Timeline for why do the factory method and creator class not always need to be abstract
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2020 at 10:01 | history | edited | CommunityBot | Commonmark migration | |
| Oct 25, 2018 at 13:01 | comment | added | Neil | @IstiaqueAhmed No, I think they're referring to factory method pattern. But then I haven't read the book, I could also be mistaken. | |
| Oct 25, 2018 at 12:43 | answer | added | amon | timeline score: 1 | |
| Oct 25, 2018 at 12:39 | comment | added | Istiaque Ahmed | @Neil, so you say the Q&A talks about abstract factory pattern ? | |
| Oct 25, 2018 at 12:37 | comment | added | Neil | @IstiaqueAhmed There can be. But in the case of factory method pattern, you're aware of the existence of Creator1 (subclass of Creator), and in the case of abstract factory pattern, the caller is purposefully left in the dark about who instantiates the class. | |
| Oct 25, 2018 at 12:33 | comment | added | Istiaque Ahmed | @Neil, shouldn't still there be subclasses of the Creator opposed to what the Q&A says in OP ? | |
| Oct 25, 2018 at 12:30 | comment | added | amon | @DavidArno Per my reading this question is fine: OP is asking about their understanding of the pattern (as based on that book). They are not asking us to infer the author's intention. It might be relevant that this book is just a second-hand account of the pattern and didn't introduce it. | |
| Oct 25, 2018 at 12:25 | comment | added | Neil | The factory method pattern is about distinguishing usage of an instance from its creation. The factory itself doesn't have to be abstract. There is a more sophisticated version of this where the factory itself is abstract for when creation becomes complicated. See Factory method pattern and Abstract factory pattern. | |
| Oct 25, 2018 at 12:16 | comment | added | Istiaque Ahmed | @DavidArno, without mentioning the book how could I represent the Q and A ? The authors of the book had factory method pattern in mind when they wrote it. I did not mention any example that you need to go back to the book for clarification. The question as I think is self-explanatory without taking to any other helping resource. Am I correct ? | |
| Oct 25, 2018 at 12:13 | comment | added | Istiaque Ahmed | @DavidArno, suppose I omit the book name, will it be okay then ? | |
| Oct 25, 2018 at 12:12 | comment | added | David Arno | The problem I see with this question, as it stands, is that you are asking us to explain what the author(s) of that book had in mind when they wrote it. As we aren't those authors, that's a difficult thing for us to do. | |
| Oct 25, 2018 at 12:04 | history | edited | Istiaque Ahmed | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added EDIT: |
| Oct 25, 2018 at 12:00 | review | First posts | |||
| Oct 29, 2018 at 14:27 | |||||
| Oct 25, 2018 at 11:58 | history | asked | Istiaque Ahmed | CC BY-SA 4.0 |