本科毕业设计（论文）

外文参考文献译文及原文

学 院 计算机学院

专 业 网络工程

年级班别 2008级（3）班

学 号 3108007132

学生姓名 廖杰发

指导教师 黄益民

2012 年 5 月

目录

1 对象的创建和存在时间 1

1.1 对象的创建及破坏方式 1

1.2 内存池中动态创建对象 1

1.3 对象的生命周期 1

1.4 其它内容 2

1.4.1 集合与继承器 2

1.4.2 单根结构 4

1.4.3 集合库与方便使用集合 5

2 Object landscapes and lifetimes 7

2.1 objects created and destroyed 7

2.2 objects created dynamically 7

2.3 Objects’ Lifetime 8

2.4 Other section 8

2.4.1 Collections and iterators 8

2.4.2 The singly rooted hierarchy 10

2.4.3 Collection libraries and support for easy collection use 11

1 对象的创建和存在时间

从技术角度说，OOP（面向对象程序设计）只是涉及抽象的数据类型、继承以及多形性，但另一些问题也可能显得非常重要。本节将就这些问题进行探讨。

1.1 对象的创建及破坏方式

对象需要的数据位于哪儿，如何控制对象的“存在时间”呢？针对这个问题，解决的方案是各异其趣的。C++认为程序的执行效率是最重要的一个问题，所以它允许程序员作出选择。为获得最快的运行速度，存储以及存在时间可在编写程序时决定，只需将对象放置在堆栈（有时也叫作自动或定域变量）或者静态存储区域即可。这样便为存储空间的分配和释放提供了一个优先级。某些情况下，这种优先级的控制是非常有价值的。然而，我们同时也牺牲了灵活性，因为在编写程序时，必须知道对象的准确的数量、存在时间、以及类型。如果要解决的是一个较常规的问题，如计算机辅助设计、仓储管理或者空中交通控制，这一方法就显得太局限了。

1.2 内存池中动态创建对象

第二个方法是在一个内存池中动态创建对象，该内存池亦叫“堆”或者“内存堆”。若采用这种方式，除非进入运行期，否则根本不知道到底需要多少个对象，也不知道它们的存在时间有多长，以及准确的类型是什么。这些参数都在程序正式运行时才决定的。若需一个新对象，只需在需要它的时候在内存堆里简单地创建它即可。由于存储空间的管理是运行期间动态进行的，所以在内存堆里分配存储空间的时间比在堆栈里创建的时间长得多（在堆栈里创建存储空间一般只需要一个简单的指令，将堆栈指针向下或向下移动即可）。由于动态创建方法使对象本来就倾向于复杂，所以查找存储空间以及释放它所需的额外开销不会为对象的创建造成明显的影响。除此以外，更大的灵活性对于常规编程问题的解决是至关重要的。

C++允许我们决定是在写程序时创建对象，还是在运行期间创建，这种控制方法更加灵活。大家或许认为既然它如此灵活，那么无论如何都应在内存堆里创建对象，而不是在堆栈中创建。

1.3 对象的生命周期

但还要考虑另外一个问题，亦即对象的“存在时间”或者“生存时间”（Lifetime）。若在堆栈或者静态存储空间里创建一个对象，编译器会判断对象的持续时间有多长，到时会自动“破坏”或者“清除”它。程序员可用两种方法来破坏一个对象：用程序化的方式决定何时破坏对象，或者利用由运行环境提供的一种“垃圾收集器”特性，自动寻找那些不再使用的对象，并将其清除。当然，垃圾收集器显得方便得多，但要求所有应用程序都必须容忍垃圾收集器的存在，并能默许随垃圾收集带来的额外开销。但这并不符合C++语言的设计宗旨，所以未能包括到C++里。但Java确实提供了一个垃圾收集器（Smalltalk也有这样的设计；尽管Delphi默认为没有垃圾收集器，但可选择安装；而C++亦可使用一些由其他公司开发的垃圾收集产品）。

1.4 其它内容

本节剩下的部分将讨论操纵对象时要考虑的另一些因素。

1.4.1 集合与继承器

针对一个特定问题的解决，如果事先不知道需要多少个对象，或者它们的持续时间有多长，那么也不知道如何保存那些对象。既然如此，怎样才能知道那些对象要求多少空间呢？事先上根本无法提前知道，除非进入运行期。

在面向对象的设计中，大多数问题的解决办法似乎都有些轻率——只是简单地创建另一种类型的对象。用于解决特定问题的新型对象容纳了指向其他对象的句柄。当然，也可以用数组来做同样的事情，那是大多数语言都具有的一种功能。但不能只看到这一点。这种新对象通常叫作“集合”（亦叫作一个“容器”，但AWT在不同的场合应用了这个术语，所以本书将一直沿用“集合”的称呼。在需要的时候，集合会自动扩充自己，以便适应我们在其中置入的任何东西。所以我们事先不必知道要在一个集合里容下多少东西。只需创建一个集合，以后的工作让它自己负责好了。

幸运的是，设计优良的OOP语言都配套提供了一系列集合。在C++中，它们是以“标准模板库”（STL）的形式提供的。Object Pascal用自己的“可视组件库”（VCL）提供集合。Smalltalk提供了一套非常完整的集合。而Java也用自己的标准库提供了集合。在某些库中，一个常规集合便可满足人们的大多数要求；而在另一些库中（特别是C++的库），则面向不同的需求提供了不同类型的集合。例如，可以用一个矢量统一对所有元素的访问方式；一个链接列表则用于保证所有元素的插入统一。所以我们能根据自己的需要选择适当的类型。其中包括集、队列、散列表、树、堆栈等等。

所有集合都提供了相应的读写功能。将某样东西置入集合时，采用的方式是十分明显的。有一个叫作“推”（Push）、“添加”（Add）或其他类似名字的函数用于做这件事情。但将数据从集合中取出的时候，方式却并不总是那么明显。如果是一个数组形式的实体，比如一个矢量（Vector），那么也许能用索引运算符或函数。但在许多情况下，这样做往往会无功而返。此外，单选定函数的功能是非常有限的。如果想对集合中的一系列元素进行操纵或比较，而不是仅仅面向一个，这时又该怎么办呢？

办法就是使用一个“继续器”（Iterator），它属于一种对象，负责选择集合内的元素，并把它们提供给继承器的用户。作为一个类，它也提供了一级抽象。利用这一级抽象，可将集合细节与用于访问那个集合的代码隔离开。通过继承器的作用，集合被抽象成一个简单的序列。继承器允许我们遍历那个序列，同时毋需关心基础结构是什么——换言之，不管它是一个矢量、一个链接列表、一个堆栈，还是其他什么东西。这样一来，我们就可以灵活地改变基础数据，不会对程序里的代码造成干扰。Java最开始（在1.0和1.1版中）提供的是一个标准继承器，名为Enumeration（枚举），为它的所有集合类提供服务。Java 1.2新增一个更复杂的集合库，其中包含了一个名为Iterator的继承器，可以做比老式的Enumeration更多的事情。

从设计角度出发，我们需要的是一个全功能的序列。通过对它的操纵，应该能解决自己的问题。如果一种类型的序列即可满足我们的所有要求，那么完全没有必要再换用不同的类型。有两方面的原因促使我们需要对集合作出选择。首先，集合提供了不同的接口类型以及外部行为。堆栈的接口与行为与队列的不同，而队列的接口与行为又与一个集（Set）或列表的不同。利用这个特征，我们解决问题时便有更大的灵活性。

其次，不同的集合在进行特定操作时往往有不同的效率。最好的例子便是矢量（Vector）和列表（List）的区别。它们都属于简单的序列，拥有完全一致的接口和外部行为。但在执行一些特定的任务时，需要的开销却是完全不同的。对矢量内的元素进行的随机访问（存取）是一种常时操作；无论我们选择的选择是什么，需要的时间量都是相同的。但在一个链接列表中，若想到处移动，并随机挑选一个元素，就需付出“惨重”的代价。而且假设某个元素位于列表较远的地方，找到它所需的时间也会长许多。但在另一方面，如果想在序列中部插入一个元素，用列表就比用矢量划算得多。这些以及其他操作都有不同的执行效率，具体取决于序列的基础结构是什么。在设计阶段，我们可以先从一个列表开始。最后调整性能的时候，再根据情况把它换成矢量。由于抽象是通过继承器进行的，所以能在两者方便地切换，对代码的影响则显得微不足道。

最后，记住集合只是一个用来放置对象的储藏所。如果那个储藏所能满足我们的所有需要，就完全没必要关心它具体是如何实现的（这是大多数类型对象的一个基本概念）。如果在一个编程环境中工作，它由于其他因素（比如在Windows下运行，或者由垃圾收集器带来了开销）产生了内在的开销，那么矢量和链接列表之间在系统开销上的差异就或许不是一个大问题。我们可能只需要一种类型的序列。甚至可以想象有一个“完美”的集合抽象，它能根据自己的使用方式自动改变基层的实现方式。

1.4.2 单根结构

在面向对象的程序设计中，由于C++的引入而显得尤为突出的一个问题是：所有类最终是否都应从单独一个基础类继承。在Java中（与其他几乎所有OOP语言一样），对这个问题的答案都是肯定的，而且这个终级基础类的名字很简单，就是一个“Object”。这种“单根结构”具有许多方面的优点。

单根结构中的所有对象都有一个通用接口，所以它们最终都属于相同的类型。另一种方案（就象C++那样）是我们不能保证所有东西都属于相同的基本类型。从向后兼容的角度看，这一方案可与C模型更好地配合，而且可以认为它的限制更少一些。但假期我们想进行纯粹的面向对象编程，那么必须构建自己的结构，以期获得与内建到其他OOP语言里的同样的便利。需添加我们要用到的各种新类库，还要使用另一些不兼容的接口。理所当然地，这也需要付出额外的精力使新接口与自己的设计方案配合（可能还需要多重继承）。为得到C++额外的“灵活性”，付出这样的代价值得吗？当然，如果真的需要——如果早已是C专家，如果对C有难舍的情结——那么就真的很值得。但假如你是一名新手，首次接触这类设计，象Java那样的替换方案也许会更省事一些。

单根结构中的所有对象（比如所有Java对象）都可以保证拥有一些特定的功能。在自己的系统中，我们知道对每个对象都能进行一些基本操作。一个单根结构，加上所有对象都在内存堆中创建，可以极大简化参数的传递（这在C++里是一个复杂的概念）。

利用单根结构，我们可以更方便地实现一个垃圾收集器。与此有关的必要支持可安装于基础类中，而垃圾收集器可将适当的消息发给系统内的任何对象。如果没有这种单根结构，而且系统通过一个句柄来操纵对象，那么实现垃圾收集器的途径会有很大的不同，而且会面临许多障碍。

由于运行期的类型信息肯定存在于所有对象中，所以永远不会遇到判断不出一个对象的类型的情况。这对系统级的操作来说显得特别重要，比如违例控制；而且也能在程序设计时获得更大的灵活性。

1.4.3 集合库与方便使用集合

由于集合是我们经常都要用到的一种工具，所以一个集合库是十分必要的，它应该可以方便地重复使用。这样一来，我们就可以方便地取用各种集合，将其插入自己的程序。Java提供了这样的一个库，尽管它在Java 1.0和1.1中都显得非常有限（Java 1.2的集合库则无疑是一个杰作）。

下溯造型与模板／通用性

为了使这些集合能够重复使用，或者“再生”，Java提供了一种通用类型，以前曾把它叫作“Object”。单根结构意味着、所有东西归根结底都是一个对象”！所以容纳了Object的一个集合实际可以容纳任何东西。这使我们对它的重复使用变得非常简便。

为使用这样的一个集合，只需添加指向它的对象句柄即可，以后可以通过句柄重新使用对象。但由于集合只能容纳Object，所以在我们向集合里添加对象句柄时，它会上溯造型成Object，这样便丢失了它的身份或者标识信息。再次使用它的时候，会得到一个Object句柄，而非指向我们早先置入的那个类型的句柄。所以怎样才能归还它的本来面貌，调用早先置入集合的那个对象的有用接口呢？

在这里，我们再次用到了造型（Cast）。但这一次不是在分级结构中上溯造型成一种更“通用”的类型。而是下溯造型成一种更“特殊”的类型。这种造型方法叫作“下溯造型”（Downcasting）。举个例子来说，我们知道在上溯造型的时候，Circle（圆）属于Shape（几何形状）的一种类型，所以上溯造型是安全的。但我们不知道一个Object到底是Circle还是Shape，所以很难保证下溯造型的安全进行，除非确切地知道自己要操作的是什么。

但这也不是绝对危险的，因为假如下溯造型成错误的东西，会得到我们称为“违例”（Exception）的一种运行期错误。我们稍后即会对此进行解释。但在从一个集合提取对象句柄时，必须用某种方式准确地记住它们是什么，以保证下溯造型的正确进行。

下溯造型和运行期检查都要求花额外的时间来运行程序，而且程序员必须付出额外的精力。既然如此，我们能不能创建一个“智能”集合，令其知道自己容纳的类型呢？这样做可消除下溯造型的必要以及潜在的错误。答案是肯定的，我们可以采用“参数化类型”，它们是编译器能自动定制的类，可与特定的类型配合。例如，通过使用一个参数化集合，编译器可对那个集合进行定制，使其只接受Shape，而且只提取Shape。

参数化类型是C++一个重要的组成部分，这部分是C++没有单根结构的缘故。在C++中，用于实现参数化类型的关键字是template（模板）。Java目前尚未提供参数化类型，因为由于使用的是单根结构，所以使用它显得有些笨拙。但这并不能保证以后的版本不会实现，因为“generic”这个词已被Java“保留到将来实现”（在Ada语言中，“generic”被用来实现它的模板）。Java采取的这种关键字保留机制其实经常让人摸不着头脑，很难断定以后会发生什么事情。

2 Object landscapes and lifetimes

Technically, OOP is just about abstract data typing, inheritance, and polymorphism, but other issues can be at least as important. The remainder of this section will cover these issues.

2.1 objects created and destroyed

Where is the data for an object and how is the lifetime of the object controlled? There are different philosophies at work here. C++ takes the approach that control of efficiency is the most important issue, so it gives the programmer a choice. For maximum run-time speed, the storage and lifetime can be determined while the program is being written, by placing the objects on the stack (these are sometimes called automatic or scoped variables) or in the static storage area. This places a priority on the speed of storage allocation and release, and control of these can be very valuable in some situations. However, you sacrifice flexibility because you must know the exact quantity, lifetime, and type of objects while you're writing the program. If you are trying to solve a more general problem such as computer-aided design, warehouse management, or air-traffic control, this is too restrictive.

2.2 objects created dynamically

The second approach is to create objects dynamically in a pool of memory called the heap. In this approach, you don't know until run-time how many objects you need, what their lifetime is, or what their exact type is. Those are determined at the spur of the moment while the program is running. If you need a new object, you simply make it on the heap at the point that you need it. Because the storage is managed dynamically, at run-time, the amount of time required to allocate storage on the heap is significantly longer than the time to create storage on the stack. (Creating storage on the stack is often a single assembly instruction to move the stack pointer down, and another to move it back up.) The dynamic approach makes the generally logical assumption that objects tend to be complicated, so the extra overhead of finding storage and releasing that storage will not have an important impact on the creation of an object. In addition, the greater flexibility is essential to solve the general programming problem.

Java uses the second approach, exclusively]. Every time you want to create an object, you use the new keyword to build a dynamic instance of that object.

2.3 Objects’ Lifetime

There's another issue, however, and that's the lifetime of an object. With languages that allow objects to be created on the stack, the compiler determines how long the object lasts and can automatically destroy it. However, if you create it on the heap the compiler has no knowledge of its lifetime. In a language like C++, you must determine programmatically when to destroy the object, which can lead to memory leaks if you don’t do it correctly (and this is a common problem in C++ programs). Java provides a feature called a garbage collector that automatically discovers when an object is no longer in use and destroys it. A garbage collector is much more convenient because it reduces the number of issues that you must track and the code you must write. More important, the garbage collector provides a much higher level of insurance against the insidious problem of memory leaks (which has brought many a C++ project to its knees).

2.4 Other section

The rest of this section looks at additional factors concerning object lifetimes and landscapes.

2.4.1 Collections and iterators

If you don’t know how many objects you’re going to need to solve a particular problem, or how long they will last, you also don’t know how to store those objects. How can you know how much space to create for those objects? You can’t, since that information isn’t known until run-time.

The solution to most problems in object-oriented design seems flippant: you create another type of object. The new type of object that solves this particular problem holds references to other objects. Of course, you can do the same thing with an array, which is available in most languages. But there’s more. This new object, generally called a container (also called a collection, but the Java library uses that term in a different sense so this book will use “container”), will expand itself whenever necessary to accommodate everything you place inside it. So you don’t need to know how many objects you’re going to hold in a container. Just create a container object and let it take care of the details.

Fortunately, a good OOP language comes with a set of containers as part of the package. In C++, it’s part of the Standard C++ Library and is sometimes called the Standard Template Library (STL). Object Pascal has containers in its Visual Component Library (VCL). Smalltalk has a very complete set of containers. Java also has containers in its standard library. In some libraries, a generic container is considered good enough for all needs, and in others (Java, for example) the library has different types of containers for different needs: a vector (called an List in Java) for consistent access to all elements, and a linked list for consistent insertion at all elements, for example, so you can choose the particular type that fits your needs. Container libraries may also include sets, queues, hash tables, trees, stacks, etc.

All containers have some way to put things in and get things out; there are usually functions to add elements to a container, and others to fetch those elements back out. But fetching elements can be more problematic, because a single-selection function is restrictive. What if you want to manipulate or compare a set of elements in the container instead of just one?

The solution is an iterator, which is an object whose job is to select the elements within a container and present them to the user of the iterator. As a class, it also provides a level of abstraction. This abstraction can be used to separate the details of the container from the code that’s accessing that container. The container, via the iterator, is abstracted to be simply a sequence. The iterator allows you to traverse that sequence without worrying about the underlying structure—that is, whether it’s an List, a LinkedList, a Stack, or something else. This gives you the flexibility to easily change the underlying data structure without disturbing the code in your program. Java began (in version 1.0 and 1.1) with a standard iterator, called Enumeration, for all of its container classes. Java 2 has added a much more complete container library that contains an iterator called Iterator that does more than the older Enumeration.

From a design standpoint, all you really want is a sequence that can be manipulated to solve your problem. If a single type of sequence satisfied all of your needs, there’d be no reason to have different kinds. There are two reasons that you need a choice of containers. First, containers provide different types of interfaces and external behavior. A stack has a different interface and behavior than that of a queue, which is different from that of a set or a list. One of these might provide a more flexible solution to your problem than the other. Second, different containers have different efficiencies for certain operations. The best example is an List and a LinkedList. Both are simple sequences that can have identical interfaces and external behaviors. But certain operations can have radically different costs. Randomly accessing elements in an List is a constant-time operation; it takes the same amount of time regardless of the element you select. However, in a LinkedList it is expensive to move through the list to randomly select an element, and it takes longer to find an element that is further down the list. On the other hand, if you want to insert an element in the middle of a sequence, it’s much cheaper in a LinkedList than in an List. These and other operations have different efficiencies depending on the underlying structure of the sequence. In the design phase, you might start with a LinkedList and, when tuning for performance, change to an List. Because of the abstraction via iterators, you can change from one to the other with minimal impact on your code.

In the end, remember that a container is only a storage cabinet to put objects in. If that cabinet solves all of your needs, it doesn’t really matter how it is implemented (a basic concept with most types of objects). If you’re working in a programming environment that has built-in overhead due to other factors, then the cost difference between an List and a LinkedList might not matter. You might need only one type of sequence. You can even imagine the “perfect” container abstraction, which can automatically change its underlying implementation according to the way it is used.

2.4.2 The singly rooted hierarchy

One of the issues in OOP that has become especially prominent since the introduction of C++ is whether all classes should ultimately be inherited from a single base class. In Java (as with virtually all other OOP languages) the answer is “yes” and the name of this ultimate base class is simply Object. It turns out that the benefits of the singly rooted hierarchy are many.

All objects in a singly rooted hierarchy have an interface in common, so they are all ultimately the same type. The alternative (provided by C++) is that you don’t know that everything is the same fundamental type. From a backward-compatibility standpoint this fits the model of C better and can be thought of as less restrictive, but when you want to do full-on object-oriented programming you must then build your own hierarchy to provide the same convenience that’s built into other OOP languages. And in any new class library you acquire, some other incompatible interface will be used. It requires effort (and possibly multiple inheritance) to work the new interface into your design. Is the extra “flexibility” of C++ worth it? If you need it—if you have a large investment in C—it’s quite valuable. If you’re starting from scratch, other alternatives such as Java can often be more productive.

All objects in a singly rooted hierarchy (such as Java provides) can be guaranteed to have certain functionality. You know you can perform certain basic operations on every object in your system. A singly rooted hierarchy, along with creating all objects on the heap, greatly simplifies argument passing (one of the more complex topics in C++).

A singly rooted hierarchy makes it much easier to implement a garbage collector (which is conveniently built into Java). The necessary support can be installed in the base class, and the garbage collector can thus send the appropriate messages to every object in the system. Without a singly rooted hierarchy and a system to manipulate an object via a reference, it is difficult to implement a garbage collector.

Since run-time type information is guaranteed to be in all objects, you’ll never end up with an object whose type you cannot determine. This is especially important with system level operations, such as exception handling, and to allow greater flexibility in programming.

2.4.3 Collection libraries and support for easy collection use

Because a container is a tool that you’ll use frequently, it makes sense to have a library of containers that are built in a reusable fashion, so you can take one off the shelf Because a container is a tool that you’ll use frequently, it makes sense to have a library of containers that are built in a reusable fashion, so you can take one off the shelf and plug it into your program. Java provides such a library, which should satisfy most needs.

Downcasting vs. templates/generics

To make these containers reusable, they hold the one universal type in Java that was previously mentioned: Object. The singly rooted hierarchy means that everything is an Object, so a container that holds Objects can hold anything. This makes containers easy to reuse.

To use such a container, you simply add object references to it, and later ask for them back. But, since the container holds only Objects, when you add your object reference into the container it is upcast to Object, thus losing its identity. When you fetch it back, you get an Object reference, and not a reference to the type that you put in. So how do you turn it back into something that has the useful interface of the object that you put into the container?

Here, the cast is used again, but this time you’re not casting up the inheritance hierarchy to a more general type, you cast down the hierarchy to a more specific type. This manner of casting is called downcasting. With upcasting, you know, for example, that a Circle is a type of Shape so it’s safe to upcast, but you don’t know that an Object is necessarily a Circle or a Shape so it’s hardly safe to downcast unless you know that’s what you’re dealing with.

It’s not completely dangerous, however, because if you downcast to the wrong thing you’ll get a run-time error called an exception, which will be described shortly. When you fetch object references from a container, though, you must have some way to remember exactly what they are so you can perform a proper downcast.

Downcasting and the run-time checks require extra time for the running program, and extra effort from the programmer. Wouldn’t it make sense to somehow create the container so that it knows the types that it holds, eliminating the need for the downcast and a possible mistake? The solution is parameterized types, which are classes that the compiler can automatically customize to work with particular types. For example, with a parameterized container, the compiler could customize that container so that it would accept only Shapes and fetch only Shapes.

Parameterized types are an important part of C++, partly because C++ has no singly rooted hierarchy. In C++, the keyword that implements parameterized types is “template.” Java currently has no parameterized types since it is possible for it to get by—however awkwardly—using the singly rooted hierarchy. However, a current proposal for parameterized types uses a syntax that is strikingly similar to C++ templates.

本文来源：https://www.2haoxitong.net/k/doc/a437595771fe910ef02df830.html