Related
What is the difference between these 2 relationships?
Edit: Also if you could provide a simple code example illustrating the difference, that would be really helpful!
I'm trying to give simple examples of the two types of lines.
In the first diagram, the solid line shows an association:
If the classes were declared in Java, this would be like ClassA storing a reference to ClassB as an attribute (it could be passed in to the constructor, created, etc.). So, you might see something like:
public class ClassA {
ClassB theClassB = ...
...
}
In the second diagram, it shows a dependency:
A dependency is much weaker than an association. To quote from UML Distilled:
With classes, dependencies exist for various reasons: One class sends a message to another; one class has another as part of its data; one
class mentions another as a parameter to an operation. [...] You use dependencies
whenever you want to show how changes in one element might alter other elements.
Again, using Java, a couple of examples exist: an argument of type ClassB is passed to a method, or a method declares a local variable of type ClassB:
public class ClassA {
...
public void someMethod(ClassB arg1) {...}
...
public void someOtherMethod() {
ClassB localReferenceToClassB = ...
}
...
}
Other ways ClassA could depend on ClassB without having an association (not an exhaustive list):
ClassB has a static method that ClassA calls
ClassA catches exceptions of type ClassB
Whenever ClassB is modified, ClassA must also be modified (e.g., some logic is shared)
Your question gave me a good chance to learn myself, here is what I found -
Association: Ownership of another type (e.g. 'A' owns a 'B')
//#assoc The Player(A) has some Dice(B)
class Player {
Dice myDice;
}
Dependency: Use of another type (e.g. 'C' uses a 'D')
//#dep The Player(C) uses some Dice(D) when playing a game
class Player {
rollYahtzee(Dice someDice);
}
Here's a crisp ref I found - Association vs. Dependency
This webpage says enough I think
The following text comes from it, but should be enough to understand the difference.
So basically the solid line is an association and the dashed/dotted line is a dependency.
Associations can also be unidirectional, where one class knows about
the other class and the relationship but the other class does not.
Such associations require an open arrowhead to point to the class that
is known and only the known class can have a role name and
multiplicity. In the example, the Customer class knows about any
number of products purchased but the Product class knows nothing about
any customer. The multiplicity "0..*" means zero or more.
A dependency is a weak relationship between two classes and is
represented by a dotted line. In the example, there is a dependency
between Point and LineSegment, because LineSegment's draw() operation
uses the Point class. It indicates that LineSegment has to know about
Point, even if it has no attributes of that type. This example also
illustrates how class diagrams are used to focus in on what is
important in the context, as you wouldn't normally want to show such
detailed dependencies for all your class operations.
Since my reputation is only 8 I can't place the images itself, but they can still be found on the webpage I mentioned at the start.
[EDIT]
I don't have code examples right here, but how I personally would explain it is as simple as a car and a door.
When a car has a door (or more) it's just a car
Car --- has a --> Door
But when you have a door which can be opened the door class will have a function like
public void openDoor(){
this.open();
}
To use the function above the car will have to create an instance of the door
Class Car(){
Door door1 = new Door();
door1.open();
}
In this way you have created a dependency.
So the solid line is just pointing an object(1) to another object(2), but when you start using the object(1) it becomes a dependency.
Okay, since you didn't accept the first answer; let me try.
Arrow 1: A normal association
UML has different types of lines and arrows. Above is the simple association arrow, that means that one class can have a link to the other class. Below I will explain each type WITH code examples.
In the first example, you can see that there isn't really specified who knows who (who is the owner of the relationship). An animal can know the human and the human can know the animal. It's not specified and thus not really helpful for the programmer.
In the second example, the artist can have a guitar. Because there is an arrow and there isn't one on the other side, we know that the guitar doesn't know the artist. A guitar is an object that can totally exist on its own and doesn't need anybody.
In the third example, you see a marriage. Really simple; the husband knows the wife and the wife knows her husband. In our situation, the husband has only one wife and vice versa.
How do we accomplish this usually in code?
class Husband{
Wife bestWomanInTheWorld;
public Husband(Wife theWife){
this.bestWomanInTheWorld = theWife;
}
}
Because the husband always needs a wife, we put the required relationship in the constructor. Because an artist can have a guitar, we would leave the constructor empty like this:
class Artist{
List<Guitar> guitars;
public Artist(){
}
public AddGuitarToCollection(Guitar newGuitar){
Guitars.Add(newGuitar);
}
}
So, that's how we accomplish this in code (most of the time!). You won't usually need different types of lines and arrows if you are new to programming. Keep it simple.
Arrow 2: Dependency
Okay, so we know about normal associations which we will use most of the time. But when will we use the 'dependency' arrow? Well, lets define a dependency (wikipedia):
Dependency is a weaker form of bond which indicates that one class depends on
another because it uses it at some point in time. One class depends on
another if the independent class is a parameter variable or local variable of
a method of the dependent class. This is different from an association, where
an attribute of the dependent class is an instance of the independent class.
Sometimes the relationship between two classes is very weak. They are not
implemented with member variables at all. Rather they might be implemented as
member function arguments.
If there is a connection, relation, association etc. that requires to be present, to the classA to work; it's a dependency. Example: Husband needs the Wife to exist. A car needs a wheel to be a car (and drive). A car factory needs a car class to make an object from it. Your RSSNewsItem class needs an XMLReader class to do anything.
When to use which?
Well, this is the only valid question in my eyes; since google shows alot of valid answers to your question. Try to never use a dependency in a class diagram because it usually means that you aren't specific enough. Always aim for associations, realisations etc. Only use realisations (in my opinion) if there is a required need to use an other class without maintaining a relationship. Example; Utility classes (like the XMLReader).
If you have any questions after reading this full explanation, feel free to ask. :-)
Dotted line indicates dependency to (in the direction of the arrow). Assuming you have assembled your source code neatly into separate files and headers for each class
- the give away is simply that the code includes the line #include ClassB.h.
HOWEVER The fact of the matter is that all class relationships (generalisation, realisation, composition, aggregation, association etc) all inherit the dependency relationship. For this reason I never use dotted arrows when documenting code. Where possible I would aim to document the relationship in more specific terms eg. diamonds, triangles etc. If I don't know the exact relationship my starting point is a solid line with arrows (an association, with (implicit) dependence).
Notwithstanding this the dotted arrow notation can be useful in other aspects of UML modelling eg. showing dependencies to requirements in Use Case analysis for example.
NOTE The Thought Police would have us reduce coupling & dependencies between classes by using interfaces (pure virtual classes) as far as practical.
Whilst pure virtual classes offer the prospect of multiple inheritance and tightest coupling of all between classes as is possible. Interface classes have the advantage that they are made entirely out of dark matter and so totally invisible to the police. With this in mind it is possible to write c++ code with apparently zero coupling between classes -which they love because they never really did understand all those funny looking symbols anyway.
dotted mean implements (an interface)
solid means extends (a base class)
I'm charged with the support of a C# Winforms app which uses BusinessObjects (containing no logic, just properties) and a BusinessLayer with classes ('Helpers') that manipulate those entities.
The question:
Should you pass in the BusinessObject to the Helpers constructor and then inside the constructor, instantiate the Helper's publicly accessible Entity variable
OR
Should you just pass the Entity to the methods that act on it?
Scenario 1: To the constructor
Car myCar = new Car();
CarHelper ch = new CarHelper(myCar);
ch.Wash(suds);
ch.Upgrade(upgradeKit);
ch.Save();
Scenario 2: To the methods that act on the Entity
Car myCar = new Car();
CarHelper ch = new CarHelper();
ch.Wash(myCar, suds);
ch.Upgrade(myCar, upgradeKit);
ch.Save(myCar);
Two major problems i have with Scenario 1:
A) The next developer has to dig into the CarHelper class to realise that it has a public Car accessor property which it references within methods that need it. This further obfuscates the Helper class in that each method needs to check against a 'null' Car property before performing its duties...
B) If there exists a bunch of other code in between operations, it can become unclear what ch.Wash() is actually doing...does it even act on a Car object at all...?
What does everyone think???
Is there any reason why you can't move the logic into the BusinessObject
Car myCar = new Car();
myCar.Wash(suds);
myCar.Upgrade(upgradeKit);
myCar.Save();
Do away with the helper class entirely. Makes more semantic sense to read, and there's no need to check for nulls.
Half as many classes to maintain as well
That's very true...wrapping up the logic in the BusinessObject to make it self-aware is best in my opinion too...i didn't consider that an option though because:
In 'the application' the BusinessObjects are in a namespace (....ApplicationServices) which is referenced by the DAO and so it can't actually call DAO methods (as it would cause a circular dependancy) - so it can't implement the functionality for
myCar.Wash(suds)
{
this.CleanlinessRating = suds.CleaningAbilityRating;
// persist the level of Cleanliness to the DB
CarDAO.Save(this);
}
It seems the premise behind the entire application is that the BusinessObjects do not implement any logic at all...they are just containers of information and do not have any behaviour.
Then you have BusinessLayer classes which act on the entities...
Then you have the DataLayer classes which persist the changes in the entites to the DB.
So apparently, making the Entities self aware and implement their own behaviour is a big 'no no' (in this application)... i'm sure that is the real problem here.
However, assuming i can't change that, what would you do?
Pass the entity to the methods that act on it?
OR
Wrap the entity into the constructor of the Helper class?
What about making your CarHelper class extend Car
CarHelper helper = new Car();
helper.Wash(suds);
helper.Upgrade(upgradeKit);
helper.Save();
Best of both worlds
Coming from a C++ background, Im used to multiple inheritance. I like the feeling of a shotgun squarely aimed at my foot. Nowadays, I work more in C# and Java, where you can only inherit one baseclass but implement any number of interfaces (did I get the terminology right?).
For example, lets consider two classes that implement a common interface but different (yet required) baseclasses:
public class TypeA : CustomButtonUserControl, IMagician
{
public void DoMagic()
{
// ...
}
}
public class TypeB : CustomTextUserControl, IMagician
{
public void DoMagic()
{
// ...
}
}
Both classes are UserControls so I cant substitute the base class. Both needs to implement the DoMagic function. My problem now is that both implementations of the function are identical. And I hate copy-and-paste code.
The (possible) solutions:
I naturally want TypeA and TypeB to share a common baseclass, where I can write that identical function definition just once. However, due to having the limit of just one baseclass, I cant find a place along the hierarchy where it fits.
One could also try to implement a sort of composite pattern. Putting the DoMagic function in a separate helper class, but the function here needs (and modifies) quite a lot of internal variables/fields. Sending them all as (reference) parameters would just look bad.
My gut tells me that the adapter pattern could have a place here, some class to convert between the two when necessary. But it also feels hacky.
I tagged this with language-agnostic since it applies to all languages that use this one-baseclass-many-interfaces approach.
Also, please point out if I seem to have misunderstood any of the patterns I named.
In C++ I would just make a class with the private fields, that function implementation and put it in the inheritance list. Whats the proper approach in C#/Java and the like?
You can use the strategy pattern or something like it to use has a (composition) instead of is a (inheritance):
public class TypeA : CustomButtonUserControl, IMagician {
IMagician magicObj = new Magical();
public void DoMagic() {
magicObj.DoMagic();
}
}
public class TypeB : CustomButtonUserControl, IMagician {
IMagician magicObj = new Magical();
public void DoMagic() {
magicObj.DoMagic();
}
}
public class Magical : IMagician {
public void DoMagic() {
// shared magic
}
}
There are other ways to instantiate your private IMagician members (such as passing them as a param via constructor) but the above should get you started.
In .Net, you can have extension methods apply to interfaces. It's really neat when it's possible, and applicable for you because it's a rare way to apply a common implementation to an interface. Certainly consider it, but it might not work for you since you say that DoMagic works with a lot of Private members. Can you package these private variables internal possibly? This way the extension method could access them.
Have the common functionality in another class. If there's a logical place to put this common functionality, pass your objects to this other class method (perhaps this is UI functionality, and you already have a UI helper . . .). Again, can you expose the private data with an internal/public property? (Security/encapsulation is a concern in all this of course. I don't know if your classes are for internal use only or will be exposed publicly.)
Otherwise, pass a separate functionality class (or specific function pointer) into the interface-defined method. You would have to have a little bit of duplicated code to pass your private variables to this external function reference, but at least it wouldn't be much, and your implementation would be in one place.
We might be making this too complicated. It won't make you feel all object-oriented when you go to sleep tonight, but could you have a static routine in your library somewhere that all IMagician implementers call?
In the end, Adapter might indeed be what you're looking for. Less likely but still worth consideration is the Decorator pattern.
If nothing seems particularly good, pick what feel best, use it a couple times, and rearrange tomorrow. :)
Replace inheritance with composition.
Move your 'common' function to separate class, create an instance of that class, and insert it to TypeA object and to TypeB object.
Your gut is correct in this case. The Adapter pattern is what you're looking for.
DoFactory has good .NET examples (that should be pretty close to their Java counterparts as well):
Adapter Design Pattern in C# and VB.NET
The composite pattern is meant for complex objects, that means the focus is on one object being made up of other objects. The strategy-pattern can be regarded as a special case of that, but a strategy does not have to be an object. I think this would apply more to your case. Then again, this heavily depends on the nature of what DoMagic() does.
public interface IMagician{ /* declare here all the getter/setter methods that you need; they will be implemented both in TypeA and TypeB, right? */ }
public static class MyExtensions {
public static void doMagic(this IMagician obj)
{
// do your magic here
}
}
Now, the problem is if you REALLY need to use private properties/methods (as opposed to "internal" ones), this approach won't work. Well, actually, you may be able to do your magic if you can read those properties through reflection, but even if it works, it's a rather ugly solution :)
[Note that "doMagic" will automatically appear to become a part of TypeA and TypeB,simply because you implement IMagician - there is no need to have any implementation there ]
You can use composition to have magician as a property of typeA and typeB
class Magician : IMagician
{
public void DoMagic()
{}
}
Class TypeA : CustomButtonUserControl
{
//property
Magician magicianInTypeA
}
Class TypeB : CustomTextUserControl
{
//property
Magician magicianInTypeB
}
abstract class Magical: CustomButtonUserControl
{
public void DoMagic()
{
// ...
}
}
public class TypeA : Magical
{
}
public class TypeB : Magical
{
}
I'm new to Windsor, but I'm certain there must be a way to do this...
I have a class with three different constructors:
public MyClass(string SomeParam)
{
...
}
public MyClass(string AnotherParam, string YetAnother)
{
...
}
public MyClass(string AnotherOne, string YeahIKnow, string AnnoyingExampleParam)
{
...
}
In my external configuration file, I have my service defined as:
<component
id="IMyClass"
service="IMyInterface, MyAssembly"
type="MyClass, MyOtherAssembly">
<parameters>
<AnotherOne>string value #1</AnotherOne>
<YeahIKnow>string value #2</YeahIKnow>
<AnnoyingExampleParam>string value #3</AnnoyingExampleParam>
</parameters>
</component>
When Windsor initializes an instance of my class, it only wants to initialize using the first (single string parameter) constuctor of my class, when I really want Windsor to use the third constructor.
I don't see anything in the docs about forcing the kernel to us a particular constructor using an external configuration, even though I can find references to doing it in code, but that sort of defeats the purpose of an external configuration!
Any advice would be appreciated.
Best,
David Montgomery
What version of Castle? I recall, from the depths of what goes for my memory at 4am in the morning, that there was a resolution for constructor work in Castle 2.0.
Humm, memory coming back a little now... Something tells me that Castle will construct the object with the first public ctor. May be as simple as moving what you want for Castle to load, to the top.
If that doesn't work for you, perhaps refactor your code a little?
Option 1) Make the first two constructors internal.
Option 2) Use a Factory pattern for your complex objects, which will utilize castle on the backend to new up the more simple or complex version.
Option 3) Create 3 classes from your base superclass, each having a more complicated constructor. This way, you can specific in the Castle config file exactly which service to load. For example:
public abstract class BaseClass
{
public BaseClass(String requiredParam)
{
...
}
}
public class SimpleClass : BaseClass
{
public SimpleClass(String requiredParam, String anotherParam)
: base(requiredParam)
{
...
}
}
public class MoreComplexClass : SimpleClass
{
public MoreComplexClass (String requiredParam, String anotherParam, String yetAnother)
: base(requiredParam, anotherParam)
{
...
}
}
But, I myself have not run into this yet. Mainly because I stick to only public 1 ctor on my classes, with a few private/internal ctors for things such as Linq to new up my objects with an empty ctor (since Linq doesn't support Dependency Injection, boo).
Note that in that last statement, internal ctors, that my SRP (Single Responsiblity Pattern) for resolving my IoC components is external, in a seperate higharchy assembly (i.e. an application or UI layer). Since it not internal to my domain objects, the internal ctors are not seen by Castle.
You must be doing something wrong.
Windsor uses the greediest constructor it can satisfy. If it uses the smaller one, you perhaps have some typo?
when your type is the service, you don't have to specify both
service="MyClass, MyAssembly"
type="MyClass">
remove the type.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
How can polymorphism be described in an easy-to-understand way?
We can find a lot of information about the subject on the Internet and books, like in Type polymorphism. But let's try to make it as simple as we can.
Two objects respond to the same message with different behaviors; the sender doesn't have to care.
Every Can with a simple pop lid opens the same way.
As a human, you know that you can Open() any such can you find.
When opened, not all cans behave the same way. Some contain nuts, some contain fake snakes that pop out. The result depends on what TYPE of can, if the can was a "CanOfNuts" or a "CanOfSnakes", but this has no bearing on HOW you open it. You just know that you may open any Can, and will get some sort of result that is decided based on what type of Can it was that you opened.
pUnlabledCan->Open(); //might give nuts, might give snakes. We don't know till we call it
Open() has a generic return type of "Contents" (or we might decide no return type), so that open always has the same function signature.
You, the human, are the user/caller.
Open() is the virtual/polymorphic function.
"Can" is the abstract base class.
CanOfNuts and CanOfSnakes are the polymorphic children of the "Can" class.
Every Can may be opened, but what specifically it does and what specific tye of contents it returns are defined by what sort of can it is.
All that you know when you see pUnlabledCan is that you may Open() it, and it will return the contents. Any other behaviors (such as popping snakes in your face) are decided by the specific Can.
This is from my answer from a similiar question. Here's an example of polymorphism in pseudo-C#/Java:
class Animal
{
abstract string MakeNoise ();
}
class Cat : Animal {
string MakeNoise () {
return "Meow";
}
}
class Dog : Animal {
string MakeNoise () {
return "Bark";
}
}
Main () {
Animal animal = Zoo.GetAnimal ();
Console.WriteLine (animal.MakeNoise ());
}
The Main() method doesn't know the type of the animal and depends on a particular implementation's behavior of the MakeNoise() method.
The simplest description of polymorphism is that it is a way to reduce if/switch statements.
It also has the benefit of allowing you to extend your if/switch statements (or other people's ones) without modifying existing classes.
For example consider the Stream class in .NET. Without polymorphism it would be a single massive class where each method implements a switch statement something like:
public class Stream
{
public int Read(byte[] buffer, int offset, int count)
{
if (this.mode == "file")
{
// behave like a file stream
}
else if (this.mode == "network")
{
// behave like a network stream
}
else // etc.
}
}
Instead we allow the runtime to do the switching for us in a more efficient way, by automatically choosing the implementation based on the concrete type (FileStream, NetworkStream), e.g.
public class FileStream : Stream
{
public override int Read(byte[] buffer, int offset, int count)
{
// behave like a file stream
}
}
public class NetworkStream : Stream
{
public override int Read(byte[] buffer, int offset, int count)
{
// behave like a network stream
}
}
Poly: many
Morphism: forms / shapes
The Actor vs. the Character (or Role)
Apples and oranges are both fruit. Fruit can be eaten. Hence, both apples and oranges can be eaten.
The kicker? You eat them differently! You peel the oranges, but not the apples.
So the implementation differs, but the end result is the same, you eat the fruit.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then you can treat it as a duck anywhere you need a duck.
This is a better article actually
Polymorphism allows Objects to "Look" the same, but behave in different ways. The usual example is to take an animal base class with a Speak() Method, A dog subclass would emit a Bark whereas a Pig subclass would emit an oink.
The 5 second short answer most people use so other developers can get their head around Polymorphism is overloading and overriding
Same syntax, different semantics.
Simplest way to describe it: a verb that can apply to more than one kind of object.
Everything else, as Hillel said, is just commentary.
Polymorphism is treating things abstractly by relying on knowledge of a common "parent" (think heirarchies like Animal as a parent of Dogs and Cats).
For example, all Animals can breathe oxygen, and while they may each do this differently you could design a facility that provides oxygen for Animals to breathe, supporting both Dogs and Cats.
As a little extra, you can do this even though Animal is an "abstract" identifier (there is no real "Animal" thing, just types of Animals).
Polymorphism is the storing of values of more than one type in a location of a single type.
Note that most of the other answers to this question, at the time of my writing, are actually describing dynamic dispatch, not polymorphism.
Dynamic dispatch requires polymorphism, but the reverse is not true. One could imagine a language very similar to Java or C# but whose System.Object had no members; typecasting would be necessary before doing anything with the value. In this notional language, there would be polymorphism, but not necessarily virtual methods, or any other dynamic dispatch mechanisms.
Dynamic dispatch is the related but distinct concept, well enough described in most of the other answers. However, the way it normally works in object-oriented languages (selecting a function based on the first ('this' or 'Self') argument type) is not the only way it can work. Multiple dispatch is also possible, where the selection is applied across the types of all the arguments.
Similarly, overload resolution and multiple dispatch are exact analogues of one another; overload resolution is multiple dispatch applied to static types, while multiple dispatch is overload resolution applied to runtime types stored in polymorphic locations.
Polymorphism is dividing the world into boxes based on common properties and treating the items in a given box as interchangeable when you only want to use these common properties.
Polymorphism is the ability to treat different things as if they were the same thing by establishing a shared identity between them then exploiting it.
Polymorphism is what you get when the same method applies to multiple classes. For example, both a String and a List might have "Reverse" methods. Both methods have the same name ("Reverse"). Both methods do something very similar (reverse all the characters or reverse the order of the elements in the list). But the implementation of each "Reverse" method is different and specific to its class. (In other words, the String reverses itself like a string, and the List reverses itself like a list.)
To use a metaphor, you could say "Make Dinner" to a French chef or to a Japanese chef. Each would perform "make dinner" in their own characteristic way.
The practical result is that you could create a "Reversing Engine" that accepts an object and calls "Reverse" on it. As long as the object has a Reverse method, your Reversing Engine will work.
To extend the chef analogy, you could build a "Waiterbot" that tells chefs to "Make Dinner". The Waiterbot doesn't have to know what type of dinner is going to be made. It doesn't even have to make sure it's talking to a chef. All that matters is that the "chef" (or fireman, or vending machine, or pet food dispenser) knows what to do when it's told to "Make Dinner".
What this buys you as a programmer is fewer lines of code and either type-safety or late binding. For example here's an example with type safety and early binding (in a c-like language that I'm making up as I go):
class BankAccount {
void SubtractMonthlyFee
}
class CheckingAccount : BankAccount {}
class SavingsAccount : BankAccount {}
AssessFee(BankAccount acct) {
// This will work for any class derived from
// BankAccount; even classes that don't exist yet
acct.SubtractMonthlyFee
}
main() {
CheckingAccount chkAcct;
SavingsAccount saveAcct;
// both lines will compile, because both accounts
// derive from "BankAccount". If you try to pass in
// an object that doesn't, it won't compile, EVEN
// if the object has a "SubtractMonthlyFee" method.
AssessFee(chkAcct);
AssessFee(saveAcct);
}
Here's an example with no type safety but with late binding:
class DatabaseConnection {
void ReleaseResources
}
class FileHandle {
void ReleaseResources
}
FreeMemory(Object obj) {
// This will work for any class that has a
// "ReleaseResources" method (assuming all
// classes are ultimately derived from Object.
obj.ReleaseResources
}
main() {
DatabaseConnection dbConn;
FileHandle fh;
// You can pass in anything at all and it will
// compile just fine. But if you pass in an
// object that doesn't have a "ReleaseResources"
// method you'll get a run-time error.
FreeMemory(dbConn);
FreeMemory(fh);
FreeMemory(acct); //FAIL! (but not until run-time)
}
For an excellent example, look at the .NET ToString() method. All classes have it because all classes are derived from the Object class. But each class can implement ToString() in a way that makes sense for itself.
EDIT: Simple != short, IMHO
Polymorphism is language functionality allowing high-level algorithmic code to operate unchanged on multiple types of data.
This is done by ensuring the operations invoke the right implementation for each data type. Even in an OOP context (as per this question's tag), this "right implementation" may be resolved at compile-time or run-time (if your language supports both). In some languages like C++, compiler-supplied support for run-time polymorphism (i.e. virtual dispatch) is specific to OOP, whereas other types of polymorphism can also operate on data types that aren't objects (i.e. not struct or class instances, but may be builtin types like int or double).
( The types of polymorphism C++ supports are listed and contrasted in my answer: Polymorphism in c++ - even if you program other languages, it's potentially instructive )
The way I try and think of it is something that looks the same but can have different functionality depending on the instance. So you can have a type
interface IJobLoader
but depending on how it is used can have different functionality while still looking the same. You may have instances for BatchJobLoader, NightlyJobLoader etc
Maybe I am way off.
The term polymorphism can also apply to overloading functions. For example,
string MyFunc(ClassA anA);
string MyFunc(ClassB aB);
is a non-object oriented example of polymorphism.
Is the ability that objects have to respond to the same message in different ways.
For instance , in languages such as smalltalk, Ruby, Objective-C, you just have to send the message and they will respond.
dao = XmlDao.createNewInstance() #obj 1
dao.save( data )
dao = RdbDao.createNewnewInstance() #obj 2
dao.save( data )
In this example two different objects, responded in different ways to the same messages: "createNewInstance() and save( obj )"
They act in different ways, to the same message. In the above languages, the classes might not even be in the same class hierarchy, it is enough that they respond to the message.
In languages such as Java, C++, C# etc. In order to assign the object to an object reference, they must share the same type hierarchy either by implementing the interface or by being subclass of a common class.
easy .. and simple.
Polymorphism is by far, the most important and relevant feature of object oriented programming.
It is a way to treat different things that can do something something similar in the same way without caring how they do it.
Let's say you have a game with a bunch of different types of Vehicles driving around such as Car, Truck, Skateboard, Airplane, etc... They all can Stop, but each Vehicle stops in a different way. Some Vehicles may need to shift down gears, and some may be able to come to a cold stop. Polymophism lets you do this
foreach (Vehicle v in Game.Vehicles)
{
v.Stop();
}
The way that stop is implemented is deferred to the different Vehicles so your program doesn't have to care about it.
It's just a way to get old cold to call new code. You write some application that accepts some "Shape" interface with methods that others must implement (example - getArea). If someone comes up with a new whiz-bang way to implement that interface your old code can call that new code via the the getArea method.
The ability of an object of some type (e.g. a car) to act (e.g. brake) like one of another type (e.g. a vehicle) which usually suggests common ancestry (e.g. car is a subtype of vehicle) at one point in the type hierarchy.
Polymorphism is the Object Oriented solution to problem of passing a function to another function. In C you can do
void h() { float x=3.0; printf("%f", x); }
void k() { int y=5; printf("%i", y); }
void g(void (*f)()) { f(); }
g(h); // output 3.0
g(k); // output 5
In C things get complicated if the function depends on additional parameters. If the functions h and k depend on different types of parameters you are in trouble and you must use casting. You have to store those parameters in a data structure, and pass a pointer to that data structure to g which passes it to h or k. h and k cast the pointer into a pointer to the proper structure and unpack the data. Very messy and very unsafe because of possible casting errors:
void h(void *a) { float* x=(float*)a; printf("%f",*x); }
void k(void *a) { int* y=(int*)a; printf("%i",*y); }
void g(void (*f)(void *a),void *a) { f(a); }
float x=3.0;
int y=5;
g(h,&x); // output x
g(k,&y); // output y
So they invented polymorphism. h and k are promoted to classes and the actual functions to methods, the parameters are member variables of the respective class, h or k. Instead of passing the function around, you pass an instance of the class that contains the function you want. The instance contains its own parameters.
class Base { virtual public void call()=0; }
class H : public Base { float x; public void call() { printf("%f",x);} } h;
class K : public Base { int y; public void call() { printf("%i",y);} } k;
void g(Base &f) { f.call(); };
h.x=3.0;
k.y=5;
g(h); // output h.x
g(k); // output k.x