I am trying to define a number of classes based on an abstract base class. Each of these classes basically defines a cell shape for a visualisation package. The cell is comprised of a number of vertices (points) and each subclass will require a different number of points. Each class can be thought of as a container for a fixed number of point coordinates.
As an example, consider the base class Shape, which is simply a container for a list of coordinates:
class Shape(object):
"""Cell shape base class."""
def __init__(self, sequence):
self.points = sequence
@property
def points(self):
return self._points
@points.setter
def points(self, sequence):
# Error checking goes here, e.g. check that `sequence` is a
# sequence of numeric values.
self._points = sequence
Ideally I want to be able to define, say, a Square class, where the points.setter method checks that sequence is of length four. Furthermore I would like a user to not be able to instantiate Shape. Is there a way I can define Shape to be an abstract base class? I have tried changing the definition of shape to the following:
import abc
class Shape(object):
"""Cell shape base class."""
__metaclass__ = abc.ABCMeta
def __init__(self, sequence):
self.points = sequence
@abc.abstractproperty
def npoints(self):
pass
@property
def points(self):
return self._points
@points.setter
def points(self, sequence):
# Error checking goes here...
if len(sequence) != self.npoints:
raise TypeError('Some descriptive error message!')
self._points = sequence
This requires subclasses to define the property npoints. I can then define a class Square as
class Square(Shape):
@property
def npoints(self):
return 4
However, this would be rather tedious to implement for a large number of sublcasses (and with more than one property to implement). I was hoping to define a class factory which would create my subclasses for me, something along the lines of:
def Factory(name, npoints):
return type(name, (Shape,), dict(npoints=npoints))
Triangle = Factory('Triangle', 3)
Square = Factory('Square', 4)
# etc...
Is this class factory function a valid approach to take, or am I clobbering the npoints property? Is it better to replace the call to type with something more verbose like:
def Factory(name, _npoints):
class cls(Shape):
@property
def npoints(self):
return _npoints
cls.__name__ = name
return cls
An alternative approach would be to define a class attribute _NPOINTS and change the npoints
property of Shape to
@property
def npoints(self):
return _NPOINTS
However, then I loose the benefit of using an abstract base class since:
type, andDoes anyone have any thoughts on the best way to implement this abstract base class and class factory function, or even an altogether better design?
Without knowing more about your project, I cannot give specific advice on the general design. I will just provide a few more general hints and thoughts.
Dynamically generated classes are often a sign that you don't need separate classes at all – simply write a single class that incorparates all the functionality. What's the problem with a Shape class that gets it's properties at instantiation time? (Of course there are reasons to use dynamically generated classes – the namedtuple() factory function is one example. I couldn't find any specific reasons in your question, however.)
Instead of using abstract base classes, you often simply document the intended interface, and than write classes conforming to this interface. Due to the dynamic nature of Python, you don't strictly need a common base class. There are often other advantages to a common base class – for example shared functionality.
Only check for application code errors if not doing so leads to strange errors in unrelated places. If, say, your function expects an iterable, simply assume you got an iterable. If the user passed in something else, you code will fail when it tries to iterate the passed in object anyway, and the error message will usually be enough for the application developer to understand the error.