In software engineering, the composite pattern is a partitioning design pattern. The composite pattern describes a group of objects that are treated the same way as a single instance of the same type of object. The intent of a composite is to "compose" objects into tree structures to represent part-whole hierarchies. Implementing the composite pattern lets clients treat individual objects and compositions uniformly.[1]
The Composite[2] design pattern is one of the twenty-three well-known GoF design patterns that describe how to solve recurring design problems to design flexible and reusable object-oriented software, that is, objects that are easier to implement, change, test, and reuse.
When defining (1) Part
objects and (2) Whole
objects that act as containers for Part
objects, clients must treat them separately, which complicates client code.[3]
Component
interface for part (Leaf
) objects and whole (Composite
) objects.Leaf
objects implement the Component
interface directly, and Composite
objects forward requests to their child components.This enables clients to work through the Component
interface to treat Leaf
and Composite
objects uniformly:
Leaf
objects perform a request directly,
and Composite
objects
forward the request to their child components recursively downwards the tree structure.
This makes client classes easier to implement, change, test, and reuse.
See also the UML class and object diagram below.
When dealing with Tree-structured data, programmers often have to discriminate between a leaf-node and a branch. This makes code more complex, and therefore, more error prone. The solution is an interface that allows treating complex and primitive objects uniformly. In object-oriented programming, a composite is an object designed as a composition of one-or-more similar objects, all exhibiting similar functionality. This is known as a "has-a" relationship between objects.[4] The key concept is that you can manipulate a single instance of the object just as you would manipulate a group of them. The operations you can perform on all the composite objects often have a least common denominator relationship. For example, if defining a system to portray grouped shapes on a screen, it would be useful to define resizing a group of shapes to have the same effect (in some sense) as resizing a single shape.
Composite should be used when clients ignore the difference between compositions of objects and individual objects.[1] If programmers find that they are using multiple objects in the same way, and often have nearly identical code to handle each of them, then composite is a good choice; it is less complex in this situation to treat primitives and composites as homogeneous.
In the above UML class diagram, the Client
class doesn't refer to the Leaf
and Composite
classes directly (separately).
Instead, the Client
refers to the common Component
interface and can treat Leaf
and Composite
uniformly.
The Leaf
class has no children and implements the Component
interface directly.
The Composite
class maintains a container of child
Component
objects (children
) and forwards requests
to these children
(for each child in children: child.operation()
).
The object collaboration diagram
shows the run-time interactions: In this example, the Client
object sends a request to the top-level Composite
object (of type Component
) in the tree structure.
The request is forwarded to (performed on) all child Component
objects
(Leaf
and Composite
objects) downwards the tree structure.
There are two design variants for defining and implementing child-related operations
like adding/removing a child component to/from the container (add(child)/remove(child)
) and accessing a child component (getChild()
):
Component
interface. This enables clients to treat Leaf
and Composite
objects uniformly. But type safety is lost because clients can perform child-related operations on Leaf
objects.Composite
class. Clients must treat Leaf
and Composite
objects differently. But type safety is gained because clients cannot perform child-related operations on Leaf
objects.The Composite design pattern emphasizes uniformity over type safety.
As it is described in Design Patterns, the pattern also involves including the child-manipulation methods in the main Component interface, not just the Composite subclass. More recent descriptions sometimes omit these methods.[7]
This C++14 implementation is based on the pre C++98 implementation in the book.
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <list>
#include <memory>
#include <stdexcept>
typedef double Currency;
// declares the interface for objects in the composition.
class Equipment { // Component
public:
// implements default behavior for the interface common to all classes, as appropriate.
virtual const std::string& getName() {
return name;
}
virtual void setName(const std::string& name_) {
name = name_;
}
virtual Currency getNetPrice() {
return netPrice;
}
virtual void setNetPrice(Currency netPrice_) {
netPrice = netPrice_;
}
// declares an interface for accessing and managing its child components.
virtual void add(std::shared_ptr<Equipment>) = 0;
virtual void remove(std::shared_ptr<Equipment>) = 0;
virtual ~Equipment() = default;
protected:
Equipment() :name(""), netPrice(0) {}
Equipment(const std::string& name_) :name(name_), netPrice(0) {}
private:
std::string name;
Currency netPrice;
};
// defines behavior for components having children.
class CompositeEquipment : public Equipment { // Composite
public:
// implements child-related operations in the Component interface.
virtual Currency getNetPrice() override {
Currency total = Equipment::getNetPrice();
for (const auto& i:equipment) {
total += i->getNetPrice();
}
return total;
}
virtual void add(std::shared_ptr<Equipment> equipment_) override {
equipment.push_front(equipment_.get());
}
virtual void remove(std::shared_ptr<Equipment> equipment_) override {
equipment.remove(equipment_.get());
}
protected:
CompositeEquipment() :equipment() {}
CompositeEquipment(const std::string& name_) :equipment() {
setName(name_);
}
private:
// stores child components.
std::list<Equipment*> equipment;
};
// represents leaf objects in the composition.
class FloppyDisk : public Equipment { // Leaf
public:
FloppyDisk(const std::string& name_) {
setName(name_);
}
// A leaf has no children.
void add(std::shared_ptr<Equipment>) override {
throw std::runtime_error("FloppyDisk::add");
}
void remove(std::shared_ptr<Equipment>) override {
throw std::runtime_error("FloppyDisk::remove");
}
};
class Chassis : public CompositeEquipment {
public:
Chassis(const std::string& name_) {
setName(name_);
}
};
int main() {
// The smart pointers prevent memory leaks.
std::shared_ptr<FloppyDisk> fd1 = std::make_shared<FloppyDisk>("3.5in Floppy");
fd1->setNetPrice(19.99);
std::cout << fd1->getName() << ": netPrice=" << fd1->getNetPrice() << '\n';
std::shared_ptr<FloppyDisk> fd2 = std::make_shared<FloppyDisk>("5.25in Floppy");
fd2->setNetPrice(29.99);
std::cout << fd2->getName() << ": netPrice=" << fd2->getNetPrice() << '\n';
std::unique_ptr<Chassis> ch = std::make_unique<Chassis>("PC Chassis");
ch->setNetPrice(39.99);
ch->add(fd1);
ch->add(fd2);
std::cout << ch->getName() << ": netPrice=" << ch->getNetPrice() << '\n';
fd2->add(fd1);
}
The program output is
3.5in Floppy: netPrice=19.99
5.25in Floppy: netPrice=29.99
PC Chassis: netPrice=89.97
terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::runtime_error'
what(): FloppyDisk::add
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)