Why "Abstract Factory" has an abstract in it?

From: Asapi (Asapi_at_net.net)
Date: 12/14/03 

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 20:25:34 GMT

I don't understand why "Abstract Factory" has a word "abstract" in it since
an abstract factory is not an abstract class, at least in the example of
MazeFactory class of Gang4's book. Thus, what's the meaning of "abstract"
here? Why not just call it "class factory" or even "object factory"?

In addition to see it's cute to have one class for handling all related
objects' creation, I don't see other advantages beyond this. Even having a
factory for some related classes doesn't seem much advantageous. Of course
this is my problem.

Could someone share some insights about practical usage and advantages of
such a pattern?

Thanks!

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OO and Configuration files
    ... >> related classes, for example a GUI toolkit which has a factory for ... > you avoid changing code?! ... I develop the new look and feel factory together with all other classes ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: Object factory and Intel compiler
    ... > I have code for an object factory, heavily based on an article by Jim Hyslop ... : public Interface ... AT_MakeFactory2P("ImplementorKEY", Implementor, Interface, DKy, const ...
    (comp.lang.cpp)