Sure, I can provide several real-world scenarios where the Bridge pattern might be appropriate:
Here's a class diagram created using Mermaid markdown for the Graphic Libraries example. I'll assume two types of shapes (Circle, Rectangle) and two types of renderers (OpenGL, DirectX).
In this diagram:
Shapeis the abstraction that client code interacts with.
Rectangleare concrete abstractions.
Rendereris the implementor interface.
DirectXare concrete implementors.
Rendererto carry out its operations.
This would allow you to add more shapes or rendering APIs in the future without affecting existing code.
Suppose you're creating a graphics library that should work with multiple rendering APIs (like OpenGL, DirectX, etc.). These APIs have their own way of drawing lines, curves, and other shapes. Now, a client wants to draw different shapes using your library but doesn't want to worry about the specifics of the rendering APIs.
Here, you can use the Bridge pattern to create an abstraction of the
Shape) and its implementation (
can represent different types of shapes (like a circle, square, etc.), and
Renderer can represent different rendering APIs. This way, the client
code can work with the
Shape abstraction, and the specifics of rendering
are hidden in the
Here's a class diagram created using Mermaid markdown for the Cross-platform Apps example. I'll assume two types of operations (CreateWindow, HandleEvent) and two types of platforms (Windows, Linux).
In this diagram:
Operationis the abstraction that client code interacts with.
HandleEventare concrete abstractions.
Platformis the implementor interface.
Linuxare concrete implementors.
Platformto carry out its operations.
This would allow you to add more operations or platforms in the future without affecting existing code.
If you're developing an application that needs to run on multiple platforms ( Windows, Linux, macOS, etc.), the Bridge pattern can be very useful. Here, the abstraction could represent high-level operations like creating a window, handling events, etc., and the implementations could represent platform-specific details.
With this approach, you can develop the high-level code without worrying about the platform specifics. When you need to support a new platform, you just need to add a new implementation.
Different Database Systems
Here's a class diagram created using Mermaid markdown for the Different Database Systems example. I'll assume two types of services (UserDataService, OrderDataService) and two types of databases (PostgreSQL, MongoDB).
In this diagram:
DataServiceis the abstraction that client code interacts with.
OrderDataServiceare concrete abstractions.
Databaseis the implementor interface.
MongoDBare concrete implementors.
Databaseto carry out its operations.
This would allow you to add more services or databases in the future without affecting existing code.
As we discussed in the previous examples, if your application needs to interact with different types of databases (like PostgreSQL, MongoDB, etc.), each having its own way of connecting, executing queries, and closing the connection, the Bridge pattern can be used to create a uniform interface for the client to interact with these databases while hiding the specifics.
In each of these scenarios, the Bridge pattern is beneficial because it allows the abstraction and implementation to vary independently. This makes the software more flexible to future changes and additions. It also improves the code's readability and maintainability by separating high-level logic from low-level details.
Level Up Your TypeScript And Object Oriented Programming Skills. The only complete TypeScript course on the marketplace you building TypeScript apps like a PRO.SEE COURSE DETAILS
What Can You Do Next 🙏😊
If you liked the article, consider subscribing to Cloudaffle, my YouTube Channel, where I keep posting in-depth tutorials and all edutainment stuff for ssoftware developers.