Absence Of Forces

What causes it . . . . Lack of form? Content neglect? Incompetence? Absence of progress? Lack of proactivity?

Is it lack of form or a different form? In ComponentDesignPatterns we've been using a form very close to the GangOfFour form. It doesn't lend itself well to a straight discussion of the forces. The forces end up being spread throughout the pattern - you bring up some in the motivation section, and you often discuss some in the applicability and consequences sections. Is this a problem, or just a different way of doing things? Are there any rules in the GangOfFour form for making sure that forces are addressed? Anyone care to comment? -- KyleBrown

I think it is a problem. I heard one of the GangOfFour (John, I think, but I may be wrong) say that absence of explicit forces was a boo boo and would be the main thing to change in the book if they could do it again. If you are copying their form, I vote that you add forces explicitly. -- AlistairCockburn

Perhaps AbsenceOfForces is an AntiPattern. Either way, in ComponentDesignPatterns, I'm game for rebelling against conforming to one format and adding forces as we come up with them. If they're redundant, that's fine for now. I personally like forces and think it is a problem if not being explicit about them makes it more difficult for the PatternReader? to understand it. -- PhilipEskelin

CategoryForces