What is the difference between Strategy pattern and Dependency Injection?

Strategy pattern and Dependency Injection both allow us to set / inject objects at ru开发者_StackOverflown time. What is the difference between Strategy pattern and Dependency Injection?

DI and Strategy work in the same way, but Strategy is used for more fine-grained and short-lived dependencies.

When an object is configured with a "fixed" Strategy, for example when the object is constructed, the distinction between Strategy and DI blurs. But in a DI scenario it is more unusual that the dependencies of objects change during their lifetimes, while this is not uncommon with Strategy.

Also, you can pass strategies as arguments to methods, while the related concept of method argument injection is not widespread and mostly used in the context of automated testing only.

Strategy focuses on intent and encourages you to create an interface with different implementations that obey the same behavioral contract. DI is more about just having an implementation of some behavior and providing it.

With DI you can decompose your program for other reasons than just to be able to swap parts of the implementation. An interface used in DI with only one implementation is very common. A "Strategy" with only one concrete implementation (ever) is not a real problem but is probably closer to DI.

The difference is what they are trying to achieve. The Strategy pattern is used in situations where you know that you want to swap out implementations. As an example, you might want to format data in different ways - you could use the strategy pattern to swap out an XML formatter or CSV formatter, etc.

Dependency Injection is different in that the user is not trying to change the runtime behaviour. Following the example above, we might be creating an XML export program that uses an XML formatter. Rather than structuring the code like this:

public class DataExporter() {
  XMLFormatter formatter = new XMLFormatter();
}

you would 'inject' the formatter in the constructor:

public class DataExporter {
  IFormatter formatter = null;

  public DataExporter(IDataFormatter dataFormatter) {
    this.formatter = dataFormatter;
  }
}

DataExporter exporter = new DataExporter(new XMLFormatter());

There are a few justifications for Dependency Injection, but the primary one is for testing. You might have a case where you have a persistence engine of some sort (such as a database). However, it can be a pain to use a real database when you're running tests repeatedly. So, for your test cases, you would inject a dummy database, so that you don't incur that overhead.

Using this example, you can see the difference: we always plan on using a data storage strategy, and it's the one that we pass in (the real DB instance). However, in development and testing, we want to use different dependencies, so we inject different concretions.

You can use DI as a strategy pattern, so you can swap in the algorithm that is needed for each customer, but DI can go beyond that as it is a way to just decouple the parts of an application, which wouldn't be part of the strategy pattern.

It would be risky to say that DI is just a renamed strategy pattern as that starts to dilute what the strategy pattern really is for, IMO.

Dude, dependency injection is a more general pattern, and it's about dependency on abstractions not concretions and it's a part of every pattern, but Strategy pattern is a solution to more specific problem

this is the definition from wikipedia:

DI:

Dependency injection (DI) in object-oriented computer programming is a design pattern with a core principle of separating behavior from dependency resolution. In other words: a technique for decoupling highly dependent software components.

Strategy Pattern:

In computer programming, the strategy pattern (also known as the policy pattern) is a particular software design pattern, whereby algorithms can be selected at runtime.

The strategy pattern is intended to provide a means to define a family of algorithms, encapsulate each one as an object, and make them interchangeable. The strategy pattern lets the algorithms vary independently from clients that use them.

Strategies are higher-level things that are used to change how things are computed. With dependency injection, you can change not just how things are computed but also change what is there.

For me, it becomes clear when using unit tests. For production code execution, you have all the data hidden (i.e. private or protected); whereas, with unit tests, most of the data is public so I can look at it with the Asserts.

Example of strategy:

public class Cosine {
  private CalcStrategy strat;

  // Constructor - strategy passed in as a type of DI
  public Cosine(CalcStrategy s) {
    strat = s;
  }
}

public abstract class CalcStrategy {
  public double goFigure(double angle);
}

public class RadianStrategy extends CalcStrategy {
  public double goFigure(double angle) {
    return (...);
  }
}
public class DegreeStrategy extends CalcStrategy {
  public double goFigure(double angle) {
    return (...);
  }
}

Notice that there is no public data that is different between the strategies. Nor is there any different methods. Both strategies share all the same functions and signatures.

Now for the dependency injection:

public class Cosine {
  private Calc strat;

  // Constructor - Dependency Injection.
  public Cosine(Calc s) {
    strat = s;
  }
}

public class Calc {
  private int numPasses = 0;
  private double total = 0;
  private double intermediate = 0;

  public double goFigure(double angle) {
    return(...);
}

public class CalcTestDouble extends Calc {
  // NOTICE THE PUBLIC DATA.
  public int numPasses = 0;
  public double total = 0;
  public double intermediate = 0;
  public double goFigure(double angle) {
    return (...);
  }
}

Use:

public CosineTest {

  @Test
  public void testGoFigure() {
    // Setup
    CalcTestDouble calc = new CalcTestDouble();
    Cosine instance = new Cosine(calc);

    // Exercise
    double actualAnswer = instance.goFigure(0.0);

    // Verify
    double tolerance = ...;
    double expectedAnswer = ...;
    assertEquals("GoFigure didn't work!", expectedAnswer,
         actualAnswer, tolerance);

    int expectedNumPasses = ...;
    assertEquals("GoFigure had wrong number passes!",
        expectedNumPasses, calc.numPasses);

    double expectedIntermediate = ...;
    assertEquals("GoFigure had wrong intermediate values!",
        expectedIntermediate, calc.intermediate, tolerance);
  }
}

Notice the last 2 checks. They used the public data in the test double that was injected into the class under test. I couldn't do this with production code because of the data hiding principle. I didn't want to have special purpose testing code inserted in the production code. The public data had to be in a different class.

The test double was injected. That is different than just a strategy since it affected data and not just functions.

Dependency injection is a refinement of the strategy pattern which I will briefly explain. It is often necessary to choose between several alternative modules at runtime. These modules all implement a common interface so that they can be used interchangeably. The purpose of the strategy pattern is to remove the burden of deciding upon which of the modules to use (ie which "concrete strategy" or dependency) by encapsulating the decision-making process into a separate object which I will call the strategy object.

Dependency injection refines the strategy pattern by not only deciding which concrete strategy to use but creating an instance of the concrete strategy and "injecting" it back into the calling module. This is useful even if there is only a single dependency as the knowledge of how to manage (initialise etc) the concrete strategy instance can also be hidden within the strategy object.

Actually, dependency injection also looks very similar to the Bridge pattern. To me (and according to the definition), the Bridge pattern is to accommodate different versions of the implementation, while the Strategy pattern is for the totally different logic. But the sample code looks like it's using DI. So maybe DI is just a technic or implementation?

Strategy is an arena to use your dependency injection skills. Real ways to implement dependency injection are as follows:-

1. Events
2. Configuration files of unity/structure map(or programmatically) etc.
3. Extension Methods
4. Abstract Factory pattern
5. Inversion of control pattern(used by both strategy and Abstract Factory)

There is one thing though that makes strategy stands apart. As you know in Unity when the application starts up all dependencies are set and we can't change it further. But strategy supports runtime dependency change. But WE have to manage/inject the dependency, not the responsibility of Strategy!

Actually strategy does not talk about dependency injection. If needed it can be done through Abstract Factory inside a Strategy pattern. Strategy only talks about creating a family of classes with interface and 'playing' with it. While playing, if we find the classes are in a different tier then we have to inject it ourselves but not the job of Strategy.

If we consider SOLID principles - We use Strategy Pattern for Open Closed Principle and Dependency Injection for Dependency Inversion Principle