On 7/13/05, Bill Rawlinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think the problem we might be encountering is trying to map > everything we do to a defined Pattern.
Absolutely. I think in this thread we may have discussed half a dozen or so different patterns. However, only a couple of those patterns have been studied and and formally described (and named). So unless what we're describing precisely fits a published pattern definition, I think we should avoid using the name of a pattern. A pattern has four essential parts (GoF p. 3): A pattern name, a problem, a solution, and consequences. I think we have a bad habit of looking at a problem and name in isolation. So we have problem X and come up with design Y to solve it. Then we see that pattern Z describes problem X and we assume that Y is an instance of Z. However, the solution used in Y is not the one described in Z, and the consequences of Y are not the same as those of Z. Patrick -- Patrick McElhaney 704.560.9117 http://pmcelhaney.weblogs.us ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as the subject of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by CFXHosting (www.cfxhosting.com). CFCDev is supported by New Atlanta, makers of BlueDragon http://www.newatlanta.com/products/bluedragon/index.cfm An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
