• Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic

Thinking wild

 
P Das
Ranch Hand
Posts: 123
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Just thinking wild ...

Can we call interface as a super-type of types (classes) that, in turn refers to behavior (objects)?

Actually, this makes understanding patterns a little simpler, probably.

For example, Abstract Factory becomes, two interfaces, AbstractFactory and AbstractProduct.

AbstractFactory = {ConcreteFactory1, ConcreteFactory2, ...,ConcreteFactoryM}
AbstractProduct = {ConcreteProduct1, ConcreteProduct2,....,ConcreteProductN}

The matrix of objects it can create would be M x N, whereas the implementation classes would be only M + N. This makes sense only when M + N > 3 though (both M, N are natural numbers).

I guess, this way, we can explain some of the GoF descriptions of AF pattern.

Any comment?

- P Das
 
  • Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic