instanceof keyword usage

后端未结

关注

 8  2258

Is using the instanceof keyword against the essence of object oriented programming? I mean is it a bad programming practice? I read somewhere that us

相关标签:

8条回答

心在旅途

2021-02-14 10:50

Another usage of instaceOf operation could be error handling. If you have similar error handling for exceptions, and you want to have it all in one place you can use:

public void handleError(Throwable t, HttpServletRequest req) {
   if (t instaceOf ValidationException) {
              ...doSomewthing......
   } else    if (t instaceOf DataException) {
              ...doSomewthing......
   } else    if (t instaceOf DataException) {
              ...doSomewthing......
   } else {
              ...doSomewthing......
   }

}

with above code, you avoid to have many

} catch <Exception> {

blocks and instead have just one

} catch (Throwable t) {
   handleError(t, request);
   return "errorPage" or whateveryouwant;
}

Also, one more thing is, is you check java source code, you will find so many usages of instaceof..

And one good link: article about usage of instaceof

0 讨论(0)

故里飘歌

2021-02-14 10:52

There are many good answers promoting virtual methods, but instanceof has its uses as well. Imagine that you iterate over List<Event>, to pick up all Urgent objects. You might do it using isUrgent() but I am not sure if it were necessarily more concise or readable. Also, isUrgent() would require making Event aware that its subclasses may possess the respective property, which might:
be regarded as something against modularity principles;
be even impossible, if Event belongs to some library that can not be modified.

0 讨论(0)

春和景丽

2021-02-14 10:53

It's discouraged because people might use it to do something like this:

if( myAnimal instanceof Dog )
    ((Dog)myAnimal).bark();
else( myAnimal instanceof Cat )
    ((Cat)myAnimal).meow();

Instead, Animal should have a speak() method which Dog and Cat inherit. In proper OOP with polymorphism and dynamic binding, you would then simply do

myAnimal.speak();

However, there are some instances in which you must use instanceof to determine the specific type of an object. Perhaps you have a list of Animals in your house and the only ones you want to take out for a walk() are the Dogs. In that case you would iterate through your list and only walk() the dogs.

0 讨论(0)

深忆病人

2021-02-14 10:54

How about in the case of a creation factory (See below)? In this case, I don't think it is appropriate for an Animal subclass to know how to build a cage for itself. It seems out of out of scope of what an Animal is and forces the Animal subclass to take on behaviors that are not intrinsic to what an Animal is.

public static Cage createCage(Animal animal) {
  if (animal instanceof Dog)
    return new DogHouse();
  else if (animal instanceof Lion)
    return new SteelCage();
  else if (animal instanceof Chicken)
    return new ChickenWiredCage();
  else if (animal instanceof AlienPreditor)
    return new ForceFieldCage();
  ...
  else
    return new GenericCage();
}

0 讨论(0)

予麋鹿

2021-02-14 10:56

Favor polymorphism and dynamic binding to downcasting and instanceof. This is the "OO Way" and enables you to write code that doesn't need to know about subtypes.

EXAMPLE

abstract class Animal {
    public abstract void talk();
    //...
}

class Dog extends Animal {
    public void talk() {
        System.out.println("Woof!");
    }
    //...
}

class Cat extends Animal {
    public void talk() {
        System.out.println("Meow!");
    }
    //...
}

class Hippopotamus extends Animal {
    public void talk() {
        System.out.println("Roar!");
    }
    //...
}

class Main {

    public static void main(String[] args) {

        makeItTalk(new Cat());
        makeItTalk(new Dog());
        makeItTalk(new Hippopotamus());
    }

    public static void makeItTalk(Animal animal) {

        animal.talk();
    }
}

0 讨论(0)

北海茫月

2021-02-14 11:01

The key is to not see instanceof as being part of common "normal practice". Like introspection in general, instanceof is a special tool for use in particular, atypical circumstances. Whenever you do use 'instanceof', you may also find yourself using other 'special' parts of the platform such as reflection more generally.

So long as whenever you find yourself using it you accept that what you're doing is a kludge in the absence of a more elegant/practical alternative, then that's fine.

That said, the most typical circumstances in everyday programs are probably:

implementing equals()
reading serialized objects
a few other cases where you're given an array/collection of items, e.g. enumerating JComponents in a frame/container and then taking action depending on type.

A rule of thumb you could try and stick to is to not require users of a library to have to use 'instanceof', but rather have any cases of 'instanceof' internal to the library.

Or put another way, you should re-frame your question: "What are the cases that 'intsanceof' is a workaround for?"

0 讨论(0)

1 2 下一页