大型Switch语句。坏的OOP？[英] Large Switch statements: Bad OOP?

问题描述

I've always been of the opinion that large switch statements are a symptom of bad OOP design. In the past, I've read articles that discuss this topic and they have provided altnerative OOP based approaches, typically based on polymorphism to instantiate the right object to handle the case.

I'm now in a situation that has a monsterous switch statement based on a stream of data from a TCP socket in which the protocol consists of basically newline terminated command, followed by lines of data, followed by an end marker. The command can be one of 100 different commands, so I'd like to find a way to reduce this monster switch statement to something more manageable.

I've done some googling to find the solutions I recall, but sadly, Google has become a wasteland of irrelevant results for many kinds of queries these days.

Are there any patterns for this sort of problem? Any suggestions on possible implementations?

One thought I had was to use a dictionary lookup, matching the command text to the object type to instantiate. This has the nice advantage of merely creating a new object and inserting a new command/type in the table for any new commands.

However, this also has the problem of type explosion. I now need 100 new classes, plus I have to find a way to interface them cleanly to the data model. Is the "one true switch statement" really the way to go?

I'd appreciate your thoughts, opinions, or comments.

推荐答案

You may get some benefit out of a Command Pattern.

For OOP, you may be able to collapse several similar commands each into a single class, if the behavior variations are small enough, to avoid a complete class explosion (yeah, I can hear the OOP gurus shrieking about that already). However, if the system is already OOP, and each of the 100+ commands is truly unique, then just make them unique classes and take advantage of inheritance to consolidate the common stuff.

If the system is not OOP, then I wouldn't add OOP just for this... you can easily use the Command Pattern with a simple dictionary lookup and function pointers, or even dynamically generated function calls based on the command name, depending on the language. Then you can just group logically associated functions into libraries that represent a collection of similar commands to achieve manageable separation. I don't know if there's a good term for this kind of implementation... I always think of it as a "dispatcher" style, based on the MVC-approach to handling URLs.

其他推荐答案

I see having two switch statements as a symptom of non-OO design, where the switch-on-enum-type might be replaced with multiple types which provide different implementations of an abstract interface; for example, the following ...

switch (eFoo)
{
case Foo.This:
  eatThis();
  break;
case Foo.That:
  eatThat();
  break;
}

switch (eFoo)
{
case Foo.This:
  drinkThis();
  break;
case Foo.That:
  drinkThat();
  break;
}

... should perhaps be rewritten to as ...

IAbstract
{
  void eat();
  void drink();
}

class This : IAbstract
{
  void eat() { ... }
  void drink() { ... }
}

class That : IAbstract
{
  void eat() { ... }
  void drink() { ... }
}

However, one switch statement isn't imo such a strong indicator that the switch statement ought to be replaced with something else.

其他推荐答案

The command can be one of 100 different commands

If you need to do one out of 100 different things, you can't avoid having a 100-way branch. You can encode it in control flow (switch, if-elseif^100) or in data (a 100-element map from string to command/factory/strategy). But it will be there.

You can try to isolate the outcome of the 100-way branch from things that don't need to know that outcome. Maybe just 100 different methods is fine; there's no need to invent objects you don't need if that makes the code unwieldy.