Talk:Design pattern

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

First wiki[edit]

From the article: (sidenote: Wiki software originated in the design pattern community: the PortlandPatternRepository is the first wiki)

Daniel MacKay writes: I've just added pages for pattern language and crosslinked all the relevant pages I could find, including Wikiwiki

Incomplete approach[edit]

I think that the design pattern (main) article is incomplete. In my view design patterns are a generic approach to every problem, not something that can be categorized in the architecture or the computer science fields. An article that is generic and maybe in the style of the Pattern one I think is required to be created

moreover we should add a reference (maybe article) about the design patterns that are used in Human Computer Interaction. link has plenty info on the subject.

--yanis 15:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Restructuring Proposal[edit]

I would suggest the following.

  • Assemble all cross-domain information in the article Pattern language, with an overview of different domains. This article also needs a collection of publications and conferences that mark the history of design patterns.
  • Finally there might be a redirect from Design pattern to Pattern language. Any attempt to separate these two articles will result in high overlap and redundancy. Alternatively, the main article could be called "Design pattern", but then it would also need to explain pattern languages. I prefer to have "Pattern language" be the big one.
  • Domain-specific articles "Design Patterns in Architecture", "Design Patterns in HCI", "Design Patterns in software engineering" etc. The idea of a pattern is basically the same in all disciplines, there is just a lot of material that justifies domain-specific articles. I dissuade the use of brackets like "Design Patterns (computer science)", as these suggest that patterns mean something different depending on the discipline.
  • If there is only few information about a special domain, it will be enough to handle that in the main article Pattern language.
  • Single articles for relevant books by Alexander, A Pattern Language or Gamma et al, Design Patterns (book).
  • The disambiguation page Design pattern should be kept until a common agreement is found that it is no longer needed. Until then, it should list all related articles (no matter how incomplete their approach), which will hopefully make the work easier.
EDIT: Just keep it, it's quite useful to have this overview page --Lhead 17:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It seems like the patterns for software engineering are those best represented in wikipedia yet, even with single articles for individual patterns... congrats :)

Good luck --Lhead 19:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC) (update Lhead 22:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC))

Ok. The article Pattern Language was getting weighed down with info about individual patterns. I took most of it out and put it here, leaving just enough behind so that Pattern language still makes sense. I removed some of the content that was so specific to Alexandre that it read like copy off of his dust jacket. If anyone feels that that material is indispensable, I suggest putting it in the article for the appropriate book. I realize that this explanation of a pattern is extremely simplistic: I was attempting to capture what is common in patterns across domains, while still giving the nod to Alexandre since he is so influential, even outside his own field. I think it "balances the forces" between the desire for accuracy and the desire for intelligibility. Comments welcome. Wordie (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with the idea that the pattern language and design pattern article be one and the same (through redirect). There is much work to be done here but the two terms are distinctly different despite the fact that one can hardly exist without the other. For the design pattern article I think it could use more work in the way of describing what an individual pattern is. This could be achieved by example patterns, example of a pattern template, example of pattern brainstorming, workshop etc... In other word the focused "what, how, why" of individual patterns. All the while referencing at times (conceptually binding) to the Pattern Language article. The Pattern language article could then raise the level of conversation to the what, hows and whys of developing and entire collection of design patterns (really the ultimate goal) such as discussions around composition and organization of design patterns (hierarchy, ontology, etc.) and cross relating Pattern Languages of different domains. Also discussion of how pattern languages are developed, published and so on. I do not claim to be an expert but I am willing to help. --Maxelrod (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Additional Domains[edit]

Some suggestions for additional domain areas:

  • Requirements patterns, see Mastering the Requirements Process, Robertson and Robertson, Addison Wesley 2006
  • Analysis Patterns, see for example and Analysis Patterns - Reusable Object Models, Martin Fowler, Addison Wesley 1996

Cn469 14:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed these in google, but didn't have time to study. I think it's a good idea, if you have the time and material. Maybe add it to the "Pattern Language" article, or create individual ones? Both would make sense. --Lhead 17:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Additional References[edit]

Martin Fowler's books on patterns (there are several).

Stub ??[edit]

Why has this page been marked as a stub?? It is meant as a disambiguation page, so there is nothing wrong with it being short! Maybe the page needs improvement (not sure), but wouldn't something like "restructuring" fit better? -- Lhead 20:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Insert non-formatted text here

This should be split[edit]

Into an article and dab page, currently it is a combination of the two IvoShandor (talk) 13:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Systems which use Design pattern[edit]

Drupal In drupal, Design pattern is used in many features. Drupal uses these desgin patterns 1.Singleton eg 2.Decorator 3.Observer 4.Bridge 5.Chain of Responsibility pattern 6.Command khinelay 07:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC) khinelay 13:45, 13 November 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khinelay (talkcontribs)

Merge pages "Design pattern" and "Software design pattern"[edit]

As is, this page mostly talk about software design pattern: why not merge the two pages? Unless anyone disagrees, I would like to merge the two...

Triskell (talk) 11:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose Design patterns, and the literature about them, has a substantial history before software. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Could you point us to some references to the history of design patterns, besides Christopher Alexander's book? In his books, Alexander talks about "architectural patterns" in the sense of buildings' architecture, not "design patterns". When "design patterns" are mentioned, they are in the sense of "designing the architecture of a building". My proposal comes from these reasons and from Section "Domain-specific articles", which reads strange because "Design pattern" do not exist per se, rather we have "software design patterns", "software architectural patterns", and so on, as well as "architecture architectural design patterns" and "architecture design patterns". Triskell (talk) 12:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
So apart from the obvious book for a topic, which is so evidently notable that we have an article on the source itself, how many others are you going to claim don't meet your own standards? The Buschmann, Henney & Schmidt paper is already linked, a particularly useful source as it describes the still broader view of pattern languages from the time context of their application to software – but these are authors from a software background, so you can ignore them. Papanek and Edward Tufte have written about the principles of these re-used design archetypes, but they didn't use the same text string "design patterns". We know that WP runs on verifiability-by-string-matching rather than knowledge or comprehension, so that's them out the way too.
To be honest, I'm tired of pointless sophistry from editors who know nothing about a subject but have already decided what their answer already is. No doubt your thousands of edits at AfD, NFCC or wherever the bee lives in your particular bonnet likes to pontificate, are all impeccably backed up with almighty policy, which counts for so much more than subject knowledge. Good luck with it, my time is worth more than wasting it on such projects. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing me towards the books by Papanek, I didn't know them. I had read some books by Buschman et al. and Tufte a while ago, I'll go refresh my memory! But I can't really believe that WP wants "verifiability-by-string-matching rather than knowledge or comprehension" because that seems like such a ridiculous thing to do... Triskell (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)