The Open/Closed Principle states that software entities (classes, modules, etc.) should be open for extension, but closed for modification. What does this mean, and why is it an important principle of good object-oriented design?
相关问题
- how to define constructor for Python's new Nam
- Keeping track of variable instances
- Object.create() bug?
- std::vector of objects / pointers / smart pointers
- Name for a method that has only side effects
相关文章
- 接口B继承接口A,但是又不添加新的方法。这样有什么意义吗?
- NameError: name 'self' is not defined, eve
- Implementation Strategies for Object Orientation
- Check if the Type of an Object is inherited from a
- When to use Interfaces in PHP
- Are default parameters bad practice in OOP?
- How to return new instance of subclass while initi
- In OOP, what is the best practice in regards to us
I just want to emphasize that "Open/Closed", even though being obviously useful in OO programming, is a healthy method to use in all aspects of development. For instance, in my own experience it's a great painkiller to use "Open/Closed" as much as possible when working with plain C.
/Robert
I was recently given an additional idea of what this principle entails: that the Open-Closed Principle describes at once a way of writing code, as well as an end-result of writing code in a resilient way.
I like to think of Open/Closed split up in two closely-related parts:
Thus, code that exhibits Open/Closed behavior (or, if you prefer, fulfills the Open/Closed Principle) requires minimal or no modification in response to usage scenarios beyond what it was originally built for.
As far as implementation is concerned? I find that the commonly-stated interpretation, "Open/Closed refers to code being polymorphic!" to be at best an incomplete statement. Polymorphism in code is one tool to achieve this sort of behavior; Inheritance, Implementation...really, every object-oriented design principle is necessary to write code that is resilient in the way implied by this principle.
This means that the OO software should be built upon, but not changed intrinsically. This is good because it ensures reliable, predictable performance from the base classes.
It means that you should put new code in new classes/modules. Existing code should be modified only for bug fixing. New classes can reuse existing code via inheritance.
Open/closed principle is intended to mitigate risk when introducing new functionality. Since you don't modify existing code you can be assured that it wouldn't be broken. It reduce maintenance cost and increase product stability.
That means any class or module should be written in a way that it can be used as is, can be extended, but neve modified
Bad Example in Javascript
Now if you want to add Another Juice type, you have to edit the module itself, By this way, we are breaking OCP .
Good Example in Javascript
Now, you can add new juice types from outside the module without editing the same module.
It's the answer to the fragile base class problem, which says that seemingly innocent modifications to base classes may have unintended consequences to inheritors that depended on the previous behavior. So you have to be careful to encapsulate what you don't want relied upon so that the derived classes will obey the contracts defined by the base class. And once inheritors exist, you have to be really careful with what you change in the base class.