Reputation: 2268
I have multiple concurrent conditions in which the order is dependent on the conditions. I've come up with multiple approaches to deal with this issue and I need help choosing the best possible solution out of several that I have prepared. Things to consider are: Performance, Re-usability, Readability, Memory Consumption.
Approach 1: define multiple nested switch cases
var collision = {
detect1: function(subject, target){
// multiple switch cases
var shapes = {};
shapes[subject.type] = subject;
shapes[target.type] = target;
switch(subject.type) {
case 'rectangle':
switch(target.type) {
case 'ellipse':
return this.rectWithEllipse(subject, target);
}
break;
case 'ellipse':
switch(target.type) {
case 'rectangle':
return this.rectWithEllipse(target, subject);
}
}
},
Approach 2: Store types in an object registry and switch order based on parameter testing
detect2: function(subject, target){
// object registry and place switch
var shapes = {};
shapes[subject.type] = subject;
shapes[target.type] = target;
var shape1 = subject;
var shape2 = target;
var reverseShapeOrder = function() {
shape2 = target;
shape1 = subject;
};
if ( shapes.rectangle && shapes.ellipse ) {
if (subject.type === 'ellipse') {
reverseShapeOrder();
return this.rectWithEllipse(shape1, shape2);
}
}
},
Approach 3: concatenate types to a string and switch order based on indexOf testing for order.
detect3: function(subject, target) {
// string concat and decoding with place switch
var shapeString = subject.type + target.type;
var rectIndex = shapeString.indexOf('rectangle');
var ellipseIndex = shapeString.indexOf('ellipse');
var pointIndex = shapeString.indexOf('point');
var shape1 = subject;
var shape2 = target;
var reverseShapeOrder = function() {
shape2 = target;
shape1 = subject;
};
if (rectIndex && ellipseIndex) {
if (ellipseIndex < rectIndex) {
reverseShapeOrder();
}
return this.rectWithEllipse(shape1, shape2);
}
},
Approach 4: Standard traditional if-else statements
// traditional logic
detect4: function(subject, target) {
if (subject.type === 'rectangle' && target.type === 'ellipse') {
return this.rectWithEllipse(subject, target);
}
else if (subject.type ==='ellipse' && target.type === 'rectangle') {
return this.rectWithEllipse(target, subject);
}
},
rectWithEllipse: function(rect, ellipse) {
return false;
}
};
Approach 5: On the fly selector with reference function (thanks for the on-the-fly selector suggestion @Bergi)
detect5: function(subject, target) {
return this[subject.type + '_with_' + target.type](subject, target);
},
rect_with_ellipse: function(rect, ellipse) {
return false;
},
ellipse_with_rect: function(rect, ellipse) {
this.rect_with_ellipse(ellipse, rect);
}
};
Please help me select the best solution and understand why it is best. Thanks
Keep in mind that the full list of combinations will be larger like so:
rectWithPoint: function(rect, point) {
return false;
},
rectWithEllipse: function(rect, ellipse) {
return false;
},
rectWithRect: function(rect, rect) {
return false;
},
ellipseWithPoint: function(ellipse, point) {
return false;
},
ellipseWithEllipse: function(ellipse, ellipse) {
return false;
}
Upvotes: 0
Views: 74
Reputation: 1750
I would define a mapping as follows, which will make it easy to extend:
targets: {
rectangle: {
point: function rectWithPoint(rect, point) {
return false;
},
ellipse: function rectWithEllipse(rect, ellipse) {
return false;
},
rectangle: function rectWithRect(rectLhs, rectRhs) {
return false;
}
},
ellipse: {
point: function ellipseWithPoint(ellipse, point) {
return false;
},
ellipse: function ellipseWithEllipse(ellipseLhs, ellipseRhs) {
return false;
}
}
},
detect5: function (subject, target) {
var tmp, candidates = this.targets[subject];
if (!candidates) {
tmp = subject;
subject = target;
target = tmp;
candidates = this.targets[subject];
}
if (candidates && candidates.hasOwnProperty(target)) {
return candidates[target].call(this, subject, target);
}
return false;
}
Upvotes: 3