21 lines
1.3 KiB
Markdown
21 lines
1.3 KiB
Markdown
|
---
|
||
|
|
layout: pattern
|
||
|
|
title: Bridge
|
||
|
|
folder: bridge
|
||
|
|
categories: pattern_cat
|
||
|
|
tags: pattern_tag
|
||
|
|
---
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**Intent:** Decouple an abstraction from its implementation so that the two can
|
||
|
|
vary independently.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**Applicability:** Use the Bridge pattern when
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
* you want to avoid a permanent binding between an abstraction and its implementation. This might be the case, for example, when the implementation must be selected or switched at run-time.
|
||
|
|
* both the abstractions and their implementations should be extensible by subclassing. In this case, the Bridge pattern lets you combine the different abstractions and implementations and extend them independently
|
||
|
|
* changes in the implementation of an abstraction should have no impact on clients; that is, their code should not have to be recompiled.
|
||
|
|
* you have a proliferation of classes. Such a class hierarchy indicates the need for splitting an object into two parts. Rumbaugh uses the term "nested generalizations" to refer to such class hierarchies
|
||
|
|
* you want to share an implementation among multiple objects (perhaps using reference counting), and this fact should be hidden from the client. A simple example is Coplien's String class, in which multiple objects can share the same string representation.
|