Analysis

Compare patterns

Evaluate design patterns side by side across intent, tradeoffs, languages, and integration fit.

Choose patterns

Select up to 3 patterns

Abstract FactoryAdapterBridgeBuilderChain of ResponsibilityCommandCompositeDecoratorFacadeFactory MethodFlyweightInterpreterIteratorMediatorMementoObserverPrototypeProxySingletonStateStrategyTemplate MethodVisitor

Current selection

3 of 3 selected

You can now review the differences across the comparison table below.

Clear all

Analysis

Pattern comparison

Reviewing 3 patterns.

Criteria
structuralAdapterView pattern
structuralCompositeView pattern
structuralFacadeView pattern
Basics
Categorystructuralstructuralstructural
SummaryConvert the interface of a class or module into another interface clients expect.Compose objects into tree structures to represent part-whole hierarchies and let clients work with individual and composite objects through the same interface.Provide a simplified high-level interface that coordinates a complex subsystem behind a smaller and easier-to-use API.
IntentAllow incompatible interfaces to work together without changing the consuming code.Compose objects into tree structures to represent part-whole hierarchies and let clients work with individual and composite objects through the same interface.Provide a simplified high-level interface that coordinates a complex subsystem behind a smaller and easier-to-use API.
Decision factors
ProblemA client needs to talk to a legacy class or external service whose interface does not match the rest of the codebase.A system needs to treat individual objects and groups of objects uniformly, but the hierarchy becomes difficult to manage with separate code paths.A client needs to perform a recurring workflow that spans several subsystem classes, but direct coordination makes the code noisy and tightly coupled.
Tradeoffs
  • Adds an extra layer of indirection.
  • Can hide useful vendor-specific capabilities if overused.
  • Keeps integration code isolated from core domain logic.
  • Can make the design more abstract and harder to follow.
  • May require careful handling of operations that only apply to some nodes in the tree.
  • Makes recursive tree operations and client code much simpler.
  • Can become a dumping ground if boundaries are unclear.
  • May obscure useful lower-level capabilities from advanced consumers.
  • Simplifies the most common entry points for the system.
Practical fit
Languages
  • typescript
  • java
  • python
  • go
  • csharp
  • dotnet
  • react
  • angular
  • react-native
  • typescript
  • java
  • python
  • angular
  • react
  • react-native
  • csharp
  • dotnet
  • typescript
  • java
  • python
  • angular
  • react
  • react-native
  • csharp
  • dotnet
Platforms
  • applications
  • apis
  • service layers
  • integrations
  • web
  • backend
  • mobile
  • ui kits
  • cross-platform systems
  • applications
  • apis
  • service layers
Integration notesAdapters are useful when exposing a stable boundary over a legacy API, vendor SDK, or payload format mismatch.Composite is useful when a hierarchy of nested objects should expose a common interface, such as files and folders, menus and submenus, org charts, widget trees, or scene graphs.Facades are useful when exposing a stable boundary over a multi-service or mixed-language backend, or when presenting a consistent UI entry point over multiple readiness checks.