应该在策略模式中使用安全指针吗？ [英] Should safe pointers be used in strategy pattern?

问题描述

给定一个典型的策略模式

 类策略
 {
 public：
 virtual int execute（）const = 0; 
} 
 
 class StrategyA：public Strategy 
 {
 public：
 int execute（）const override; 
} 
 
 class StrategyB：public Strategy 
 {
 public：
 int execute（）const override; 
} 
  

我相信前C ++ 11类将是类似

 类ContextRaw 
 {
 public：
 ContextRaw the_strategy）; 
〜ContextRaw（）; //这应该删除the_strategy_吗？ 
 int execute（）const; 
 private：
 Strategy * the_strategy_; 
} 
  

对我来说，在这个设计中不清楚上下文应该负责 Strategy ，除非有明确的文件说明，否则可能会发生不好的事情

  void trouble（）
 {
 StrategyA a_concrete_strategy; 
 ContextRaw a_context（& a_concrete_strategy）; //哎，上下文可能会尝试删除栈变量
} 
 
 void more_trouble（）
 {
策略* a_concrete_strategy = new StrategyA; 
 ContextRaw * a_context = new ContextRaw（a_concrete_strategy）; 
 ContextRaw * another_context = new ContextRaw（a_concrete_strategy）; 
 delete a_context; 
 std :: cout<< another_context.execute（）<< std :: endl; // Oops，the_strategy is deleted 
} 
  

鉴于安全指针，现在最好注入一个安全的指针，并且 Context 取得 Strategy ？

$ b的所有权
$ b

  class ContextUnique 
 {
 public：
 ContextUnique（）= delete; 
 ContextUnique（std :: unique_ptr< Strategy> the_strategy）; 
〜ContextUnique（）; 
 int execute（）const; 
 private：
 std :: unique_ptr< Strategy> the_strategy_; 
} 
  

可以在不同的上下文之间共享

  class ContextShared 
 {
 public：
 ContextShared（）= delete; 
 ContextShared（std :: shared_ptr< Strategy> the_strategy）; 
〜ContextShared（）; 
 int execute（）const; 
 private：
 std :: shared_ptr< Strategy> the_strategy_; 
} 
  

此设计当然会引入自己的问题， code> Strategy 可以注入上下文。

根据 std :: function c>，你刚刚写的东西完全过时了，你应该使用 std :: function< int（）> 和一些lambdas。

Given a typical strategy pattern

class Strategy
{
public:
    virtual int execute() const = 0;
}

class StrategyA : public Strategy
{
public:
    int execute() const override;
}

class StrategyB : public Strategy
{
public:
    int execute() const override;
}

I believe the 'pre-C++11' way to implement a context class would be something like

class ContextRaw
{
public:
    ContextRaw(Strategy* the_strategy);
    ~ContextRaw(); // Should this delete the_strategy_?
    int execute() const;
private:
    Strategy* the_strategy_;
}

To me, in this design it's not clear if Context should take responsibility for Strategy, and unless there is clear documentation stating otherwise, bad things might happen if it does

void trouble()
{
    StrategyA a_concrete_strategy;
    ContextRaw a_context(&a_concrete_strategy); // Oops, Context may try to delete stack variable
}

void more_trouble()
{
    Strategy* a_concrete_strategy = new StrategyA;
    ContextRaw* a_context       = new ContextRaw(a_concrete_strategy);
    ContextRaw* another_context = new ContextRaw(a_concrete_strategy);
    delete a_context;
    std::cout << another_context.execute() << std::endl; // Oops, the_strategy is deleted
}

In light of safe-pointers, should it now be preferable to inject a safe pointer, and have Context take ownership of the Strategy?

class ContextUnique
{
public:
    ContextUnique() = delete;
    ContextUnique(std::unique_ptr<Strategy> the_strategy);
    ~ContextUnique();
    int execute() const;
private:
    std::unique_ptr<Strategy> the_strategy_;
}

or if Strategy can be shared amongst different Context?

class ContextShared
{
public:
    ContextShared() = delete;
    ContextShared(std::shared_ptr<Strategy> the_strategy);
    ~ContextShared();
    int execute() const;
private:
    std::shared_ptr<Strategy> the_strategy_;
}

This design of course introduces problems of it's own, in particular only dynamically allocated Strategy's can be injected into Context.

解决方案

You're doing it wrong.

In the light of std::function, everything you've just written is completely obsolete and you should just use std::function<int()> and some lambdas.

这篇关于应该在策略模式中使用安全指针吗？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！