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
behavioralMediatorView pattern
Basics
Categorystructuralstructuralbehavioral
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.—
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.Define an object that encapsulates communication between a set of objects, keeping them from referring to each other directly.
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.Multiple objects need to coordinate behavior, but direct references between them create tight coupling and complex dependencies.
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.
  • The mediator can become large and complex if it takes on too much coordination logic.
  • Centralizing behavior can make the mediator a single point of failure if it is poorly designed.
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
  • Web
  • Backend
  • Mobile
  • UI kits
  • Cross-platform systems
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.Mediator is useful for chat systems, form coordination, workflow orchestration, and any domain where many components must collaborate without knowing about each other.