Optional Polymorphism by Delegation -- Daniel Lindner

softwareschmiede_logo-1-300x138.pngA code design pattern I’ve used a lot in recent times is the “optional-based polymorphism” that looks like a delegation to another type that might not be available. It might be an implementation of the FCoI-principle (Favour Composition over Inheritance).

Optional Polymorphism by Delegation

By Daniel Lindner

From the article:

Let’s look at an example: An application has several different engines that move stuff around. Some engines are based on limit switches. They move until they are stopped by a physical switch. The application can make these engines move from one predefined position to the next, but not anywhere in between. Another type of engines is based on a relative position. You give the engine the new target position and it positions itself there, without any limit switches or predefined positions.

Traditional approach

A typical implementation using inheritance would be a common supertype “Engine” that provides the functionality both engine types exhibit. From there, we would define two subtypes that extend the functionality in their desired way. One subtype would be the “LimitSwitchEngine”, the other one the “PositionableEngine”.

Our client code that wants to use a particular engine has two possibilities: It only requires the common functionality of an engine and can work with the supertype. Or it needs to perform a downcast after checking the actual type of the engine.

Add a Comment

Comments are closed.

Comments (0)

There are currently no comments on this entry.