战略设计模式和国家设计模式之间的区别是什么?我在网上浏览了不少文章,但看不出明显的区别。
有人能用外行的语言解释一下吗?
战略设计模式和国家设计模式之间的区别是什么?我在网上浏览了不少文章,但看不出明显的区别。
有人能用外行的语言解释一下吗?
当前回答
差异在http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?StrategyPattern中讨论。我使用Strategy模式允许在分析数据的总体框架中选择不同的算法。通过这种方式,您可以添加算法,而不必更改整个框架及其逻辑。
一个典型的例子是你有一个优化函数的框架。框架设置数据和参数。策略模式允许您在不改变框架的情况下选择算法,如最快速下降、共轭梯度、BFGS等。
其他回答
这两种模式都委托给一个基类,这个基类有几个派生类,但是只有在State模式中,这些派生类才保留对上下文类的引用。
从另一个角度来看,战略模式是国家模式的简单版本;如果你愿意,也可以称之为子模式。这实际上取决于你是否希望派生状态保留对上下文的引用(即:你是否希望它们调用上下文上的方法)。
更多信息:Robert C Martin (& Micah Martin)在他们的书《c#中的敏捷原则、模式和实践》中回答了这个问题。(http://www.amazon.com/Agile-Principles-Patterns-Practices-C/dp/0131857258)
不同之处在于它们解决的问题不同:
State模式处理对象(处于)什么(状态或类型)——它封装了依赖状态的行为,而 策略模式处理对象如何执行特定任务——它封装了一个算法。
然而,实现这些不同目标的结构非常相似;这两种模式都是带有委托的组合示例。
关于它们的优点:
通过使用State模式,状态保持(上下文)类不再知道它是什么状态或类型以及可用的状态或类型。这意味着类遵循开闭设计原则(OCP):类对状态/类型的更改是关闭的,但是状态/类型对扩展是开放的。
By using the Strategy pattern the algorithm-using (context) class is relieved from knowledge of how to perform a certain task (-- the "algorithm"). This case also creates an adherence to the OCP; the class is closed for changes regarding how to perform this task, but the design is very open to additions of other algorithms for solving this task. This likely also improves the context class' adherence to the single responsibility principle (SRP). Further the algorithm becomes easily available for reuse by other classes.
The Strategy pattern is really about having a different implementation that accomplishes (basically) the same thing, so that one implementation can replace the other as the strategy requires. For example, you might have different sorting algorithms in a strategy pattern. The callers to the object does not change based on which strategy is being employed, but regardless of strategy the goal is the same (sort the collection). The State pattern is about doing different things based on the state, while leaving the caller relieved from the burden of accommodating every possible state. So for example you might have a getStatus() method that will return different statuses based on the state of the object, but the caller of the method doesn't have to be coded differently to account for each potential state.
这两种模式都用于改变对象的行为,
按照设计,状态模式对象只有一个状态,对象的行为基于实现的单个状态(类)及其子类。
相反,策略没有单一的状态,对象的行为是由不同策略对象的实现决定的。
In Strategy pattern while implementing searching , we can have multiple strategies of searching e.g NaiveStrategy(), KMPStrategy() or RabinKarp() Strategy. These are all independent and there are somewhat stable choices. And most important, strategies can't shift from one another. Only Context is able to change strategies. State Pattern on the other hand is based on concept of Finite-State Machines. The states can transition from one another. Here states are less stable as compared to the strategies. And one thing, each concrete state maintains a reference to context and hence is able to transition to another state.
因此,关键在于在策略中,只有上下文可以设置策略,而在状态模式下,状态可以转换到其他状态。在策略模式中,策略彼此不知道。而在状态模式中,状态并不是不知道彼此,并且在它们维护对上下文对象的引用时允许转换。
“策略使这些对象完全独立,彼此不知道。然而,State不限制具体状态之间的依赖关系,允许它们随意改变上下文的状态。”
参考资料:https://refactoring.guru/design-patterns/strategy