Master: So Grasshopper, should effort go into reuse above maintainability and extensibility?
Student: Master, I believe that there is truth in this.
Master: I can see that you still have much to learn.
– – Head First Design Patterns
The Strategy Pattern:
Define a family of algorithms, encapsulate each one, and make them interchangeable. Strategy lets the algorithm vary independently from the clients that use it.
- Encapsulate what varies: Identify the aspects of your application that vary and separate them from what stays the same.
- Favor composition over inheritance.
- Program to interfaces, not implementations.
when will I need it?
So you are a developer and you are making a Duck Simulator* program. You are a nice person and so you use Inheritance. You have a
Duck superclass that defines some attributes and methods. This class is inherited by other special
DuckType classes. Like so:
swim() are implemented in the superclass while
display() is implemented in the child classes as each duck looks different.
Now you are asked to add a new feature, the ducks can now fly. Because you used inheritance, you just added the method
fly() to the superclass
But that proved disastrous because a certain Duck that wasn’t supposed to be flying started doing air acrobatics.
So what? You can easily override
RubberDuck. But what if we add another Duck
WoodenDuck? You will again override
quack() (because wooden ducks don’t quack).
What you thought was great for reuse (Inheritance) turned out to be a nightmare for maintenance.
Strategy Pattern to the rescue!
Time to use some design principles.
We identify that
quacking are varying behaviors, so we will abstract them out to interfaces.
We will create
QuackBehavior superclasses. Each behavior will have a set of classes associated with it. We have this structure now:
And we integrate this with the
Duck class and it’s child classes like so:
You see the ingenuity of the approach? Now you can easily add a new Duck type and give it any behavior you want, without making any change to the superclass
Duck or without adding any new methods to the child class. This also prevents disasters like flying rubber ducks.
We took implementation away from the child classes and moved it to classes of their own from where they can be reused. Now not only can you reuse the
Quack class inside of any
Duck type class, but you can also separately use it to, maybe, imitate a duck sound.
You can also add/change behaviors at runtime! Just add a setter method to
And now we can call this method to set/modify flying behavior of a duck at runtime.
but the pattern talks about algorithms?
See it like this: each set of behaviors (
FlyNoWay) are like a family of algorithms, and they are interchangeable.
how did we benefit?
We now have a composition. Instead of inheriting behaviors, our
Duck classes are composed of the appropriate behavior classes. This is one of the points we mentioned in the design principles.
Composition enables us to encapsulate related behavior together, allowing them to be reused later. And also the behavior can be changed at runtime.
Also, anytime we have to add a new way of flying (
FlyWithRockets), all we have to do is add a new child for
FlyBehavior and chill.
*All examples are taken from the Head First Design Patterns