Simple rules:
    A "owns" B = Composition : B has no meaning or purpose in the system 
    without A
    A "uses" B = Aggregation : B exists independently (conceptually) from A
    A "belongs/Have" B= Association; And B exists just have a relation
    Example 1:

    A Company is an aggregation of Employees.
    A Company is a composition of Accounts. When a Company ceases to do 
    business its Accounts cease to exist but its People continue to exist. 
    Employees have association relationship with each other.

    Example 2: (very simplified)
    A Text Editor owns a Buffer (composition). A Text Editor uses a File 
    (aggregation). When the Text Editor is closed,
    the Buffer is destroyed but the File itself is not destroyed.

    Simple rules:
    A "owns" B = Composition : B has no meaning or purpose in the system 
    without A
    A "uses" B = Aggregation : B exists independently (conceptually) from A
    A "belongs/Have" B= Association; And B exists just have a relation
    Example 1:

    A Company is an aggregation of Employees.
    A Company is a composition of Accounts. When a Company ceases to do 
    business its Accounts cease to exist but its People continue to exist. 
    Employees have association relationship with each other.

    Example 2: (very simplified)
    A Text Editor owns a Buffer (composition). A Text Editor uses a File 
    (aggregation). When the Text Editor is closed,
    the Buffer is destroyed but the File itself is not destroyed.

协会

关联表示两个类之间的关系。它可以是单向的(单向)或双向的(双向)

例如:

单向

客户下单

双向

A和B结婚了 B和A结婚了

聚合

聚合是一种关联。但是有特定的特征。聚合是一个较大的“整体”类包含一个或多个较小的“部分”类之间的关系。相反，一个较小的“部分”类是“整个”较大类的一部分。

例如:

俱乐部有会员

一个俱乐部(“整体”)是由几个俱乐部成员(“部分”)组成的。会员可以在俱乐部外生活。如果俱乐部(“整体”)死亡，成员(“部分”)不会随之死亡。因为会员可以属于多个俱乐部(“整体”)。

作文

这是一种更强的聚合形式。“整体”对其“部分”的创造或破坏负责

例如:

学校有院系

在这种情况下，学校(“整体”)将消亡，部门(“部分”)将随之消亡。 因为每个部分只能属于一个“整体”。

我想说明如何在Rails中实现这三个术语。ActiveRecord将两个模型之间的任何类型的关系称为关联。在阅读文档或文章时，人们不会经常发现术语组合和聚合与ActiveRecord相关。通过向类的主体中添加一个关联类宏来创建关联。其中一些宏是belongs_to, has_one, has_many等。

If we want to set up a composition or aggregation, we need to add belongs_to to the owned model (also called child) and has_one or has_many to the owning model (also called parent). Wether we set up composition or aggregation depends on the options we pass to the belongs_to call in the child model. Prior to Rails 5, setting up belongs_to without any options created an aggregation, the child could exist without a parent. If we wanted a composition, we needed to explicitly declare this by adding the option required: true:

class Room < ActiveRecord::Base
  belongs_to :house, required: true
end

在Rails 5中，这一点被改变了。现在，声明belongs_to关联在默认情况下创建了一个组合，子元素不能没有父元素而存在。所以上面的例子可以重写为:

class Room < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :house
end

如果我们想要允许子对象在没有父对象的情况下存在，我们需要通过选项optional显式地声明这一点

class Product < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :category, optional: true
end

令人惊讶的是，关于关联、聚合和组合这三个关系概念之间的区别存在如此多的混淆。

请注意，术语聚合和组合已经在c++社区中使用，可能在它们被定义为UML类图中关联的特殊情况之前已经有一段时间了。

主要的问题是广泛的和持续的误解(甚至在专家软件开发人员中)，组合的概念意味着整体和它的部分之间的生命周期依赖关系，以至于部分不能没有整体而存在，忽略了这样一个事实，即也存在与不可共享部分的部分-整体-关联的情况，其中部分可以从整体中分离出来，并且在整体被破坏后仍然存在。

在我看来，这种困惑有两个根源:

In the C++ community, the term "aggregation" was used in the sense of a class defining an attribute for referencing objects of another independent class (see, e.g., [1]), which is the sense of association in UML Class Diagrams. The term "composition" was used for classes that define component objects for their objects, such that on destruction of the composite object, these component objects are being destroyed as well. In UML Class Diagrams, both "aggregation" and "composition" have been defined as special cases of associations representing part-whole relationships (which have been discussed in philosophy for a long time). In their definitions, the distinction between an "aggregation" and a "composition" is based on the fact if it allows sharing a part between two or more wholes. They define "compositions" as having non-shareable (exclusive) parts, while "aggregations" may share their parts. In addition they say something like the following: very often, but not in all cases, compositions come with a life-cycle dependency between the whole and its parts such that the parts cannot exist without the whole.

因此，尽管UML将术语“聚合”和“组合”放在了正确的上下文中(部分-整体关系)，但是他们并没有设法以一种清晰和明确的方式来定义它们，从而捕捉开发人员的直觉。然而，这并不奇怪，因为这些关系可以有很多不同的属性(和实现的细微差别)，开发人员对如何实现它们没有一致的意见。

请参见我对2009年4月SO问题的扩展回答。

c++社区中定义OOP对象之间“组合”的属性(这个信念仍然被广泛持有):两个相关对象(组合及其组件)之间的运行时生命周期依赖关系并不是“组合”的真正特征，因为在其他类型的关联中，我们也可以由于引用完整性而具有这种依赖关系。

例如，在一个SO回答中提出了以下“composition”的代码模式:

final class Car {    
  private final Engine engine;

  Car(EngineSpecs specs) {
    engine = new Engine(specs);
  }

  void move() {
    engine.work();
  }
}

被调查者声称这是“合成”的特征，没有其他类可以引用/知道这个组件。然而，并非所有可能的“组合”情况都是如此。特别是，在汽车引擎的情况下，汽车的制造商(可能是在另一个类的帮助下实现的)可能必须引用引擎，以便在出现问题时能够联系汽车的所有者。

[1] http://www.learncpp.com/cpp-tutorial/103-aggregation/

附录-关于StackOverflow上的组合与聚合的反复询问问题的不完整列表

[Apr 2009] Aggregation versus Composition [closed as primarily opinion-based by] [Apr 2009] What is the difference between Composition and Association relationship? [May 2009] Difference between association, aggregation and composition [May 2009] What is the difference between composition and aggregation? [duplicate] [Oct 2009] What is the difference between aggregation, composition and dependency? [marked as duplicate] [Nov 2010] Association vs. Aggregation [marked as duplicate] [Aug 2012] Implementation difference between Aggregation and Composition in Java [Feb 2015] UML - association or aggregation (simple code snippets)

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/types-relationships-object-oriented-programming-oop-sarah-el-dawody/

Composition:是一种“part-of”关系。

例如，“发动机是汽车的一部分”，“心脏是身体的一部分”。

关联:是“has-a”类型的关系

例如，假设我们有两个类，那么这两个类被称为“has-a”关系，如果这两个实体为了某些工作而共享彼此的对象，同时它们可以不依赖彼此而存在，或者它们都有自己的生命期。

上面的示例显示了一种关联关系，因为Employee类和Manager类都使用彼此的对象，并且都有各自独立的生命周期。

聚合:是基于“has-a”关系，是一种特殊的关联形式

例如，“学生”和“地址”。每个学生必须有一个地址，所以学生类和地址类之间的关系将是“Has-A”类型的关系，反之亦然。