Table 2.1 — Armstrong's two—construct OO taxonomy
Table 2.2 — "Gang of Four" concepts
Table 2.3 — Pattern taxonomy
Table 2.4 — Comparing C++, Smalltalk, and Java 6
Table 3.1 — Pattern qualities
Table 3.2 — "Gang of Four" pattern format
Table 3.3 — Pattern collections
Table 3.4 — "Gang of Four" pattern system
Table 4.1 — Pattern implementation level
Table 4.2 — "Gang of Four" patterns in Common Lisp and Dylan
Table 4.3 — "Gang of Four" patterns in Scheme + GLOS
Table 4.4 — "Gang of Four" patterns in Java + AspectJ
Table 6.1 — UML stereotypes and properties
Table 6.2 — Source code packages
Table 7.1 — Use of Java 6 features in the "Gang of Four" pattern implementations
Table 7.2 — Pattern relationships in the "Gang of Four" pattern implementations
Table 7.3 — Implementation level of the "Gang of Four" patterns in Java 6
Table 8.1 — Abstract Factory participants
Table 8.2 — Builder participants
Table 8.3 — Factory Method participants
Table 8.4 — Prototype participants
Table 8.5 — Singleton participants
Table 8.6 — Additional Singleton entities
Table 8.7 — Adapter participants
Table 8.8 — Bridge participants
Table 8.9 — Composite participants
Table 8.10 — Decorator participants
Table 8.11 — Facade participants
Table 8.12 — Flyweight participants
Table 8.13 — Proxy participants
Table 8.14 — Chain of Responsibility participants
Table 8.15 — Additional Chain of Responsibility entities
Table 8.16 — Command participants
Table 8.17 — Additional Command entities
Table 8.18 — Interpreter participants
Table 8.19 — Additional Interpreter entities
Table 8.20 — Iterator participants
Table 8.21 — Mediator participants
Table 8.22 — Memento participants
Table 8.23 — Observer participants
Table 8.24 — State participants
Table 8.25 — Strategy participants
Table 8.26 — Template Method participants
Table 8.27 — Visitor participants
MASTER'S THESISEVALUATING SOFTWARE DESIGN PATTERNS
— the "Gang of Four" patterns implementented in Java 6