Pattern Question

I am having a discussion with someone in my office about two patterns.


plug-in and registry.

What we are building is a global definition of what type to use in a
particular implementation. This makes it sound like a good match to
plug-in but here is my problem. The way we are doing it allows for the
particular implementations to inherit from each other. In fact core
product types can be replaced via this definition for a particular
implmentation.

My concern with plug-in is that it in the Patterns book I am using
(Martin Fowler's Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture) talks
about a plug-in pattern as Linking types at configuration time not
compile time. What we are doing does not support the abstraction of
no compile time linking. Is that big enough to though it out of the
pattern?

Registry somewhat imples that you are accessing existing instances of
types. If we are mainly building new instances does that violate that
pattern too.

What you would call the application component defined above?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: [PHP] first php 5 class
    ... ya, it is sort of dead, sad, but its still worth a look to people ... patterns implemented in php. ... I am okay with a registry that uses static methods because ... its sorta like the 'php way' for the registry. ...
    (php.general)
  • RE: Transaction spanning multiple business classes
    ... Implementing UnitOfWork and the related patterns is ... Another fairly easy solution is to ... register a transaction object using some kind of Registry pattern and then ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework)
  • Re: Singleton Registries...
    ... but only as a way to implement a singleton as a Registry ... Base Patterns section near the end. ... > Colin Basterfield wrote: ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
  • Re: (newbie) Is there a way to prevent "name redundancy" in OOP ?
    ... patterns, to transparently create the objects on first access: ... class Registry: ...
    (comp.lang.python)