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
structuralBridgeView pattern
structuralCompositeView pattern
Basics
Categorystructuralstructuralstructural
SummaryConvert the interface of a class or module into another interface clients expect.Separate an abstraction from its implementation so the two can vary independently.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.Decouple abstractions from implementations so they can evolve independently.Compose objects into tree structures to represent part-whole hierarchies and let clients work with individual and composite objects through the same interface.
Decision factors
ProblemA client needs to talk to a legacy class or external service whose interface does not match the rest of the codebase.When an abstraction is tightly coupled to its implementation, changing one side forces changes in the other and makes the system harder to evolve.A system needs to treat individual objects and groups of objects uniformly, but the hierarchy becomes difficult to manage with separate code paths.
Tradeoffs
  • Adds an extra layer of indirection.
  • Can hide useful vendor-specific capabilities if overused.
  • Keeps integration code isolated from core domain logic.
  • Adds an extra layer of indirection.
  • Can increase the number of moving parts.
  • Makes abstractions and implementations easier to evolve independently.
  • 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.
Practical fit
Languages
  • typescript
  • java
  • python
  • go
  • csharp
  • dotnet
  • react
  • angular
  • react-native
  • typescript
  • java
  • python
  • angular
  • react
  • react-native
  • csharp
  • dotnet
  • go
  • typescript
  • java
  • python
  • angular
  • react
  • react-native
  • csharp
  • dotnet
Platforms
  • applications
  • apis
  • service layers
  • integrations
  • web
  • backend
  • mobile
  • integration
  • ui
  • 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.Bridge is useful when you want one stable abstraction while swapping implementations for providers, environments, or device targets.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.