Design Pattern 系列 - Strategy pattern
Strategy pattern
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
In computer programming, the strategy pattern is a particular software design pattern, whereby algorithms can be selected at runtime.
In some programming languages, such as those without polymorphism, the issues addressed by this pattern are handled through forms of reflection, such as the native function pointer or function delegate syntax.
This pattern is invisible in languages with first-class functions. See the Python code for an example.
The strategy pattern is useful for situations where it is necessary to dynamically swap the algorithms used in an application. The strategy pattern is intended to provide a means to define a family of algorithms, encapsulate each one as an object, and make them interchangeable. The strategy pattern lets the algorithms vary independently from clients that use them.
Contents
- 1 Diagram
- 2 Code Examples
- 3 Strategy versus Bridge
- 4 Strategy Pattern and OCP
- 5 See also
- 6 External links
Diagram
Code Examples
Java
package wikipedia.patterns.strategy;
// MainApp test application
class MainApp {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Context context;
// Three contexts following different strategies
context = new Context(new ConcreteStrategyA());
context.execute();
context = new Context(new ConcreteStrategyB());
context.execute();
context = new Context(new ConcreteStrategyC());
context.execute();
}
}
// The classes that implement a concrete strategy should implement this
// The context class uses this to call the concrete strategy
interface IStrategy {
void execute();
}
// Implements the algorithm using the strategy interface
class ConcreteStrategyA implements IStrategy {
public void execute() {
System.out.println( "Called ConcreteStrategyA.execute()" );
}
}
class ConcreteStrategyB implements IStrategy {
public void execute() {
System.out.println( "Called ConcreteStrategyB.execute()" );
}
}
class ConcreteStrategyC implements IStrategy {
public void execute() {
System.out.println( "Called ConcreteStrategyC.execute()" );
}
}
// Configured with a ConcreteStrategy object and maintains a reference to a Strategy object
class Context {
IStrategy strategy;
// Constructor
public Context(IStrategy strategy) {
this.strategy = strategy;
}
public void execute() {
strategy.execute();
}
}
Python
Python has first-class functions, so there's no need to implement this pattern explicitly. Here's an example you might encounter in GUI programming, using a callback function:
class Button:
"""A very basic button widget."""
def __init__(self, submit_func, label):
self.on_submit = submit_func # Set the strategy function directly
self.label = label
# Create two instances with different strategies
button1 = Button(sum, "Add 'em")
button2 = Button(lambda nums: " ".join(map(str, nums)), "Join 'em")
# Test each button
numbers = range(1, 10) # A list of numbers 1 through 9
print button1.on_submit(numbers) # displays "45"
print button2.on_submit(numbers) # displays "1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9"
C#
using System; namespace Wikipedia.Patterns.Strategy { // MainApp test application class MainApp { static void Main() { Context context; // Three contexts following different strategies context = new Context(new ConcreteStrategyA()); context.Execute(); context = new Context(new ConcreteStrategyB()); context.Execute(); context = new Context(new ConcreteStrategyC()); context.Execute(); } } // The classes that implement a concrete strategy should implement this // The context class uses this to call the concrete strategy interface IStrategy { void Execute(); } // Implements the algorithm using the strategy interface class ConcreteStrategyA : IStrategy { public void Execute() { Console.WriteLine( "Called ConcreteStrategyA.Execute()" ); } } class ConcreteStrategyB : IStrategy { public void Execute() { Console.WriteLine( "Called ConcreteStrategyB.Execute()" ); } } class ConcreteStrategyC : IStrategy { public void Execute() { Console.WriteLine( "Called ConcreteStrategyC.Execute()" ); } } // Configured with a ConcreteStrategy object and maintains a reference to a Strategy object class Context { IStrategy strategy; // Constructor public Context(IStrategy strategy) { this.strategy = strategy; } public void Execute() { strategy.Execute(); } } }
ActionScript 3
//invoked from application.initialize
private function init() : void
{
var context:Context;
context = new Context( new ConcreteStrategyA() );
context.execute();
context = new Context( new ConcreteStrategyB() );
context.execute();
context = new Context( new ConcreteStrategyC() );
context.execute();
}
package org.wikipedia.patterns.strategy
{
public interface IStrategy
{
function execute() : void ;
}
}
package org.wikipedia.patterns.strategy
{
public final class ConcreteStrategyA implements IStrategy
{
public function execute():void
{
trace( "ConcreteStrategyA.execute(); invoked" );
}
}
}
package org.wikipedia.patterns.strategy
{
public final class ConcreteStrategyB implements IStrategy
{
public function execute():void
{
trace( "ConcreteStrategyB.execute(); invoked" );
}
}
}
package org.wikipedia.patterns.strategy
{
public final class ConcreteStrategyC implements IStrategy
{
public function execute():void
{
trace( "ConcreteStrategyC.execute(); invoked" );
}
}
}
package org.wikipedia.patterns.strategy
{
public class Context
{
private var strategy:IStrategy;
public function Context(strategy:IStrategy)
{
this.strategy = strategy;
}
public function execute() : void
{
strategy.execute();
}
}
}
Strategy versus Bridge
The UML class diagram for the Strategy pattern is the same as the diagram for the Bridge pattern. However, these two design patterns aren't the same in their intent. While the Strategy pattern is meant for behavior, the Bridge pattern is meant for structure.
The coupling between the context and the strategies is tighter than the coupling between the abstraction and the implementation in the Bridge pattern.
Strategy Pattern and OCP
According to Strategy pattern, the behaviors of a class should not be inherited, instead they should be encapsulated using interfaces. As an example, consider a car class. Two possible behaviors of car are brake and accelerate.
Since accelerate and brake behaviors change frequently between models, a common approach is to implement these behaviors in subclasses. This approach has significant drawbacks: accelerate and brake behaviors must be declared in each new Car model. This may not be a concern when there are only a small number of models, but the work of managing these behaviors increases greatly as the number of models increases, and requires code to be duplicated across models. Additionally, it is not easy to determine the exact nature of the behavior for each model without investigating the code in each.
The strategy pattern uses composition instead of inheritance. In the strategy pattern behaviors are defined as separate interfaces and abstract classes that implement these interfaces. Specific classes encapsulate these interfaces. This allows better decoupling between the behavior and the class that uses the behavior. The behavior can be changed without breaking the classes that use it, and the classes can switch between behaviors by changing the specific implementation used without requiring any significant code changes. Behaviors can also be changed at run-time as well as at design-time. For instance, a car object’s brake behavior can be changed from BrakeWithABS() to Brake() by changing the brakeBehavior member to:
brakeBehavior = new Brake();
This gives greater flexibility in design and is in harmony with OCP (Open Closed Principle) that states classes should be open for extension but closed for modification.
