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
structuralFlyweightView 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.—
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.Use sharing to support large numbers of fine-grained objects efficiently by separating shared intrinsic state from per-object extrinsic state.
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 system creates a large number of similar objects, but storing all of their state separately uses too much memory.
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.
  • Adds complexity because state must be split into shared and unshared parts
  • Can be harder to understand when many objects depend on an external context
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.Flyweight is useful when thousands or millions of similar objects need to be represented efficiently, such as trees, glyphs, tiles, or UI tokens.