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

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

My conclusion: there is no difference. Why? Because I cannot see any justification to equip objects other than factories with factory methods - otherwise you get a violation of the separation of responsibility principle. In addition, I cannot see any difference between a factory with a single factory method and a factory with multiple factory methods: both create "families of related objects" unless anyone can prove that a single-family-member family is not a family. Or a collection that contains a single item is not a collection.

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 } …. }

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。

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();
    }

}