Talk:Template Method
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
This pattern seems at the lower end of design patterns in terms of complexity. What makes this pattern a design pattern rather than an idiom? Apart from the fact that the gang of four said so... --[[User:Matthew Harward|Matthew Harward]] 03:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC) | This pattern seems at the lower end of design patterns in terms of complexity. What makes this pattern a design pattern rather than an idiom? Apart from the fact that the gang of four said so... --[[User:Matthew Harward|Matthew Harward]] 03:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Also, at what point does a Template Method become so. Does it apply to all abstract superclasses that rely on superclasses to implement abstract methods or does it directly relate to an algorithm. If the latter, what exactly describes an algorithm compared to "just some code"? --[[User:Matthew Harward|Matthew Harward]] 11:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 11:15, 23 September 2009
Created the page with an example taken from our Monsters design. Note the important idea about Polymorphism that Wal discussed with me and Jason after class. Polymorphism is fundamental to OO and we should all make sure we understand it clearly if we don't already. --Elliot Fisher 02:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
This pattern seems at the lower end of design patterns in terms of complexity. What makes this pattern a design pattern rather than an idiom? Apart from the fact that the gang of four said so... --Matthew Harward 03:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, at what point does a Template Method become so. Does it apply to all abstract superclasses that rely on superclasses to implement abstract methods or does it directly relate to an algorithm. If the latter, what exactly describes an algorithm compared to "just some code"? --Matthew Harward 11:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
