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
利斯科夫替换原则(来自Mark Seemann的书)指出,我们应该能够在不破坏客户端或实现的情况下,用另一个接口的实现替换一个接口的实现。正是这一原则使我们能够解决未来出现的需求,即使我们今天不能预见它们。
If we unplug the computer from the wall (Implementation), neither the wall outlet (Interface) nor the computer (Client) breaks down (in fact, if it’s a laptop computer, it can even run on its batteries for a period of time). With software, however, a client often expects a service to be available. If the service was removed, we get a NullReferenceException. To deal with this type of situation, we can create an implementation of an interface that does “nothing.” This is a design pattern known as Null Object,[4] and it corresponds roughly to unplugging the computer from the wall. Because we’re using loose coupling, we can replace a real implementation with something that does nothing without causing trouble.
其他回答
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。
A square is a rectangle where the width equals the height. If the square sets two different sizes for the width and height it violates the square invariant. This is worked around by introducing side effects. But if the rectangle had a setSize(height, width) with precondition 0 < height and 0 < width. The derived subtype method requires height == width; a stronger precondition (and that violates lsp). This shows that though square is a rectangle it is not a valid subtype because the precondition is strengthened. The work around (in general a bad thing) cause a side effect and this weakens the post condition (which violates lsp). setWidth on the base has post condition 0 < width. The derived weakens it with height == width.
因此,可调整大小的正方形不是可调整大小的矩形。
它指出,如果C是E的子类型,则E可以替换为C类型的对象,而不会改变或破坏程序的行为。简单地说,派生类应该可以替代它们的父类。例如,如果一个农民的儿子是农民,那么他可以代替他的父亲工作,但如果一个农民的儿子是板球运动员,那么他就不能代替他的父亲工作。
违反的例子:
public class Plane{
public void startEngine(){}
}
public class FighterJet extends Plane{}
public class PaperPlane extends Plane{}
在给定的例子中,fighter和PaperPlane类都扩展了包含startEngine()方法的Plane类。所以很明显,战斗机可以启动引擎,但纸飞机不能,所以它破坏LSP。
PaperPlane类虽然扩展了Plane类,但应该可以替代Plane类,但它不是Plane实例可以被替换的合格实体,因为纸飞机不能启动引擎,因为它没有引擎。好的例子是,
受人尊敬的例子:
public class Plane{
}
public class RealPlane{
public void startEngine(){}
}
public class FighterJet extends RealPlane{}
public class PaperPlane extends Plane{}
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/
利斯科夫替换原则(来自Mark Seemann的书)指出,我们应该能够在不破坏客户端或实现的情况下,用另一个接口的实现替换一个接口的实现。正是这一原则使我们能够解决未来出现的需求,即使我们今天不能预见它们。
If we unplug the computer from the wall (Implementation), neither the wall outlet (Interface) nor the computer (Client) breaks down (in fact, if it’s a laptop computer, it can even run on its batteries for a period of time). With software, however, a client often expects a service to be available. If the service was removed, we get a NullReferenceException. To deal with this type of situation, we can create an implementation of an interface that does “nothing.” This is a design pattern known as Null Object,[4] and it corresponds roughly to unplugging the computer from the wall. Because we’re using loose coupling, we can replace a real implementation with something that does nothing without causing trouble.