 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
.NET Forum / Languages / C# / March 2008Factory method question
I'm needing a little bit of clarity on using the factory design method. Lets say I have two concrete classes that implement an interface. Then I have two factories that instantiate objects of that type. I would like to have the two factories adhere to a common interface for creating the objects but the problem is that each object requires different parameters for the constructors. I could remove the different parameters and create common method signatures but then I am forced to have the calling class finish creating the object which seems dumb. The other thing I was thinking is passing in a "params" of Dictionary<string,object> objects that correspond to the other fields required for creating the object. Does this defeat the factory method? Thanks! > Lets say I have two concrete classes that implement an interface. Then > I have two factories that instantiate objects of that type. I would > like to have the two factories adhere to a common interface for > creating the objects but the problem is that each object requires > different parameters for the constructors. I think you want the "abstract factory pattern", with your two factories inheriting from the same common abstract base class rather than implementing the same interface. This way, you can have a protected constructor in the base class and whatever public constructors you want in your factory classes. Eq. On Mar 12, 4:03 pm, "Paul E Collins" <find_my_real_addr...@CL4.org> wrote: > <jonathan.broder...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Lets say I have two concrete classes that implement an interface. Then [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Eq. Okay. So if I went this route, I would be calling the factory classes directly with the parameters I need. I was hoping to avoid programming directly to the factory instances and rather to an interface or abstract class. Is that correct or am I missing something? > I was hoping to avoid programming directly to the factory instances > and rather to an interface or abstract class. Is that correct or am I > missing something? Yes, my suggestion means you'd be programming to concrete classes. Could you post a short, simplified version of your code, or at least explain what you're trying to model? Otherwise, it's hard to tell what approach might be suitable. Eq. On Mar 12, 7:07 pm, "Paul E Collins" <find_my_real_addr...@CL4.org> wrote: > <jonathan.broder...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I was hoping to avoid programming directly to the factory instances [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Eq. The application I'm creating is a web application. I would guess 90% of the processing is loading/saving/deleting/updating from an SQL database. So there's not much processing going on. Here's some sample code thats sort of like my problem: public interface IConditional { bool IsMatch(string[] data); } public class FieldConditional : IConditional { public FieldConditional(IField field) { ... code } bool IsMatch(string[] data) { ... code } } public class DateConditional : IConditional { public FieldConditional(DateTime date) { ... code } bool IsMatch(string[] data) { ... code } } These objects (FieldCondtional and DateConditional) are saved in the database with a unique ID between them. I know I can do this: IConditional c = ConditionalFactory.Load(id); Is there a way i could do something like this: IConditional c = ConditionalFactory.Create(<data>); That way I let the Factory know which object to create and how. I Dont want to have to do soemthing like this: IConditional c = ConditionalFactory.CreateField(<data>); or... IConditional c = ConditionalFactory.CreateDate(<data>); The creating part I'm not so sure how to do. > [...] > Is there a way i could do something like this: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > The creating part I'm not so sure how to do. Is "<data>" typed at the point that you'd call that code? Or is it some generic blob of data? If it's typed, then you just need overloads for the Create() method for each type. If it's a generic blob of data, you'll need to turn that into the appropriate type to pass to a constructor, which you can do inside the Create() method. In fact, this is a typical use of a factory: having the factory do the data analysis to determine what type to return. What that analysis would be depends on your exact situation. Without more information, it's hard to say how the exact implementation would look. But there's no fundamental reason you can't do it that way. Pete On Mar 13, 10:27 am, "Peter Duniho" <NpOeStPe...@nnowslpianmk.com> wrote: > > [...] > > Is there a way i could do something like this: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Pete Yes at this point <data> is NOT typed but rather a generic blob of data. The data would come from a source (like a user or database). I was imagining it being an associative array of some sort that could easily be accessed through well known keys. I was concerned there was a "better" way of doing things but every example I have seen on Google has only been simple cases. Granted, "better" is in the eye of the beholder (or application for that matter) but I want to make sure I'm not learning it one way and one way only then forcing that pattern upon the problem when another solution/pattern might be a better fit. Basically, I look at the factory as: It needs all pieces of information that it needs to make the decision on which concrete object to return. It needs all pieces of information that any concrete constructor needs. So pass in the superset of objects you need to pass to the constructors, and I guess each concrete uses the subset it needs. I don't like that scenario, but I can't necessarily say its wrong either. Sloan ... http://sholliday.spaces.live.com/Blog/cns!A68482B9628A842A!126.entry Understanding the Simple Factory > I'm needing a little bit of clarity on using the factory design > method. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Thanks! > So pass in the superset of objects you need to pass to the constructors, and > I guess each concrete uses the subset it needs. Thats what I was thinking using the params keyword but it doesnt seem very elegant. Maybe I'm wrong. >> So pass in the superset of objects you need to pass to the >> constructors, and >> I guess each concrete uses the subset it needs. > > Thats what I was thinking using the params keyword but it doesnt seem > very elegant. Maybe I'm wrong. Your question is a bit vague. But assuming I understand what you're trying to do, I don't think your proposed solution is necessarily all that bad. Personally, I find the factory pattern a bit awkward regardless. So equivocating as to whether having a variable-length parameter list is inelegant seems pointless. :) Regardless, whatever you think of the elegance of the factory pattern, it's there to solve a specific issue and if it makes sense for the same factory to instantiate different types that don't use the same parameter lists for their constructors, I don't think it's a bad idea to make the factory flexible enough to built the constructor parameter lists dynamically. I'm not sure you need a Dictionary though. Why not just insist that the parameter list passed in needs to match the parameter list required for the constructor? Then you can just use the same parameter list. Finally, I'll note that the fact that you have these different classes that don't use the same parameter list for construction _might_ be a hint that using the same factory to create instances of those classes isn't the right approach. Again, without more specifics it's hard to say. But it's something to consider. Pete On Mar 12, 4:51 pm, "Peter Duniho" <NpOeStPe...@nnowslpianmk.com> wrote: > >> So pass in the superset of objects you need to pass to the > >> constructors, and [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Pete Pete, Thanks I think I'm using factories incorrectly in this case. I'm not creating a family of related objects that are depending upon each other, I'm pretty much just creating single or multiple instances of one type of object. Where I was getting confused is that I have multiple subclasses that I may need to create but I want to have a single factory call create them all for me. Its confusing, i know but I think i'm settled now. Thanks! Free MagazinesGet these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...
|
Reply to this Message
|
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.