Talk:Command
(Complained about example.) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Hey Dom, I was just reading the usage part where it says: "Sometimes you need to issue a request to an object without even knowing anything about the requested operation or the receiving object itself." I think this is how it differs from the [[Strategy]] pattern, because the strategy context/client knows what each method should do. --[[User:Elliot Fisher|Elliot Fisher]] 03:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC) | Hey Dom, I was just reading the usage part where it says: "Sometimes you need to issue a request to an object without even knowing anything about the requested operation or the receiving object itself." I think this is how it differs from the [[Strategy]] pattern, because the strategy context/client knows what each method should do. --[[User:Elliot Fisher|Elliot Fisher]] 03:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | The example diagram is out of sync with the explanation. The text mentions an "Application", "Menu Item", but those are not in the diagram. Can someone please rectify this? --[[User:MartinvanZijl|MartinvanZijl]] 04:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 04:39, 31 August 2010
I am wondering if this pattern includes also a Strategy pattern for the modeling of the Command objects, since each command object pretty much is just a different implementation of the execute()-method?--Dom 03:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey Dom, I was just reading the usage part where it says: "Sometimes you need to issue a request to an object without even knowing anything about the requested operation or the receiving object itself." I think this is how it differs from the Strategy pattern, because the strategy context/client knows what each method should do. --Elliot Fisher 03:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The example diagram is out of sync with the explanation. The text mentions an "Application", "Menu Item", but those are not in the diagram. Can someone please rectify this? --MartinvanZijl 04:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
