abstract factory design pattern with realtime example: what is an abstract factory design pattern? It is similar to the factory method design pattern. we need to use this pattern when we have multiple factories. there will be a grouping of factories defined in this pattern. factory method pattern is a subset of abstract factory design pattern. They have the same advantages as factory patterns. abstract factory relies on object composition whereas the factory method deals with inheritance. factory design pattern in java with a realtime example: what is the factory design pattern? it is mostly used design in object-oriented programming. It is one of the creational patterns. it is all about creating instances. Clients will create the object without exposed to object creational logic. it is widely used in different frameworks ex: the spring framework. we use this pattern when the class doesn’t know the objects of another it must create. Realtime example: when our car breaks down on the road. We need to inform the repairman about what type of vehicle we are using so that repairman will carry tools to fix the repair. as per our input, the repairman will fix the issue and make it ready for us to travel again. There are a few built-in methods that use these patterns. example getInstance() method in JavaUtilcalendar class. With help of getInstance(), we can get objects whenever we execute this method. Javautilcalendar : getInstance() is method return object. https://trendydevx.com/factory-design-pattern-in-java-with-realtime-example/

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。

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();
    }

}

请允许我准确地说。大多数答案都已经解释过了，还提供了图表和例子。

所以我的回答就是一句话。我的原话是:“抽象工厂模式在抽象层上添加了多个工厂方法实现。它意味着一个抽象工厂包含或组合一个或多个工厂方法模式。

让我们明确一点，在生产代码中，大多数时候我们使用抽象工厂模式，因为类A是用接口b编程的，而A需要创建b的实例，因此A必须有一个工厂对象来生成b的实例，因此A不依赖于b的任何具体实例，希望它有帮助。

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 } …. }