我听说利斯科夫替换原则(LSP)是面向对象设计的基本原则。它是什么?它的一些使用例子是什么?
当前回答
罗伯特·马丁有一篇关于利斯科夫替换原理的优秀论文。它讨论了可能违反原则的微妙和不那么微妙的方式。
论文的一些相关部分(注意，第二个例子被大量压缩):
A Simple Example of a Violation of LSP One of the most glaring violations of this principle is the use of C++ Run-Time Type Information (RTTI) to select a function based upon the type of an object. i.e.: void DrawShape(const Shape& s) { if (typeid(s) == typeid(Square)) DrawSquare(static_cast<Square&>(s)); else if (typeid(s) == typeid(Circle)) DrawCircle(static_cast<Circle&>(s)); } Clearly the DrawShape function is badly formed. It must know about every possible derivative of the Shape class, and it must be changed whenever new derivatives of Shape are created. Indeed, many view the structure of this function as anathema to Object Oriented Design. Square and Rectangle, a More Subtle Violation. However, there are other, far more subtle, ways of violating the LSP. Consider an application which uses the Rectangle class as described below: class Rectangle { public: void SetWidth(double w) {itsWidth=w;} void SetHeight(double h) {itsHeight=w;} double GetHeight() const {return itsHeight;} double GetWidth() const {return itsWidth;} private: double itsWidth; double itsHeight; }; [...] Imagine that one day the users demand the ability to manipulate squares in addition to rectangles. [...] Clearly, a square is a rectangle for all normal intents and purposes. Since the ISA relationship holds, it is logical to model the Square class as being derived from Rectangle. [...] Square will inherit the SetWidth and SetHeight functions. These functions are utterly inappropriate for a Square, since the width and height of a square are identical. This should be a significant clue that there is a problem with the design. However, there is a way to sidestep the problem. We could override SetWidth and SetHeight [...] But consider the following function: void f(Rectangle& r) { r.SetWidth(32); // calls Rectangle::SetWidth } If we pass a reference to a Square object into this function, the Square object will be corrupted because the height won’t be changed. This is a clear violation of LSP. The function does not work for derivatives of its arguments. [...]
其他回答
罗伯特·马丁有一篇关于利斯科夫替换原理的优秀论文。它讨论了可能违反原则的微妙和不那么微妙的方式。
论文的一些相关部分(注意，第二个例子被大量压缩):
A Simple Example of a Violation of LSP One of the most glaring violations of this principle is the use of C++ Run-Time Type Information (RTTI) to select a function based upon the type of an object. i.e.: void DrawShape(const Shape& s) { if (typeid(s) == typeid(Square)) DrawSquare(static_cast<Square&>(s)); else if (typeid(s) == typeid(Circle)) DrawCircle(static_cast<Circle&>(s)); } Clearly the DrawShape function is badly formed. It must know about every possible derivative of the Shape class, and it must be changed whenever new derivatives of Shape are created. Indeed, many view the structure of this function as anathema to Object Oriented Design. Square and Rectangle, a More Subtle Violation. However, there are other, far more subtle, ways of violating the LSP. Consider an application which uses the Rectangle class as described below: class Rectangle { public: void SetWidth(double w) {itsWidth=w;} void SetHeight(double h) {itsHeight=w;} double GetHeight() const {return itsHeight;} double GetWidth() const {return itsWidth;} private: double itsWidth; double itsHeight; }; [...] Imagine that one day the users demand the ability to manipulate squares in addition to rectangles. [...] Clearly, a square is a rectangle for all normal intents and purposes. Since the ISA relationship holds, it is logical to model the Square class as being derived from Rectangle. [...] Square will inherit the SetWidth and SetHeight functions. These functions are utterly inappropriate for a Square, since the width and height of a square are identical. This should be a significant clue that there is a problem with the design. However, there is a way to sidestep the problem. We could override SetWidth and SetHeight [...] But consider the following function: void f(Rectangle& r) { r.SetWidth(32); // calls Rectangle::SetWidth } If we pass a reference to a Square object into this function, the Square object will be corrupted because the height won’t be changed. This is a clear violation of LSP. The function does not work for derivatives of its arguments. [...]
该原则由Barbara Liskov在1987年提出，并通过关注超类及其子类型的行为来扩展开闭原则。
当我们考虑违反它的后果时，它的重要性就变得显而易见了。考虑一个使用以下类的应用程序。
public class Rectangle
{
private double width;
private double height;
public double Width
{
get
{
return width;
}
set
{
width = value;
}
}
public double Height
{
get
{
return height;
}
set
{
height = value;
}
}
}
想象一下，有一天，客户要求除了矩形之外还能操作正方形。因为正方形是矩形，所以square类应该派生自rectangle类。
public class Square : Rectangle
{
}
然而，这样做会遇到两个问题:
一个正方形不需要从矩形继承高度和宽度变量，如果我们必须创建成千上万个正方形对象，这可能会造成严重的内存浪费。 从矩形继承的width和height setter属性不适用于正方形，因为正方形的宽度和高度是相同的。 为了将height和width设置为相同的值，我们可以创建两个新属性，如下所示:
public class Square : Rectangle
{
public double SetWidth
{
set
{
base.Width = value;
base.Height = value;
}
}
public double SetHeight
{
set
{
base.Height = value;
base.Width = value;
}
}
}
现在，当有人设置一个正方形物体的宽度时，它的高度将相应地改变，反之亦然。
Square s = new Square();
s.SetWidth(1); // Sets width and height to 1.
s.SetHeight(2); // sets width and height to 2.
让我们继续考虑另一个函数:
public void A(Rectangle r)
{
r.SetWidth(32); // calls Rectangle.SetWidth
}
如果我们将一个方形对象的引用传递给这个函数，我们将违反LSP，因为该函数对其参数的导数不起作用。属性width和height不是多态的，因为它们在矩形中没有被声明为虚的(正方形对象将被损坏，因为高度不会被改变)。
然而，通过将setter属性声明为virtual，我们将面临另一个违反，即OCP。事实上，派生类正方形的创建会导致基类矩形的变化。
我在每个答案中都看到了矩形和正方形，以及如何违反LSP。
我想用一个真实的例子来展示LSP是如何符合的:
<?php
interface Database
{
public function selectQuery(string $sql): array;
}
class SQLiteDatabase implements Database
{
public function selectQuery(string $sql): array
{
// sqlite specific code
return $result;
}
}
class MySQLDatabase implements Database
{
public function selectQuery(string $sql): array
{
// mysql specific code
return $result;
}
}
这种设计符合LSP，因为无论我们选择使用哪种实现，行为都不会改变。
是的，你可以在这个配置中违反LSP，做一个简单的改变，像这样:
<?php
interface Database
{
public function selectQuery(string $sql): array;
}
class SQLiteDatabase implements Database
{
public function selectQuery(string $sql): array
{
// sqlite specific code
return $result;
}
}
class MySQLDatabase implements Database
{
public function selectQuery(string $sql): array
{
// mysql specific code
return ['result' => $result]; // This violates LSP !
}
}
现在子类型不能以同样的方式使用，因为它们不再产生相同的结果。
到目前为止，我发现LSP最清晰的解释是“利斯科夫替换原则说，派生类的对象应该能够替换基类的对象，而不会给系统带来任何错误，也不会修改基类的行为”。文中给出了违反LSP的代码示例并进行了修复。
长话短说，让我们留下矩形矩形和正方形，实际的例子，当扩展一个父类时，你必须要么保留确切的父API，要么扩展IT。
假设您有一个基本ItemsRepository。
class ItemsRepository
{
/**
* @return int Returns number of deleted rows
*/
public function delete()
{
// perform a delete query
$numberOfDeletedRows = 10;
return $numberOfDeletedRows;
}
}
以及扩展它的子类:
class BadlyExtendedItemsRepository extends ItemsRepository
{
/**
* @return void Was suppose to return an INT like parent, but did not, breaks LSP
*/
public function delete()
{
// perform a delete query
$numberOfDeletedRows = 10;
// we broke the behaviour of the parent class
return;
}
}
然后，您可以让客户端使用Base ItemsRepository API并依赖它。
/**
* Class ItemsService is a client for public ItemsRepository "API" (the public delete method).
*
* Technically, I am able to pass into a constructor a sub-class of the ItemsRepository
* but if the sub-class won't abide the base class API, the client will get broken.
*/
class ItemsService
{
/**
* @var ItemsRepository
*/
private $itemsRepository;
/**
* @param ItemsRepository $itemsRepository
*/
public function __construct(ItemsRepository $itemsRepository)
{
$this->itemsRepository = $itemsRepository;
}
/**
* !!! Notice how this is suppose to return an int. My clients expect it based on the
* ItemsRepository API in the constructor !!!
*
* @return int
*/
public function delete()
{
return $this->itemsRepository->delete();
}
}
当用子类替换父类破坏了API的契约时，LSP就被破坏了。
class ItemsController
{
/**
* Valid delete action when using the base class.
*/
public function validDeleteAction()
{
$itemsService = new ItemsService(new ItemsRepository());
$numberOfDeletedItems = $itemsService->delete();
// $numberOfDeletedItems is an INT :)
}
/**
* Invalid delete action when using a subclass.
*/
public function brokenDeleteAction()
{
$itemsService = new ItemsService(new BadlyExtendedItemsRepository());
$numberOfDeletedItems = $itemsService->delete();
// $numberOfDeletedItems is a NULL :(
}
}
你可以在我的课程中学习更多关于编写可维护软件的知识:https://www.udemy.com/enterprise-php/
