Hiya Rox ---

I'd have to agree with the assertion that sometimes developers use patterns and specific styles just to say that they are using them.

Objects based loosely on certain patterns are, however, a great way of removing the implementation from the interface (if that's your goal). A problem is that what works may or may not be easily classified by current pattern definitions. So maybe we need new definitions of some patterns that may or may not be appropo only to VFP.

As the authors of "Design Patterns" stated in their intro in the book, the defined patterns in the book were not all there were....there were plenty more waiting to become apparent.

>
>Over used? Naaaa..... Whenever you use a design pattern to meet a specific need based on that particular pattern's functionality being best suited for a job, how can you be over using it? But I would agree that perhaps Mediator is on of the most written about GOF pattern as far as implementation approaches, especially in the Fox community. But so is Bridge... Point is a good developer shouldn't be using patterns just to say "Oh yeah, I use this, that, and the other" and do the proverbial buzz word slinging. Instead, a good developer should take an intent of a pattern and apply to a problem and see if there is a nice fit. Besides, what really makes a design pattern an accepted standard? Use, use, and more use.
>
>Just my US $.02 worth (as cup #2 kicks in ;) )