Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

patterns-discussion - RE: [patterns-discussion] Pattern Definitions

patterns-discussion AT lists.cs.illinois.edu

Subject: General talk about software patterns

List archive

RE: [patterns-discussion] Pattern Definitions


Chronological Thread 
  • From: "Smith, Simon" <Simon.Smith AT centrica.co.uk>
  • To: patterns-discussion AT cs.uiuc.edu
  • Subject: RE: [patterns-discussion] Pattern Definitions
  • Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 11:01:28 +0100
  • List-archive: <http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/patterns-discussion>
  • List-id: General talk about software patterns <patterns-discussion.cs.uiuc.edu>

In line comments.

In short, not really. You're in the right area though, but I don't see the
value of paraphrasing Alexander and/or GoF without simplifying them - which
your paraphrases don't.

Cheers -

Simon Smith
Developer
IS Development Team, Centrica Energy

Int Tel: 251173
Ext Tel: 01753 431173


-----Original Message-----
From: Al Boldi
[mailto:a1426z AT gawab.com]

Sent: 23 May 2006 17:35
To:
patterns-discussion AT cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: [patterns-discussion] Pattern Definitions


Greetings!

I am new to patterns, and after reviewing some definitions, I would like to
suggest another way of expressing the pattern definition:

A pattern is the abstraction of a context problem to yield a general
solution.

-- 'context problem' doesn't really mean anything, so not this one.

Or in other words:
A pattern is the act of arriving from a specific situation to a general
solution by abstracting its problem.

-- The act of arriving at a general from a specific is called design, or
abstraction and is not a pattern in the sense pattern is being used.

Or in other words:
A specific situation has a problem, abstracting this problem yields a
general
solution, while the act of arriving from the specific situation to a general

solution is called a pattern.

-- Again 'the act of' is not the pattern. The results of the act are the
pattern, and the act is abstraction or design (design being a more general
act than abstraction). What you describe here might be called
pattern-hatching, but remember GoF - a pattern shouldn't be called one until
there have been at least three independent implementations of it.

Is this a correct interpretation?

Thanks!

--
Al

_______________________________________________
patterns-discussion mailing list
patterns-discussion AT cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/patterns-discussion

_____________________________________________________________________
The information contained in or attached to this email is intended only for
the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not
the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the
intended recipient, you are not authorised to and must not disclose, copy,
distribute, or retain this message or any part of it. It may contain
information which is confidential and/or covered by legal professional or
other privilege (or other rules or laws with similar effect in jurisdictions
outside England and Wales).
The views expressed in this email are not necessarily the views of Centrica
plc, and the company, its directors, officers or employees make no
representation or accept any liability for its accuracy or completeness
unless expressly stated to the contrary.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page