The diagram above taken from the factory method example, the cross at the right corner indicate it's not the right solution. So I came up with my own:
Runner.java
package test;
public class Runner {
/**
* @param args
*/
public static void main(String[] args) {
Fighter f = new Fighter();
f.attack();
Wizard w = new Wizard();
w.attack();
}
}
Player.java
package test;
public abstract class Player {
protected String type;
public Player(String type) {
this.type = type;
}
public void attack() {
WeaponFactory.getWeapon(type).hit();
}
}
Fighter.java
package test;
public class Fighter extends Player {
public Fighter() {
super("Fighter");
}
}
Wizard.java
package test;
public class Sword implements Weapon {
public Sword() {
}
public void hit() {
System.out.println("Hit by sword");
}
}
Weapon.java
package test;
public abstract class Weapon {
public void hit(){};
}
Wand.java
package test;
public class Wand extends Weapon {
public Wand() {
}
public void hit() {
System.out.println("Hit by Wand");
}
}
Sword.java
package test;
public class Sword extends Weapon {
public Sword() {
}
public void hit() {
System.out.println("Hit by sword");
}
}
WeaponFactory.java
package test;
public class WeaponFactory {
public static Weapon getWeapon(String type) {
Weapon returnValue = null;
if(type.equals("Wizard")) {
returnValue = new Wand();
}else if(type.equals("Fighter")) {
returnValue = new Sword();
}
return returnValue;
}
}
Did I do it right in term of using the Factory method design pattern
Your WeaponFactory violates the Open-Closed Principle. To be compliant with object oriented design, consider following changes:
public abstract class Player {
protected WeaponFactory weaponFactory;
public Player(WeaponFactory weaponFactory) {
this.weaponFactory = weaponFactory;
}
public void attack() {
weaponFactory.getWeapon().hit();
}
}
public class Fighter extends Player {
public Fighter() {
super(new SwordFactory());
}
}
public interface WeaponFactory {
Weapon getWeapon();
}
Create SwordFactory and WandFactory implementing WeaponFactory.