Abstract Factory
A software design pattern, the Abstract Factory Pattern provides a way to encapsulate a group of individual factories that have a common theme. In normal usage, the client software would create a concrete implementation of the abstract factory and then use the generic interfaces to create the concrete objects that are part of the theme. The client does not know (or care) about which concrete objects it gets from each of these internal factories since it uses only the generic interfaces of their products. This pattern separates the details of implementation of a set of objects from its general usage.
Provide an interface for creating families of related or dependent objects without specifying their concrete classes.
An example of this would be an abstract factory class DocumentCreator that provides interfaces to create a number of products (eg. createLetter() and createResume()). The system would have any number of derived concrete versions of the DocumentCreator class like FancyDocumentCreator or ModernDocumentCreator, each with a different implementation of createLetter() and createResume() that would create a corresponding object like FancyLetter or ModernResume. Each of these products is derived from a simple abstract class like Letter or Resume of which the client is aware. The client code would get an appropriate instantiation of the DocumentCreator and call its factory methods. Each of the resulting objects would be created from the same DocumentCreator implementation and would share a common theme (they would all be fancy or modern objects). The client would need to know how to handle only the abstract Letter or Resume class, not the specific version that it got from the concrete factory.
In software development, a Factory is the location in the code at which objects are constructed. The intent in employing the pattern is to insulate the creation of objects from their usage. This allows for new derived types to be introduced with no change to the code that uses the base class. Use of this pattern makes it possible to interchange concrete classes without changing the code that uses them, even at runtime. However, employment of this pattern, as with similar design patterns, may result in unnecessary complexity and extra work in the initial writing of code.
The factory determines the actual concrete type of object to be created and it is here that the object is actually created (in C++, for instance, by the new operator). However, the factory only returns an abstract pointer to the created concrete object. This insulates client code from object creation by having clients ask a factory object to create an object of the desired abstract type and to return an abstract pointer to the object. As the factory only returns an abstract pointer, the client code (which requested the object from the factory) does not know - and is not burdened by - the actual concrete type of the object which was just created. However, the type of a concrete object (and hence a concrete factory) is known by the abstract factory; for instance, the factory may read it from a configuration file. The client has no need to specify the type, since it has already been specified in the configuration file.
One of the nice things about abstraction is that it lets you take care of the bigger picture and worry about the details later. Wouldn't it be great if we could do that when creating objects? It sure would be handy to be able to rely upon some other class to fill in the details for you. With the help of the Abstract Factory Pattern, we can.
The client code has no knowledge whatsoever of the concrete type, not needing to include any header files or class declarations relating to the concrete type. The client code deals only with the abstract type. Objects of a concrete type are indeed created by the factory, but the client code accesses such objects only through their abstract interface.
