Talk:Mediator pattern

Please correct the example. The current example misses the point of both the mediator pattern and loose coupling. The point is to send logical events (like contentUpdated) to the mediatior, which passes them on to all the other listeners. It's not necessary to have a simple message queue as in the example - there can and often there should be logic in handling the events as well. The point is that this logic is in one place only. --193.65.190.29 (talk) 4 April 2006

The link to Mediator Pattern in Java is broken :-( --212.152.179.34 (talk) 16 July 2008

Uml show a diamond
Uml show an ugly diamond iheritance diagram. That is dirty in developpment design.

Which of ConcreateColleagueA or ConcreateColleagueB members, ConcreateMediator must inherit ????????

This UML for this design pattern is complettely wrong ! Dont mistakes generalisation and dependancy ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.99.76.152 (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

regards

Ppignol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.99.76.152 (talk) 12:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, the UML is wrong
The concrete mediator should have an association relationship (arrow) to the concrete colleagues; the diagram shows an inheritance (triangle). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.131.46 (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, man...
The example is simply horrible. 130.83.33.133 (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Article desperately needs improvement
The current version of the article needs an overhaul. The example is way too long and contains a lot of information that is not related with the mediator pattern at all. Also some kind of diagram is missing. The article about the Observer pattern can be a guideline as it describes with less words much better what a pattern is and how it works. --Vario (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Requesting improvements to the Structure section
There have been a number of comments indicating that the Structure section, and the class diagram example given, is not helpful.

I'm tempted to just remove what is currently there. It is my opinion that what is already there, is actively misleading to readers.

Doing more research, then will edit the structure section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JollyGreenJesus (talk • contribs) 18:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)