Talk:Factory pattern

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science articles

Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests :
- Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet
Cleanup :
- Computer science articles needing attention
- Computer science articles needing expert attention
Copyedit :
- Computing
Expand :
- Computer science
Infobox :
- Computer science articles without infoboxes
Maintain :
- Timeline of computing 2020–present
Photo :
- Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists)
- Computing articles needing images
Stubs :
- Computer science stubs
Unreferenced :
- WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs
Project-related :
- Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}}

Untitled

Needs a class diagram at the top. Should also emphasise the Factory ability to determine the type of object to construct at run time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.164.113 (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bad example

In Python, `class' cannot be a variable name, and I'm really unsure of what the code is trying to do. Removing it until someone can figure out a better solution. Andrey (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Capitalization

Should the P in "factory pattern" really be capitalised? Design pattern (computer science), command pattern, interpreter pattern etc. are all lower case and I believe that those articles are correctly named with regards to Wikiedpia's naming guidelines. PaulBoxley (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it really should not be capitalised. Good eye! I will make the change as soon as I figure out how to do it. E James (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I added the Db-move template according to the instructions found in the requested moves article. The page was moved almost instantly. E James (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Factory object

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into Factory method pattern PAGE. -- Zero4573 (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seem to be about the same thing. – gpvos (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Both articles (factory pattern and factory object) should be merged with Factory method pattern. Or at least, the difference between "factory pattern" and "factory method pattern" should be mentioned and explained. Terrestria (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - two articles talk about the same design pattern . Please merge.

If you do make sure folk like me can still find things. It was bad enough searching to see what an 'object factory' was, and concluding it must be the same as a 'factory object', without hiding it further in 'factory pattern'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.120.136 (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please merge. For finding the page, setting up suitable redirects should help. GyroMagician (talk) 11:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the "bible" book of Design Patterns by the Gang of Four, they do not define the "Factory Pattern". They define the "Factory Method Pattern". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.250.13 (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As there are several possibilities to implement the concept of a factory, (the GoF "Factory Method Pattern" is just one of them, there are more) I would rename this article as Factory (Software concept) and I would link from here to the several patterns that implement the concept.--Juansempere (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What is it?

Article "beats around the bush" by discussing problems in creating objects, but never says precisely what Factory pattern is and how it solves those problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.236.194 (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Java Example overly complex

The Java example is unnecessarily complex. The example has capabilities above what is necessary to implement factory pattern and this obscures the parts of the pattern that are relevant. It should only show the use of factory pattern without extraneous extensions to the basic pattern. 99.236.204.143 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Agreed! 130.237.4.164 (talk) 13:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The use of an adapter pattern is unrelated to the use of Factory pattern, and serves only to make the factory example unclear. --159.53.78.140 (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded. Who the hell thought the best way to cover a subject in an encyclopedia was to dump a huge block of complex uncommented code in without a single word of explanation? 68.33.168.195 (talk) 13:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fourthed. The example code is crazy. --76.10.142.106 (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fifthed. Java code is horrible.

Redirect to Factory method pattern instead?

Why does this page redirect to Factory (object-oriented programming) and not to Factory method pattern? Isn't it more likely that the reader means the latter of these two when searching for "Factory pattern"? —Kri (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]