Some design patterns contradictory
Design patterns are typically not contradictory in the sense that they address different aspects of software design and can often be used together to solve different types of problems within a system. However, there are patterns that might conflict or overlap in certain scenarios due to their different goals or approaches. Here are a few examples where design patterns might be seen as contradictory or conflicting:
Singleton vs. Dependency Injection (DI):
Singleton Pattern: Ensures a class has only one instance and provides a global point of access to it.
Dependency Injection: Provides instances of dependencies (objects) to a class, typically via constructor injection.
Potential Conflict: Singleton promotes a global instance, which can lead to tight coupling and difficulties in testing. Dependency Injection, on the other hand, promotes loose coupling and easier testing by injecting dependencies dynamically. In some cases, the use of Singleton can hinder the flexibility provided by DI.
Template Method vs. Strategy:
Template Method Pattern: Defines the skeleton of an algorithm in a method, deferring some steps to subclasses.
Strategy Pattern: Encapsulates interchangeable algorithms and allows them to vary independently.
Potential Conflict: Both patterns deal with algorithm encapsulation, but the Template Method focuses on defining a fixed structure with variations handled by subclasses, while the Strategy allows for complete algorithm interchangeability. Depending on the requirements, choosing one over the other might impact how flexible the design is.
Decorator vs. Composite:
Decorator Pattern: Allows behavior to be added to individual objects dynamically.
Composite Pattern: Composes objects into tree structures to represent part-whole hierarchies.
Potential Conflict: While both patterns involve object composition, the Decorator focuses on adding responsibilities to objects transparently, whereas Composite focuses on treating individual objects and compositions of objects uniformly. Depending on the use case, one pattern might be more suitable than the other, leading to a choice between them.
Adapter vs. Bridge:
Adapter Pattern: Converts the interface of a class into another interface clients expect.
Bridge Pattern: Decouples an abstraction from its implementation so that the two can vary independently.
Potential Conflict: While both patterns involve decoupling and bridging different interfaces, Adapter is focused on making unrelated classes work together, while Bridge is focused on separating abstraction and implementation. Depending on the scenario, choosing one pattern might affect how the system interfaces and components are structured.
Observer vs. Command:
Observer Pattern: Defines a one-to-many dependency between objects so that when one object changes state, all its dependents are notified and updated automatically.
Command Pattern: Encapsulates a request as an object, thereby letting you parameterize clients with different requests, queue or log requests, and support undoable operations.
Potential Conflict: While both patterns involve encapsulating behaviors and interactions between objects, they serve different purposes—Observer for state changes and notifications, and Command for encapsulating requests and operations. Choosing one over the other might impact how events and actions are managed within the system.
Factory Method vs. Abstract Factory:
Factory Method Pattern: Defines an interface for creating objects, but lets subclasses decide which class to instantiate.
Abstract Factory Pattern: Provides an interface for creating families of related or dependent objects without specifying their concrete classes.
Potential Contrast: While both patterns involve object creation, Factory Method delegates the creation of objects to subclasses, focusing on creating single instances. Abstract Factory, on the other hand, emphasizes creating families of related objects without specifying their concrete classes explicitly. Choosing one over the other depends on whether the emphasis is on a single instance or a family of related objects.
State vs. Strategy:
State Pattern: Allows an object to alter its behavior when its internal state changes. The object will appear to change its class.
Strategy Pattern: Defines a family of algorithms, encapsulates each algorithm, and makes the algorithms interchangeable within that family.
Potential Contrast: Both patterns involve encapsulating behaviors, but State focuses on changing behavior based on internal state transitions of an object, effectively changing its type dynamically. Strategy, however, encapsulates interchangeable algorithms and allows for dynamic switching between them. Choosing one over the other depends on whether the behavior change is due to internal state transitions or interchangeable algorithms.
Proxy vs. Decorator:
Proxy Pattern: Provides a surrogate or placeholder for another object to control access to it.
Decorator Pattern: Allows behavior to be added to individual objects dynamically.
Potential Contrast: While both patterns involve wrapping objects to modify their behavior, Proxy focuses on controlling access to the underlying object (e.g., for security, lazy initialization), whereas Decorator focuses on adding responsibilities to objects transparently. Choosing between them depends on whether the primary concern is controlling access or dynamically enhancing behavior.
Iterator vs. Visitor:
Iterator Pattern: Provides a way to access elements of an aggregate object sequentially without exposing its underlying representation.
Visitor Pattern: Defines a new operation to a collection of objects without changing the objects themselves.
Potential Contrast: Both patterns deal with traversing and interacting with collections of objects, but Iterator focuses on providing a way to access elements sequentially, while Visitor focuses on adding new operations to objects without modifying them. Choosing one over the other depends on whether the emphasis is on sequential access or adding new operations to objects within a collection.
Prototype vs. Singleton:
Prototype Pattern: Specifies the kinds of objects to create using a prototypical instance, and creates new objects by copying this prototype.
Singleton Pattern: Ensures a class has only one instance and provides a global point of access to it.
Potential Contrast: Prototype is used for creating new objects by copying an existing instance (prototype), promoting flexibility in creating multiple instances with variations. Singleton, on the other hand, ensures a single instance globally accessible, promoting a shared, centralized access point. Choosing between them depends on whether the focus is on creating multiple instances with variations or ensuring a single, globally accessible instance.
Bridge vs. Adapter:
Bridge Pattern: Decouples an abstraction from its implementation so that the two can vary independently.
Adapter Pattern: Converts the interface of a class into another interface clients expect.
Potential Contrast: Both patterns involve abstraction and decoupling, but Bridge focuses on separating an abstraction (interface) from its implementation to allow them to vary independently. Adapter, on the other hand, adapts one interface to another, allowing incompatible classes to work together. Choosing between them depends on whether the emphasis is on separating abstraction from implementation or adapting interfaces to work together.
Mediator vs. Observer:
Mediator Pattern: Defines an object that encapsulates how a set of objects interact. It promotes loose coupling by keeping objects from referring to each other explicitly.
Observer Pattern: Defines a one-to-many dependency between objects so that when one object changes state, all its dependents are notified and updated automatically.
Potential Contrast: Both patterns involve managing communication between objects, but Mediator focuses on centralizing complex communications and promoting loose coupling among objects. Observer, however, focuses on notifying dependent objects when the state of a subject changes. Choosing between them depends on whether the focus is on centralizing communication logic or managing dependencies based on state changes.
Command vs. Strategy:
Command Pattern: Encapsulates a request as an object, thereby letting you parameterize clients with different requests, queue or log requests, and support undoable operations.
Strategy Pattern: Defines a family of algorithms, encapsulates each algorithm, and makes the algorithms interchangeable within that family.
Potential Contrast: Both patterns involve encapsulating algorithms, but Command focuses on encapsulating requests as objects, supporting queuing, logging, and undoable operations. Strategy, however, encapsulates interchangeable algorithms and allows for dynamic switching between them. Choosing between them depends on whether the emphasis is on encapsulating requests or encapsulating algorithms for dynamic behavior.
Chain of Responsibility vs. Decorator:
Chain of Responsibility Pattern: Allows multiple objects to handle a request without specifying the receiver explicitly. It forms a chain of objects, with each object in the chain having a chance to process the request or pass it on to the next object in the chain.
Decorator Pattern: Allows behavior to be added to individual objects dynamically.
Potential Contrast: While both patterns involve passing a request through a series of objects, Chain of Responsibility focuses on handling the request through a chain of objects, where each object decides whether to process the request or pass it to the next object. Decorator, on the other hand, focuses on adding responsibilities to objects dynamically and transparently. Choosing between them depends on whether the emphasis is on handling requests through a chain of objects or dynamically adding responsibilities to objects.
Composite vs. Visitor:
Composite Pattern: Composes objects into tree structures to represent part-whole hierarchies. It allows clients to treat individual objects and compositions of objects uniformly.
Visitor Pattern: Defines a new operation to a collection of objects without changing the objects themselves.
Potential Contrast: Both patterns deal with traversing and interacting with collections of objects, but Composite focuses on treating individual objects and compositions of objects uniformly within a tree structure. Visitor, however, focuses on adding new operations to objects without modifying them. Choosing between them depends on whether the focus is on representing part-whole hierarchies uniformly or adding new operations to objects within a collection.
Iterator vs. Visitor:
Iterator Pattern: Provides a way to access elements of an aggregate object sequentially without exposing its underlying representation.
Visitor Pattern: Defines a new operation to a collection of objects without changing the objects themselves.
Potential Contrast: While both patterns deal with interacting with collections of objects, Iterator focuses on sequential access to elements of an aggregate object, providing a uniform way to traverse the elements. Visitor, on the other hand, focuses on adding new operations to objects within a collection without modifying the objects themselves. Choosing between them depends on whether the emphasis is on sequential access or adding new operations to objects within a collection.
Facade vs. Proxy:
Facade Pattern: Provides a simplified interface to a complex subsystem, making it easier to use.
Proxy Pattern: Provides a surrogate or placeholder for another object to control access to it.
Potential Contrast: While both patterns involve simplifying access to objects or subsystems, Facade provides a unified interface to a complex subsystem, shielding clients from its complexity. Proxy, on the other hand, controls access to an object and may provide additional functionality such as lazy initialization or access control. Choosing between them depends on whether the focus is on simplifying subsystem access or controlling and enhancing access to individual objects.
Interpreter vs. Strategy:
Interpreter Pattern: Defines a grammar for interpreting a language and provides an interpreter to interpret sentences in the language.
Strategy Pattern: Defines a family of algorithms, encapsulates each algorithm, and makes the algorithms interchangeable within that family.
Potential Contrast: While both patterns involve encapsulating algorithms, Interpreter focuses on interpreting expressions or sentences in a language grammar using an interpreter. Strategy, however, focuses on encapsulating interchangeable algorithms and allowing dynamic switching between them. Choosing between them depends on whether the emphasis is on language interpretation or algorithm interchangeability and dynamic behavior.
Adapter vs. Bridge:
Adapter Pattern: Converts the interface of a class into another interface clients expect.
Bridge Pattern: Decouples an abstraction from its implementation so that the two can vary independently.
Potential Contrast: While both patterns involve decoupling and bridging different interfaces or abstractions, Adapter adapts one interface to another to make incompatible classes work together. Bridge, however, focuses on separating an abstraction from its implementation to allow them to vary independently. Choosing between them depends on whether the emphasis is on adapting interfaces or decoupling abstractions from implementations.
Proxy vs. Decorator:
Proxy Pattern: Provides a surrogate or placeholder for another object to control access to it.
Decorator Pattern: Allows behavior to be added to individual objects dynamically.
Potential Contrast: While both patterns involve wrapping objects to modify their behavior, Proxy controls access to the underlying object and may provide additional functionality such as caching or access control. Decorator, on the other hand, adds responsibilities to objects dynamically and transparently. Choosing between them depends on whether the focus is on controlling access to objects or dynamically enhancing their behavior.
Command vs. Memento:
Command Pattern: Encapsulates a request as an object, allowing clients to parameterize objects with different requests, queue or log requests, and support undoable operations.
Memento Pattern: Captures and externalizes an object's internal state without violating encapsulation, allowing the object to be restored to this state later.
Potential Contrast: While both patterns involve managing state and behavior, Command focuses on encapsulating requests as objects, supporting undo operations and decoupling the sender and receiver of a request. Memento, on the other hand, focuses on capturing and restoring an object's state, typically to support undo operations or to checkpoint the object's state. Choosing between them depends on whether the focus is on encapsulating requests or managing and restoring object state.
Abstract Factory vs. Prototype:
Abstract Factory Pattern: Provides an interface for creating families of related or dependent objects without specifying their concrete classes.
Prototype Pattern: Specifies the kinds of objects to create using a prototypical instance, and creates new objects by copying this prototype.
Potential Contrast: While both patterns involve object creation, Abstract Factory focuses on creating families of related objects without specifying their concrete classes, promoting consistency among created objects. Prototype, on the other hand, allows for the creation of new objects by copying an existing instance (prototype), promoting flexibility in creating objects with variations. Choosing between them depends on whether the emphasis is on creating families of related objects or creating objects with variations.
Strategy vs. State:
Strategy Pattern: Defines a family of algorithms, encapsulates each algorithm, and makes the algorithms interchangeable within that family.
State Pattern: Allows an object to alter its behavior when its internal state changes. The object will appear to change its class.
Potential Contrast: While both patterns involve encapsulating behavior, Strategy focuses on encapsulating interchangeable algorithms and allowing dynamic switching between them. State, however, focuses on encapsulating behavior that varies based on the object's internal state transitions, effectively changing its behavior and appearance dynamically. Choosing between them depends on whether the emphasis is on algorithm interchangeability or managing object behavior based on internal state transitions.
Observer vs. Mediator:
Observer Pattern: Defines a one-to-many dependency between objects so that when one object changes state, all its dependents are notified and updated automatically.
Mediator Pattern: Defines an object that encapsulates how a set of objects interact, promoting loose coupling by keeping objects from referring to each other explicitly.
Potential Contrast: While both patterns involve managing communication between objects, Observer focuses on notifying dependent objects when the state of a subject changes. Mediator, on the other hand, focuses on centralizing complex communication logic and promoting loose coupling among objects by encapsulating how they interact. Choosing between them depends on whether the focus is on managing dependencies based on state changes or centralizing and decoupling communication among objects.
Composite vs. Decorator:
Composite Pattern: Composes objects into tree structures to represent part-whole hierarchies. It allows clients to treat individual objects and compositions of objects uniformly.
Decorator Pattern: Allows behavior to be added to individual objects dynamically.
Potential Contrast: While both patterns involve object composition, Composite focuses on treating individual objects and compositions of objects uniformly within a tree structure. Decorator, on the other hand, focuses on adding responsibilities to objects dynamically and transparently. Choosing between them depends on whether the emphasis is on representing part-whole hierarchies uniformly or dynamically enhancing object behavior.
Facade vs. Proxy:
Facade Pattern: Provides a simplified interface to a complex subsystem, making it easier to use.
Proxy Pattern: Provides a surrogate or placeholder for another object to control access to it.
Potential Contrast: While both patterns involve simplifying access to objects or subsystems, Facade provides a unified interface to a complex subsystem, shielding clients from its complexity. Proxy, on the other hand, controls access to an object and may provide additional functionality such as lazy initialization or access control. Choosing between them depends on whether the focus is on simplifying subsystem access or controlling and enhancing access to individual objects.
Chain of Responsibility vs. Strategy:
Chain of Responsibility Pattern: Allows multiple objects to handle a request without specifying the receiver explicitly. It forms a chain of objects, with each object in the chain having a chance to process the request or pass it on to the next object in the chain.
Strategy Pattern: Defines a family of algorithms, encapsulates each algorithm, and makes the algorithms interchangeable within that family.
Potential Contrast: While both patterns involve encapsulating behavior, Chain of Responsibility focuses on handling a request through a chain of objects where each object decides whether to process the request or pass it on. Strategy, however, focuses on encapsulating interchangeable algorithms and allowing dynamic switching between them. Choosing between them depends on whether the emphasis is on handling requests through a chain of objects or dynamically switching between algorithms.
Bridge vs. Composite:
Bridge Pattern: Decouples an abstraction from its implementation so that the two can vary independently.
Composite Pattern: Composes objects into tree structures to represent part-whole hierarchies. It allows clients to treat individual objects and compositions of objects uniformly.
Potential Contrast: While both patterns involve object composition, Bridge focuses on separating an abstraction (interface) from its implementation to allow them to vary independently. Composite, on the other hand, focuses on representing part-whole hierarchies uniformly within a tree structure. Choosing between them depends on whether the emphasis is on decoupling abstractions from implementations or representing hierarchical structures uniformly.
Prototype vs. Factory Method:
Prototype Pattern: Specifies the kinds of objects to create using a prototypical instance, and creates new objects by copying this prototype.
Factory Method Pattern: Defines an interface for creating objects, but lets subclasses decide which class to instantiate.
Potential Contrast: While both patterns involve object creation, Prototype allows for creating new objects by copying an existing instance (prototype), promoting flexibility in creating objects with variations. Factory Method, however, delegates the creation of objects to subclasses, focusing on creating single instances based on specific logic. Choosing between them depends on whether the emphasis is on creating objects with variations or delegating object creation to subclasses.
Command vs. Observer:
Command Pattern: Encapsulates a request as an object, allowing clients to parameterize objects with different requests, queue or log requests, and support undoable operations.
Observer Pattern: Defines a one-to-many dependency between objects so that when one object changes state, all its dependents are notified and updated automatically.
Potential Contrast: While both patterns involve managing interactions between objects, Command focuses on encapsulating requests as objects, supporting undo operations and decoupling the sender and receiver of a request. Observer, however, focuses on notifying dependent objects when the state of a subject changes. Choosing between them depends on whether the focus is on encapsulating requests or managing dependencies based on state changes.
Last updated