Analysis
Compare patterns
Evaluate design patterns side by side across intent, tradeoffs, languages, and integration fit.
Choose patterns
Select up to 3 patterns
Current selection
3 of 3 selected
You can now review the differences across the comparison table below.
Analysis
Pattern comparison
Reviewing 3 patterns.
| Criteria | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Basics | |||
| Category | structural | structural | structural |
| Summary | Convert 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. | — |
| Intent | Allow 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 surrogate or placeholder for another object to control access to it. |
| Decision factors | |||
| Problem | A 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 interact with an object indirectly because the real object may be expensive, sensitive, or remote. |
| Tradeoffs |
|
|
|
| Practical fit | |||
| Languages |
|
|
|
| Platforms |
|
|
|
| Integration notes | Adapters 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. | Proxy is useful for lazy loading, access control, caching, logging, and remote service wrappers. |