How to implement the factory method pattern in C++

Question

There's this one thing in C++ which has been making me feel uncomfortable for quite a long time, because I honestly don't know how to do it, even though it sounds simple:

How do I implement Factory Method in C++ correctly?

Goal: to make it possible to allow the client to instantiate some object using factory methods instead of the object's constructors, without unacceptable consequences and a performance hit.

By "Factory method pattern", I mean both static factory methods inside an object or methods defined in another class, or global functions. Just generally "the concept of redirecting the normal way of instantiation of class X to anywhere else than the constructor".

Let me skim through some possible answers which I have thought of.

---

0) Don't make factories, make constructors.

This sounds nice (and indeed often the best solution), but is not a general remedy. First of all, there are cases when object construction is a task complex enough to justify its extraction to another class. But even putting that fact aside, even for simple objects using just constructors often won't do.

The simplest example I know is a 2-D Vector class. So simple, yet tricky. I want to be able to construct it both from both Cartesian and polar coordinates. Obviously, I cannot do:

struct Vec2 {
    Vec2(float x, float y);
    Vec2(float angle, float magnitude); // not a valid overload!
    // ...
};

My natural way of thinking is then:

struct Vec2 {
    static Vec2 fromLinear(float x, float y);
    static Vec2 fromPolar(float angle, float magnitude);
    // ...
};

Which, instead of constructors, leads me to usage of static factory methods... which essentially means that I'm implementing the factory pattern, in some way ("the class becomes its own factory"). This looks nice (and would suit this particular case), but fails in some cases, which I'm going to describe in point 2. Do read on.

another case: trying to overload by two opaque typedefs of some API (such as GUIDs of unrelated domains, or a GUID and a bitfield), types semantically totally different (so - in theory - valid overloads) but which actually turn out to be the same thing - like unsigned ints or void pointers.

---

1) The Java Way

Java has it simple, as we only have dynamic-allocated objects. Making a factory is as trivial as:

class FooFactory {
    public Foo createFooInSomeWay() {
        // can be a static method as well,
        //  if we don't need the factory to provide its own object semantics
        //  and just serve as a group of methods
        return new Foo(some, args);
    }
}

In C++, this translates to:

class FooFactory {
public:
    Foo* createFooInSomeWay() {
        return new Foo(some, args);
    }
};

Cool? Often, indeed. But then- this forces the user to only use dynamic allocation. Static allocation is what makes C++ complex, but is also what often makes it powerful. Also, I believe that there exist some targets (keyword: embedded) which don't allow for dynamic allocation. And that doesn't imply that the users of those platforms like to write clean OOP.

Anyway, philosophy aside: In the general case, I don't want to force the users of the factory to be restrained to dynamic allocation.

---

2) Return-by-value

OK, so we know that 1) is cool when we want dynamic allocation. Why won't we add static allocation on top of that?

class FooFactory {
public:
    Foo* createFooInSomeWay() {
        return new Foo(some, args);
    }
    Foo createFooInSomeWay() {
        return Foo(some, args);
    }
};

What? We can't overload by the return type? Oh, of course we can't. So let's change the method names to reflect that. And yes, I've written the invalid code example above just to stress how much I dislike the need to change the method name, for example because we cannot implement a language-agnostic factory design properly now, since we have to change names - and every user of this code will need to remember that difference of the implementation from the specification.

class FooFactory {
public:
    Foo* createDynamicFooInSomeWay() {
        return new Foo(some, args);
    }
    Foo createFooObjectInSomeWay() {
        return Foo(some, args);
    }
};

OK... there we have it. It's ugly, as we need to change the method name. It's imperfect, since we need to write the same code twice. But once done, it works. Right?

Well, usually. But sometimes it does not. When creating Foo, we actually depend on the compiler to do the return value optimisation for us, because the C++ standard is benevolent enough for the compiler vendors not to specify when will the object created in-place and when will it be copied when returning a temporary object by value in C++. So if Foo is expensive to copy, this approach is risky.

And what if Foo is not copiable at all? Well, doh. (Note that in C++17 with guaranteed copy elision, not-being-copiable is no problem anymore for the code above)

Conclusion: Making a factory by returning an object is indeed a solution for some cases (such as the 2-D vector previously mentioned), but still not a general replacement for constructors.

---

3) Two-phase construction

Another thing that someone would probably come up with is separating the issue of object allocation and its initialisation. This usually results in code like this:

class Foo {
public:
    Foo() {
        // empty or almost empty
    }
    // ...
};

class FooFactory {
public:
    void createFooInSomeWay(Foo& foo, some, args);
};

void clientCode() {
    Foo staticFoo;
    auto_ptr<Foo> dynamicFoo = new Foo();
    FooFactory factory;
    factory.createFooInSomeWay(&staticFoo);
    factory.createFooInSomeWay(&dynamicFoo.get());
    // ...
}

One may think it works like a charm. The only price we pay for in our code...

Since I've written all of this and left this as the last, I must dislike it too. :) Why?

First of all... I sincerely dislike the concept of two-phase construction and I feel guilty when I use it. If I design my objects with the assertion that "if it exists, it is in valid state", I feel that my code is safer and less error-prone. I like it that way.

Having to drop that convention AND changing the design of my object just for the purpose of making factory of it is.. well, unwieldy.

I know that the above won't convince many people, so let's me give some more solid arguments. Using two-phase construction, you cannot:

• initialise const or reference member variables,
• pass arguments to base class constructors and member object constructors.

And probably there could be some more drawbacks which I can't think of right now, and I don't even feel particularly obliged to since the above bullet points convince me already.

So: not even close to a good general solution for implementing a factory.

---

Conclusions:

We want to have a way of object instantiation which would:

• allow for uniform instantiation regardless of allocation,
• give different, meaningful names to construction methods (thus not relying on by-argument overloading),
• not introduce a significant performance hit and, preferably, a significant code bloat hit, especially at client side,
• be general, as in: possible to be introduced for any class.

I believe I have proven that the ways I have mentioned don't fulfil those requirements.

Any hints? Please provide me with a solution, I don't want to think that this language won't allow me to properly implement such a trivial concept.

Answer 1

I mostly agree with the accepted answer, but there is a C++11 option that has not been covered in existing answers:

• Return factory method results by value, and
• Provide a cheap move constructor.

Example:

struct sandwich {
  // Factory methods.
  static sandwich ham();
  static sandwich spam();
  // Move constructor.
  sandwich(sandwich &&);
  // etc.
};

Then you can construct objects on the stack:

sandwich mine{sandwich::ham()};

As subobjects of other things:

auto lunch = std::make_pair(sandwich::spam(), apple{});

Or dynamically allocated:

auto ptr = std::make_shared<sandwich>(sandwich::ham());

When might I use this?

If, on a public constructor, it is not possible to give meaningful initialisers for all class members without some preliminary calculation, then I might convert that constructor to a static method. The static method performs the preliminary calculations, then returns a value result via a private constructor which just does a member-wise initialisation.

I say 'might' because it depends on which approach gives the clearest code without being unnecessarily inefficient.

Answer 2

I know this question has been answered 3 years ago, but this may be what your were looking for.

Google has released a couple of weeks ago a library allowing easy and flexible dynamic object allocations. Here it is: http://google-opensource.blogspot.fr/2014/01/introducing-infact-library.html

Answer 3

Loki has both a Factory Method and an Abstract Factory. Both are documented (extensively) in Modern C++ Design, by Andei Alexandrescu. The factory method is probably closer to what you seem to be after, though it's still a bit different (at least if memory serves, it requires you to register a type before the factory can create objects of that type).

Answer 4

Have you thought about not using a factory at all, and instead making nice use of the type system? I can think of two different approaches which do this sort of thing:

Option 1:

struct linear {
    linear(float x, float y) : x_(x), y_(y){}
    float x_;
    float y_;
};

struct polar {
    polar(float angle, float magnitude) : angle_(angle),  magnitude_(magnitude) {}
    float angle_;
    float magnitude_;
};


struct Vec2 {
    explicit Vec2(const linear &l) { /* ... */ }
    explicit Vec2(const polar &p) { /* ... */ }
};

Which lets you write things like:

Vec2 v(linear(1.0, 2.0));

Option 2:

you can use "tags" like the STL does with iterators and such. For example:

struct linear_coord_tag linear_coord {}; // declare type and a global
struct polar_coord_tag polar_coord {};

struct Vec2 {
    Vec2(float x, float y, const linear_coord_tag &) { /* ... */ }
    Vec2(float angle, float magnitude, const polar_coord_tag &) { /* ... */ }
};

This second approach lets you write code which looks like this:

Vec2 v(1.0, 2.0, linear_coord);

which is also nice and expressive while allowing you to have unique prototypes for each constructor.

Answer 5

You can read a very good solution in: http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/363338/Factory-Pattern-in-Cplusplus

The best solution is on the "comments and discussions", see the "No need for static Create methods".

From this idea, I've done a factory. Note that I'm using Qt, but you can change QMap and QString for std equivalents.

#ifndef FACTORY_H
#define FACTORY_H

#include <QMap>
#include <QString>

template <typename T>
class Factory
{
public:
    template <typename TDerived>
    void registerType(QString name)
    {
        static_assert(std::is_base_of<T, TDerived>::value, "Factory::registerType doesn't accept this type because doesn't derive from base class");
        _createFuncs[name] = &createFunc<TDerived>;
    }

    T* create(QString name) {
        typename QMap<QString,PCreateFunc>::const_iterator it = _createFuncs.find(name);
        if (it != _createFuncs.end()) {
            return it.value()();
        }
        return nullptr;
    }

private:
    template <typename TDerived>
    static T* createFunc()
    {
        return new TDerived();
    }

    typedef T* (*PCreateFunc)();
    QMap<QString,PCreateFunc> _createFuncs;
};

#endif // FACTORY_H

Sample usage:

Factory<BaseClass> f;
f.registerType<Descendant1>("Descendant1");
f.registerType<Descendant2>("Descendant2");
Descendant1* d1 = static_cast<Descendant1*>(f.create("Descendant1"));
Descendant2* d2 = static_cast<Descendant2*>(f.create("Descendant2"));
BaseClass *b1 = f.create("Descendant1");
BaseClass *b2 = f.create("Descendant2");

Answer 6

This is my c++11 style solution. parameter 'base' is for base class of all sub-classes. creators, are std::function objects to create sub-class instances, might be a binding to your sub-class' static member function 'create(some args)'. This maybe not perfect but works for me. And it is kinda 'general' solution.

template <class base, class... params> class factory {
public:
  factory() {}
  factory(const factory &) = delete;
  factory &operator=(const factory &) = delete;

  auto create(const std::string name, params... args) {
    auto key = your_hash_func(name.c_str(), name.size());
    return std::move(create(key, args...));
  }

  auto create(key_t key, params... args) {
    std::unique_ptr<base> obj{creators_[key](args...)};
    return obj;
  }

  void register_creator(const std::string name,
                        std::function<base *(params...)> &&creator) {
    auto key = your_hash_func(name.c_str(), name.size());
    creators_[key] = std::move(creator);
  }

protected:
  std::unordered_map<key_t, std::function<base *(params...)>> creators_;
};

An example on usage.

class base {
public:
  base(int val) : val_(val) {}

  virtual ~base() { std::cout << "base destroyed\n"; }

protected:
  int val_ = 0;
};

class foo : public base {
public:
  foo(int val) : base(val) { std::cout << "foo " << val << " \n"; }

  static foo *create(int val) { return new foo(val); }

  virtual ~foo() { std::cout << "foo destroyed\n"; }
};

class bar : public base {
public:
  bar(int val) : base(val) { std::cout << "bar " << val << "\n"; }

  static bar *create(int val) { return new bar(val); }

  virtual ~bar() { std::cout << "bar destroyed\n"; }
};

int main() {
  common::factory<base, int> factory;

  auto foo_creator = std::bind(&foo::create, std::placeholders::_1);
  auto bar_creator = std::bind(&bar::create, std::placeholders::_1);

  factory.register_creator("foo", foo_creator);
  factory.register_creator("bar", bar_creator);

  {
    auto foo_obj = std::move(factory.create("foo", 80));
    foo_obj.reset();
  }

  {
    auto bar_obj = std::move(factory.create("bar", 90));
    bar_obj.reset();
  }
}