    }
}

//Creator
class Painter {

    private Factory factory;

    Painter(Factory factory) {
        this.factory = factory;
    }

    Shape prepareShape(ShapeType type) {
        return factory.createShape(type);
    }
}

//using
class Main {
    void main() {
        Painter painter = new Painter(new Factory());

        Shape shape1 = painter.prepareShape(ShapeType.RECTANGLE);
        Shape shape2 = painter.prepareShape(ShapeType.OVAL);
    }
}

工厂方法

用例:实例化第3代的一个对象

有助于与下一代家庭成员合作。每个画家都有自己的风格，印象派、超现实主义……工厂方法使用抽象创造者作为工厂(抽象方法)，具体创造者是这种方法的实现

enum ShapeType {
    RECTANGLE,
    OVAL
}

class Shape {}

//Concrete Products
//generation 2
class Rectangle extends Shape {}
class Oval extends Shape {}

//generation 3
class RectangleImpressionism extends Rectangle {}
class OvalImpressionism extends Oval {}
class RectangleSurrealism extends Rectangle {}
class OvalSurrealism extends Oval {}

//Creator
abstract class Painter {

    Shape prepareShape(ShapeType type) {
        return createShape(type);
    }

    //Factory method
    abstract Shape createShape(ShapeType type);
}

//Concrete Creators
class PainterImpressionism {

    @override
    Shape createShape(ShapeType type) {
        switch (type) {
            case RECTANGLE:
                return new RectangleImpressionism();
            case OVAL:
                return new OvalImpressionism();
        }
    }
}

class PainterSurrealism {

    @override
    Shape createShape(ShapeType type) {
        switch (type) {
            case RECTANGLE:
                return new RectangleSurrealism();
            case OVAL:
                return new OvalSurrealism();
        }
    }
}

//using
class Main {
    void main() {
        Painter painterImpressionism = new PainterImpressionism();
        Shape shape1 = painterImpressionism.prepareShape(ShapeType.RECTANGLE);

        Painter painterSurrealism = new PainterSurrealism();
        Shape shape2 = painterSurrealism.prepareShape(ShapeType.RECTANGLE);
    }
}

抽象工厂

用例:实例化第3代的所有对象

工厂是抽象工厂和具象工厂的一部分

//Concrete Products
//generation 2
class Rectangle extends Shape {}
class Oval extends Shape {}

//generation 3
class RectangleImpressionism extends Rectangle {}
class OvalImpressionism extends Oval {}
class RectangleSurrealism extends Rectangle {}
class OvalSurrealism extends Oval {}

//Abstract Factory
interface Factory {
    Rectangle createRectangle();
    Oval createOval();
}

//Concrete Factories
class ImpressionismFactory implements Factory {
    @Override
    public Rectangle createRectangle() {
        return new RectangleImpressionism();
    }

    @Override
    public Oval createOval() {
        return new OvalImpressionism();
    }
}

class SurrealismFactory implements Factory {
    @Override
    public Rectangle createRectangle() {
        return new RectangleSurrealism();
    }

    @Override
    public Oval createOval() {
        return new OvalSurrealism();
    }
}

//Creator
class Painter {

    Rectangle rectangle;
    Oval oval;

    Painter(Factory factory) {
        rectangle = factory.createRectangle();
        rectangle.resize();

        oval = factory.createOval();
        oval.resize();
    }
}

//using
class Main {
    void main() {
        Painter painter1 = new Painter(new ImpressionismFactory());
        Shape shape1 = painter1.rectangle;
        Shape shape2 = painter1.oval;

        Painter painter2 = new Painter(new ImpressionismFactory());
        Shape shape3 = painter2.rectangle;
        Shape shape4 = painter1.oval;
    }
}

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 } …. }

工厂方法依赖于继承:对象创建被委托给子类，子类实现了工厂方法来创建对象。

抽象工厂依赖于对象组合:对象创建是在工厂接口中公开的方法中实现的。

工厂和抽象工厂模式的高级图表，

有关Factory方法的更多信息，请参阅本文。

有关抽象工厂方法的更多信息，请参阅本文。