Re: Hi folks, adapter vs bridge?

http://www.netobjectives.com/downloa...ndStrategy.pdf This
compares bridge and strategy which may help a bit.

--
William Stacey

"music" <theronk@charter.net> wrote in message
news:vdnv7eiit5lu6c@corp.supernews.com...
> Hi folks:
>
> I'm struggling to find the distinct difference beween the adapter pattern
> and the bridge pattern.
>
> They seem to be somewhat identical. Is it purely that the bridge
> interfaces to a "remote" entity?
>
> I'm not even sure that's the case because a "remote" entity can also
> constitute another object that
> one sends messages to. In the "Applied Java Patterns" book, they mention
> that the Interface and
> Implementation between the Java AWT and the Peer classes use the bridge
> pattern. That tells me
> "communication between disparate systems". In our job, we have written
a
> bunch of data adapters
> that sit in between our Java clients and our middle tier delegates and
allow
> us to "convert one
> interface to another between objects contained within the same host". To
> me, I don't see the difference
> between that and a bridge...
>
> My impression is that the adapter pattern allows you to have an adapter
that
> sits between ObjectA and
> ObjectB where ObjectA and ObjectB use an adapter to convert the messages
> to/from ObjectA and ObjectB
> such that ObjectA can communicate to ObjectB and vice/versa without each
of
> them having to be completly
> aware of their "true" interfaces. Only the adapter need to be concerned.
>
> My impression of the Bridge Pattern allows 2 objects to communicate back
and
> forth using a Bridge to convert
> the messages and replies between each other. And you can simply swap in
> either end with a concrete implementation
> and the Bridge does not need to change nor does each end need to be aware
> that a "swap" has occurred.
>
> Both the Adapter and Bridge seem quite similar in this regard.
>
> I'd appreciate if someone could make this distinction crystal clear to me.

>
> thanks, Theron
>
>