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 | behavioral | structural | behavioral |
| Summary | — | — | — |
| Intent | Define an object that encapsulates communication between a set of objects, keeping them from referring to each other directly. | Provide a surrogate or placeholder for another object to control access to it. | Separate an algorithm from the object structure it operates on by moving behavior into visitor objects. |
| Decision factors | |||
| Problem | Multiple objects need to coordinate behavior, but direct references between them create tight coupling and complex dependencies. | A client needs to interact with an object indirectly because the real object may be expensive, sensitive, or remote. | You need to perform operations across a set of different object types without stuffing all the logic into the objects themselves. |
| Tradeoffs |
|
|
|
| Practical fit | |||
| Languages |
|
|
|
| Platforms |
|
|
|
| Integration notes | Mediator is useful for chat systems, form coordination, workflow orchestration, and any domain where many components must collaborate without knowing about each other. | Proxy is useful for lazy loading, access control, caching, logging, and remote service wrappers. | Visitor is useful for AST processing, reporting, cart calculations, and exporting object structures to alternate formats. |