Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

gang-of-4-patterns - RE : [gang-of-4-patterns] Strategy Pattern vs. Bridge Pattern

gang-of-4-patterns AT lists.siebelschool.illinois.edu

Subject: Design Patterns discussion

List archive

RE : [gang-of-4-patterns] Strategy Pattern vs. Bridge Pattern


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Mikal Ziane <Mikal.Ziane AT lip6.fr>
  • To: "Paul Adolph" <padolph AT lsil.com>, <gang-of-4-patterns AT cs.uiuc.edu>
  • Subject: RE : [gang-of-4-patterns] Strategy Pattern vs. Bridge Pattern
  • Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:25:09 +0100
  • List-archive: <http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/gang-of-4-patterns/>
  • List-id: Design Patterns discussion <gang-of-4-patterns.cs.uiuc.edu>

I do agree Paul, the name of the pattern is already quite helpful in many cases.

A 15:47 06/11/2003 -0800, Paul Adolph a écrit :
I agree. But I still think using the pattern name can communicate intent
very well on its own in many cases.

For the strategy/(degenerate)bridge example at hand, if my intent is that
the implementation will vary, then I will call my solution a bridge. If some
sort of algorithm is varying, I will call it a strategy. In both cases the
code structure will look very similar, but the participant names will be
different. Right away, without any other info, someone familiar with GoF
will be on his/her way of knowing what I am doing.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page