Design Patterns in Python

原文链接：http://www.python.org/workshops/1997-10/proceedings/savikko.html

 

 

• Proceedings of the 6th International Python Conference

  ---

  Design Patterns in Python

  Vespe Savikko
  
  Software Systems Laboratory
  Tampere University of Technology
  FIN-33101 Tampere, Finland
  vespe@cs.tut.fi

   

  Abstract

  The choice of implementation language affects the use of design patterns. Naturally some languages are better applicable for different tasks than others. Each language has its own set of strengths and weaknesses. In this paper we implement some of the better known design patterns in Python, whose object model is quite different from that of conventional object-oriented languages. Thus we acquire some insight into the generality of the patterns in the context of Python.

  1 Introduction

  In software engineering the term pattern describes a proven solution to a common problem in a specific context. Patterns can be divided into three different categories depending on their level of abstraction and implementation language independency: architectural patterns, design patterns and idioms [ BMR+96 ]. In this work we concentrate on the latter two categories: design patterns as they are described in what is known as the G ANG OF F OUR -book (G O F for short) [ GHJV95 ] and Python language idioms. The patterns are not only microarchitectural models but also useful as a common design vocabulary among software engineers. The overall architecture of the system and related design decisions can be explained by giving a set of patterns used. While new patterns do emerge the G O F still remains as the definite reference on design patterns. For this reason it is important to introduce these patterns, the notions and the theory behind them and their applicability to Python community.

  GO F is divided into three parts and each part describes the patterns related to the theme of the part. The themes describe the purpose of the patterns. Creational patterns address object instantiation issues. Structural patterns concentrate on object composition and their relations in the runtime object structures. Whereas the structural patterns describe the layout of the object system, the behavioral patterns focus on the internal dynamics and object interaction in the system.

  While the design patterns strive to be language independent they still require - at least implicitly - some support from the implementation language and especially from its object model. In GO F the languages of choice are C++ and Smalltalk. Therefore the availability of access specifiers and static member functions (class methods) are assumed. The aim here is to look at some GO F patterns and try to implement them in a language (Python) whose object model is radically different from that of C+By doing this we can draw some conclusions about the generality of GO F patterns and what accommodations - if any - are necessary when applying them in Python programming environment. And while operating on the programming language level we look at some Python idioms and how they can help implement GO F patterns.

  We begin with a short description of Python as an object language in Section 2 and then move on to the selected patterns. We have chosen one pattern from each category of GO F: Singleton (creational, Section 3 ), Chain of Responsibility (behavioral, Section 4 ) and Proxy (structural, Section 5 ). In Section 6 we sum up the lessons learned and further discuss the generality of our implementation solutions.

  2 Python

  To put it briefly Python is a weakly and dynamically typed interpreted language. These attributes combined with a large assortment of extensions make Python a natural choice for different scripting tasks, for example CGI scripts. Python is also mentioned as a strong candidate for a steering language [ Dub96 ] because of its interpreted and expressive nature. From the object-oriented programming perspective Python has all the necessary features and more: classes, multiple inheritance, operator overloading. One peculiar aspect of Python's object model is its negligence towards data hiding. For the time being Python's policy can be described as ``encapsulation by courtesy'' meaning that a class instance assumes that none of its clients tries to break the class interface and manipulate instance attributes directly. However, the situation is not totally grim; language release 1.4 implements privacy using name mangling. This solution is considered experimental before a better conceived encapsulation mechanism is provided [ vR96 ].

  The other remarkable thing about Python objects is that they are not merely instances of their classes; their structures can change in runtime. This level of flexibility combined with the ability of the instance to trap attribute access lays a foundation for various Python idioms. On the other hand it also requires some restraint from the programmer, because overly ``dynamic'' code can be very difficult to understand and maintain. This applies also to the Python programs in general; while the language makes it easy to achieve relatively complex tasks, it does not relieve us programmers from the demands of the sound design principles.

  3 Singleton

  Singleton pattern provides a mechanism to limit the number of the instances of the class to one. Thus the same object is always shared by different parts of the code. Singleton can be seen as a more elegant solution to global variable because actual data is hidden behind Singleton class interface. First we look at how Singleton can be implemented in C++ and then provide a Python solution with the same features.

  class Singleton { public: static Singleton& Handle(); private: static Singleton* psingle; Singleton(); Singleton( const Singleton& ); Singleton& operator=( const Singleton& ); }; Figure 1. Singleton class definition in C++

  Our minimal Singleton class definition (Fig. 1 ) has only one public member: class method Handle . Defined interface is not very useful as such, because the client can do nothing with the instance, but now we concentrate only on the techniques that ensure only one Singleton instance at a time.

  Private constructor forbids creating an object outside the class. Thus the clients of the class have to rely on the static member function Handle : it either creates a new instance or returns a reference to the Singleton object (Fig. 2 ).

  Singleton& Singleton::Handle() { if( !psingle ) { psingle = new Singleton; } return *psingle; } Figure 2. Class method Handle

  Because Python has no private constructors we have to find some other way to prevent instantiations. Our approach in Figure 3 is to raise an exception if the Singleton object is already instantiated (private class attribute __single is other than None ). The exception object is the Singleton instance! The downside of this solution is that it requires the clients to be prepared for the exception. It could also be argued that using exceptions for other purposes than error handling is not very good style. These concerns can be avoided to some extent by providing a similar Handle function than in Figure 2 . This function hides the unorthodox instantiation details and returns a reference to the Singleton object (Fig. 4 ).

  class Singleton: __single = None def __init__( self ): if Singleton.__single: raise Singleton.__single Singleton.__single = self Figure 3. Singleton class in Python

  Due to Python's type system the code in Figure  4 works for the whole Singleton hierarchy. Consider the following situation: class Singleton has subclasses Child and Junior as shown in Figure 5 . Because there exists an is-a relationship between base class and a subclass there can be only one instance of the whole hierarchy. Singleton or Junior instance can be created with Handle function. The constructor of the Child class takes one - explicit - argument so the instantiation must be done with the direct constructor call or a specialized handle function. The following code demonstrates the Singleton hierarchy:

  >>> child = Child( 'Monty' )
  
  >>> junior = Handle( Junior )
  
  >>> junior.name()
  
  'Monty'
  
  >>> single = Handle()
  
  >>> single
  
  <Child instance at d1d88>  
  
  

  Sometimes it is convenient to decide at runtime which Singleton class is instantiated. G O F proposes a registry-based approach where the client consults a special registry object, which contains a list of name-Singleton pairs. By requesting a Singleton by-name, the client receives a reference to the corresponding Singleton instance. Updating the registry may be problematic: Who does register a Singleton? If it is Singleton instance itself (in its constructor) then every possible Singleton must be instantiated in order to be accessible by the clients of the registry!

  Fortunately simplification is possible through Python's namespace concepts. Local and global scopes - or rather their dictionary representations - can be accessed via locals and globals functions. For example one can instantiate Junior :

  >>> name = 'Junior'
  
  >>> sclass = globals()[name]
  
  >>> junior = Handle( sclass )
  
  >>> junior
  
  <Junior instance at d1bd8>
  
  

  Of course, now the registry (scope dictionary) contains much more than only Singleton-related information, so there is always a risk that a client treats some function as a Singleton class. This unhappy coincidence can be avoided to some extent by using some naming convention for Singletons. A specific registry object is a good idea even in Python environment. Clients should not access scope dictionaries directly but through the registry. Now the registry can detect and deny any Singleton lookups that are illegal according to the agreed naming convention. Again, this approach depends on the courtesy of the clients.

  Perhaps the most foolproof and straightforward solution is to do the registration on the module level. Each module that contains Singleton classes should also contain initialization statements that register the class names with the registry module. Because modules are initialized only for the first time they are imported, a client gains access to the registry by importing the registry module. In a way a module can be thought of as a rudimentary Singleton. One advantage of this explicit registration approach is the option to implement as sophisticated a registry database as needed. In other words we can store more information about Singletons than just the class names, for example module names, base classes, different constraints and so on. The registry can also offer different services for Singleton lookup, statistics and debugging, for example.

  def Handle( x = Singleton ): try: single = x() except Singleton, s: single = s return single Figure 4. Handle function

  class Child( Singleton ): def __init__( self, name ): Singleton.__init__( self ) self.__name = name def name( self ): return self.__name class Junior( Singleton ): pass Figure 5. Singleton subclasses

  4 Chain of Responsibility

  The motivation behind Chain of Responsibility pattern is to create a system that can serve different requests in a hierarchical manner. In other words if an object that is a part of the system does not know how to respond to the given request it passes it along the object tree. As the name implies, each object along the route of the request can take the responsibility and serve the request.

  Chain of Responsibility pattern is often used in the context of graphical user interfaces where one widget may contain several other widgets. As the windowing environment generates events the widgets either handle them or pass them to their parent widget (container), as in Figure 6 .

  Figure 6. A simple window hierarchy

  If MsgText receives an event its Handle method either handles the event or calls the Handle method of the SendDialog and so on. MsgText need not know which object - if any - will handle the event; the hierarchy does not have to be fixed. In some other context an MsgText object would behave similarly and so hierarchies can be modified at runtime. The hierarchy need not necessarily be tree-like. One variation of the pattern could be a system where objects create a ring-like structure and some or all of the objects could act as clients as well as part of the chain.

  Implementing the pattern in C++ is relatively straightforward: in our GUI example each object would be a subclass of the Widget class defined in Figure  7 . While this is also a feasible solution in Python, it does not use Python's object model to the full potential. A more dynamic and flexible approach is to use the techniques introduced in Guido van Rossum's Command Dispatch pattern [vR97 ]: dynamic attribute lookup and addition.

  
  

  class Widget { public: Widget( Widget* pw ): pwParent( pw ) {} virtual void Handle( Event ); private: Widget* pwParent; }; Figure 7. Widget class definition

  With Python we need not restrict ourselves to the predefined set of methods as we did with with Widget hierarchy: the only way to handle the event was by Handle call. The idea behind the Command Dispatch pattern is to check at runtime whether the object has a proper method or not. Our Widget class in Python (Fig.  8 ) provides its subclasses with this dispatch mechanism. The use of the separate event class (Event in Figure 8 ) emphasizes the fact that various kinds of information can be transmitted through the chain. Only the name attribute is assumed. Because new attributes can be added dynamically and new methods can be added through subclassing, the interface of the base Event class can be kept to a minimum.

  class Event: def __init__( self, name ): self.name = name class Widget: def __init__( self, parent = None ): self.__parent = parent def Handle( self, event ): handler = 'Handle_' + event.name if hasattr( self, handler ): method = getattr( self, handler ) method( event ) elif self.__parent: self.__parent.Handle( event ) elif hasattr( self, 'HandleDefault' ): self.HandleDefault( event ) Figure 8. Event and Widget classes in Python

  When an event object is passed to Handle method, one of the four things may happen:

  1.

  Each event has an associated name. If widget has a corresponding method (named Handle_eventname ), it is executed

  2.

  If the object is not the last one in the chain, it passes the event object to its parent

  3.

  If the object has a default handler for all kinds of events (HandleDefault method) it is invoked if the object is the last possible handler. Because HandleDefault should always be available only on the end of the chain, it is not necessary or even sensible to have it in the interface of the base class.

  4.

  The object dismisses the event if it can neither handle or forward it.

  class MainWindow( Widget ): def Handle_close( self, event ): print 'MainWindow: ' + event.name def HandleDefault( self, event ): print 'Default: ' + event.name class SendDialog( Widget ): def Handle_paint( self, event ): print 'SendDialog: ' + event.name class MsgText( Widget ): def Handle_down( self, event ): print 'MsgText: ' + event.name Figure 9. Widget hierarchy classes in Python

  Some Python classes for our GUI example are implemented in Figure  9 . The following code builds the chain and demonstrates its use:

  >>> mw = MainWindow()
  
  >>> sd = SendDialog( mw )
  
  >>> msg = MsgText( sd )
  
  >>> edown = Event( 'down' )
  
  >>> msg.Handle( edown )
  
  MsgText: down
  
  >>> epaint = Event( 'paint' )
  
  >>> msg.Handle( epaint )
  
  SendDialog: paint
  
  >>> eodd = Event( 'odd' )
  
  >>> msg.Handle( eodd )
  
  Default: odd
  
  

  One curious aspect of our solution is that an event handler need not necessarily be a method; it can also be a function object. This allows the programmer to add new event handlers to existing objects instead of creating new classes through inheritance. Due to the Python's scoping rules an event function cannot access the attributes of its container object. However, because the event function itself is an attribute it can be deleted. In other words event functions provide means of creating temporary event handlers to an existing Chain of Responsibility hierarchy. A simple example:

  >>> def PrintName( e ):
  
  ...     print 'Name: ' + e.name
  
  ... 
  
  >>> sd.Handle_odd = PrintName
  
  >>> msg.Handle( eodd )
  
  Name: odd
  
  >>> del sd.Handle_odd
  
  >>> msg.Handle( eodd )
  
  Default: odd
  
  

  5 Proxy

  From the point of view of the object-oriented design the ability to trap attribute access provides some new solutions to old problems. A good example is the Proxy pattern, which is used when an object has to be shielded from its clients. There may be a number of reasons for this: reference counting, different levels of access rights, lazy evaluation of the state of the object and so on. The runtime object structure for the pattern is shown in Figure 10 .

  Figure 10. Runtime object structure

  The client does not need to know that it is not accessing the real object (Subject ) directly. In other words the proxy substitutes for the real thing. In C++ this would mean that both the proxy and the subject class have a common base class. In Python the same effect can be achieved by masquerading the proxy instance as the subject by providing the same method interface. Our proxy class in Figure  11 is based on near-universal Wrapper class [vR96 ]. As such the Proxy class is only a trivial wrapper for any subject. However, its main function is to serve as a base class for more specific proxy implementations. Because the __gettattr__ method is called only as the last resort the proxy can handle a subject method differently by ``overloading'' it in the proxy class. Let us consider the following situation: we access an instance of class RGB (Fig. 12 ) first directly, then using a generic Proxy instance as a wrapper and finally via NoBlueProxy instance (Fig. 13 ):

  >>> rgb = RGB( 100, 192, 240 )
  
  >>> rgb.Red()
  
  100
  
  >>> proxy = Proxy( rgb )
  
  >>> proxy.Green()
  
  192
  
  >>> noblue = NoBlueProxy( rgb )
  
  >>> noblue.Green()
  
  192
  
  >>> noblue.Blue()
  
  0
  
  

  class Proxy: def __init__( self, subject ): self.__subject = subject def __getattr__( self, name ): return getattr( self.__subject, name ) Figure 11. Proxy base class

  class RGB: def __init__( self, red, green, blue ): self.__red = red self.__green = green self.__blue = blue def Red( self ): return self.__red def Green( self ): return self.__green def Blue( self ): return self.__blue Figure 12. Subject class

  class NoBlueProxy( Proxy ): def Blue( self ): return 0 Figure 13. More specific proxy implementation

  While Python provides some mechanisms that are usually implemented with the Proxy pattern (for example simple reference counting) the pattern is still highly applicable to the Python community. An excellent example is Daniel Larsson's RemoteCall package [ Lar97 ], which provides a simple mechanism for distributed applications. One of the key concepts in the system is the role of agents, which are client-side representations of the server-side objects - in other words, proxies. The history of the package also demonstrates a noteworthy aspect of patterns in general: the author recognized that he had applied a pattern only after the implementation.

  6 Conclusions

  G O F patterns and Python can benefit from each other. While Python lacks some features that G O F assumes, it is not impossible to build pattern implementations that work like their G O F counterparts. Our Singleton implementation substituted private constructors with an exception mechanism and a class method with a regular function but the underlying pattern is still clearly Singleton. It is important to note the difference between a pattern and its implementation. In Singleton our main focus was to maintain the features of the pattern as described in G O F. This leads to a solution that is probably too obscure to be recognized as a Python pattern. A more intuitive - and perhaps Pythonlike - solution would be to abandon any encapsulation issues and simply provide a factory function for the Singleton instance [ Lun97 ].

  The use of Python as an implementation language can also enhance the pattern. The flexible and dynamic nature of the language provides a good basis for a number of different and elegant solutions. Our Chain of Responsibility implementation makes the pattern more dynamic by implementing it with Command Dispatch pattern, which takes advantage of Python's runtime capabilities. These capabilities include runtime attribute lookup and addition. In other words the instances of the same class need not necessarily have identical structure and attribute access can be monitored and trapped. These mechanisms provide a fairly elegant way to implement various generic classes as in our Proxy implementation.

  We have chosen three patterns to emphasize the issues discussed, but we are also confident that other GO F patterns can also be implemented in Python, and with similar results. While the patterns might end up with added dynamic and flexible features after the process, this would not necessarily erode the usability and recognizability of the patterns. The familiarity and the order provided by the use of patterns may offer major benefits for various Python object systems and frameworks.

  References

  BMR+96

  Frank Buschmann, Regine Meunier, Hans Rohnert, Peter Sommerlad, and Michael Stal.
  Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture -- A System of Patterns .
  John Wiley & Sons, 1996.
  457 pages.

  Dub96

  Paul Dubois.
  Introduction to Python .
  Tutorial at TOOLS USA 96, August 1996.

  GHJV95

  Erich Gamma, Richard Helm, Ralph Johnson, and John Vlissides.
  Design Patterns -- Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software .
  Addison-Wesley, 1995.
  395 pages.

  Lar97

  Daniel Larsson.
  RemoteCall package.
  http://www.python.org , September 1997.

  Lun97

  Fredrik Lundh.
  Singleton Pattern .
  Python Pattern-SIG mailing list, July 1997.
  http://www.python.org .

  vR96

  Guido van Rossum.
  Python Tutorial , October 1996.
  http://www.python.org .

  vR97

  Guido van Rossum.
  Command Dispatch Pattern .
  Python Pattern-SIG mailing list, May 1997.
  http://www.python.org .

   

  ---