Preventing Rubber Ducks from Flying: The Strategy Pattern

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.

Principles:

  1. Encapsulate what varies: Identify the aspects of your application that vary and separate them from what stays the same.
  2. Favour composition over inheritance.
  3. 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:

quack() and 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 (RubberDuck) that wasn’t supposed to be flying started doing air acrobatics.

So what? You can easily override fly() in RubberDuck. But what if we add another Duck WoodenDuck? You will again override fly() and 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 flying and quacking are varying behaviours so we will abstract them out to interfaces.

We will create FlyBehavior and QuackBehavior superclasses. Each behaviour will have a set of classes associated with it.

You see the ingenuity of the approach? Now you can easily add a new Duck type and give it any behaviour 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 behaviours at runtime! Just add a setter method to Duck and now we can call the method to set/modify flying behaviour of a duck at runtime.

but the pattern talks about algorithms?

See it like this: each set of behaviors (FlyingBehavor –> FlyWithWings, FlyNoWay) are like a family of algorithms, and they are _interchangeable_.

how did we benefit?

We now have a _composition_. Instead of inheriting behaviours, our Duck classes are composed of the appropriate behaviour classes. This is one of the points we mentioned in the principles.

Composition enables us to encapsulate related behaviour together, allowing them to be reused later. And also the behaviour 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

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s