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 | behavioral |
| Summary | Wrap an object with other objects that implement the same contract so responsibilities can be layered dynamically. | — | — |
| Intent | Wrap an object with other objects that implement the same contract so responsibilities can be layered dynamically. | Provide a surrogate or placeholder for another object to control access to it. | Define the skeleton of an algorithm in a base class and let subclasses override selected steps without changing the overall structure. |
| Decision factors | |||
| Problem | A system needs to add optional behaviors to an object without creating many subclasses for every feature combination. | A client needs to interact with an object indirectly because the real object may be expensive, sensitive, or remote. | Several classes share the same algorithm structure, but some steps need to vary between implementations. |
| Tradeoffs |
|
|
|
| Practical fit | |||
| Languages |
|
|
|
| Platforms |
|
|
|
| Integration notes | Decorators work well for cross-cutting concerns such as logging, retry, caching, compression, and telemetry because each layer keeps the same interface while adding one concern. | Proxy is useful for lazy loading, access control, caching, logging, and remote service wrappers. | Template Method is useful when you have repeated workflows with a common sequence of steps, such as processing orders, generating reports, and importing data. |