Design Patterns MCP Server

{ "patterns": [ { "id": "clean-architecture", "name": "Clean Architecture", "category": "Architectural", "description": "Separates concerns by organizing code into layers with dependencies flowing inward", "when_to_use": [ "Complex business logic", "Long-term maintainability", "Framework independence" ], "benefits": [ "Testability", "Framework independence", "Database independence", "Clear separation of concerns" ], "drawbacks": ["Increased complexity", "Over-engineering for simple apps", "Learning curve"], "use_cases": ["Enterprise applications", "Microservices", "Domain-rich applications"], "complexity": "High", "tags": ["clean", "layered", "dependency-inversion"] }, { "id": "hexagonal-architecture", "name": "Hexagonal Architecture", "category": "Architectural", "description": "Isolates core application logic from external concerns using ports and adapters", "when_to_use": ["Multiple external systems", "Testing isolation", "Framework flexibility"], "benefits": ["Testability", "Flexibility", "External system isolation", "Clear boundaries"], "drawbacks": ["Complex setup", "Interface proliferation", "Over-abstraction risk"], "use_cases": [ "Integration-heavy systems", "Legacy system modernization", "API-first applications" ], "complexity": "High", "tags": ["ports-and-adapters", "isolation", "boundaries"] }, { "id": "onion-architecture", "name": "Onion Architecture", "category": "Architectural", "description": "Organizes code in concentric layers with domain at the center", "when_to_use": ["Domain-driven design", "Complex business rules", "Long-term evolution"], "benefits": ["Domain focus", "Dependency inversion", "Testability", "Flexibility"], "drawbacks": ["Learning curve", "Initial complexity", "Over-engineering risk"], "use_cases": ["Domain-rich applications", "Business-critical systems", "Complex workflows"], "complexity": "High", "tags": ["domain-centric", "layers", "ddd"] }, { "id": "layered-architecture", "name": "Layered Architecture", "category": "Architectural", "description": "Organizes application into horizontal layers with defined responsibilities", "when_to_use": [ "Traditional enterprise apps", "Clear separation needed", "Team specialization" ], "benefits": [ "Separation of concerns", "Team organization", "Familiar pattern", "Technology isolation" ], "drawbacks": ["Rigid structure", "Performance overhead", "Tight coupling risk"], "use_cases": ["Enterprise applications", "Web applications", "Traditional systems"], "complexity": "Medium", "tags": ["layers", "separation", "traditional"] }, { "id": "mvc", "name": "Model-View-Controller", "category": "Architectural", "description": "Separates application logic into model, view, and controller components", "when_to_use": ["Web applications", "UI-heavy applications", "Rapid development"], "benefits": [ "Separation of concerns", "Reusability", "Parallel development", "Familiar pattern" ], "drawbacks": [ "Tight coupling between components", "Complex for simple apps", "State management issues" ], "use_cases": ["Web frameworks", "Desktop applications", "RESTful APIs"], "complexity": "Medium", "tags": ["presentation", "web", "separation"] }, { "id": "mvp", "name": "Model-View-Presenter", "category": "Architectural", "description": "Improves testability by making presenter handle view logic", "when_to_use": ["Testing requirements", "Complex UI logic", "View technology changes"], "benefits": [ "High testability", "View independence", "Clear responsibilities", "Reusable presenters" ], "drawbacks": ["Increased complexity", "More classes", "Potential god presenter"], "use_cases": ["Desktop applications", "Mobile apps", "Testing-critical systems"], "complexity": "Medium", "tags": ["presentation", "testing", "ui"] }, { "id": "mvvm", "name": "Model-View-ViewModel", "category": "Architectural", "description": "Uses data binding to connect view with view model", "when_to_use": ["Data binding support", "Rich UI applications", "Declarative UI"], "benefits": ["Data binding", "Testability", "View independence", "Rich UI support"], "drawbacks": ["Complex debugging", "Memory leaks risk", "Framework dependency"], "use_cases": ["WPF applications", "Angular/Vue apps", "Mobile applications"], "complexity": "Medium", "tags": ["data-binding", "ui", "framework"] }, { "id": "domain-driven-design", "name": "Domain-Driven Design", "category": "Architectural", "description": "Focuses on modeling complex business domains through ubiquitous language", "when_to_use": ["Complex business domains", "Large teams", "Long-term projects"], "benefits": ["Business alignment", "Maintainable code", "Team communication", "Domain focus"], "drawbacks": ["High learning curve", "Initial overhead", "Requires domain expertise"], "use_cases": ["Enterprise software", "Financial systems", "Healthcare applications"], "complexity": "High", "tags": ["domain-modeling", "ubiquitous-language", "bounded-context"] }, { "id": "event-driven-architecture", "name": "Event-Driven Architecture", "category": "Architectural", "description": "Uses events to trigger and communicate between decoupled services", "when_to_use": ["Microservices", "Real-time systems", "Scalable applications"], "benefits": ["Loose coupling", "Scalability", "Flexibility", "Real-time processing"], "drawbacks": ["Complexity", "Eventual consistency", "Debugging difficulty"], "use_cases": ["E-commerce platforms", "IoT systems", "Reactive applications"], "complexity": "High", "tags": ["events", "decoupling", "reactive"] }, { "id": "cqrs", "name": "Command Query Responsibility Segregation", "category": "Architectural", "description": "Separates read and write operations using different models", "when_to_use": ["Complex read/write patterns", "Performance optimization", "Event sourcing"], "benefits": ["Performance", "Scalability", "Flexibility", "Optimized models"], "drawbacks": ["Increased complexity", "Eventual consistency", "Code duplication"], "use_cases": ["High-performance systems", "Event sourcing", "Complex reporting"], "complexity": "High", "tags": ["command-query", "performance", "segregation"] }, { "id": "event-sourcing", "name": "Event Sourcing", "category": "Architectural", "description": "Stores all changes as a sequence of events instead of current state", "when_to_use": ["Audit requirements", "Complex business logic", "Time-travel debugging"], "benefits": ["Complete audit trail", "Temporal queries", "Debugging", "Scalability"], "drawbacks": ["Storage overhead", "Query complexity", "Event versioning"], "use_cases": ["Financial systems", "Version control", "Audit-critical applications"], "complexity": "High", "tags": ["events", "audit", "temporal"] }, { "id": "microservices", "name": "Microservices Architecture", "category": "Architectural", "description": "Decomposes application into small, independently deployable services", "when_to_use": ["Large teams", "Independent deployments", "Technology diversity"], "benefits": ["Technology freedom", "Independent scaling", "Team autonomy", "Fault isolation"], "drawbacks": ["Distributed complexity", "Network overhead", "Data consistency"], "use_cases": ["Large-scale applications", "Cloud-native systems", "DevOps environments"], "complexity": "High", "tags": ["distributed", "services", "independence"] }, { "id": "service-oriented-architecture", "name": "Service-Oriented Architecture", "category": "Architectural", "description": "Structures application as a collection of loosely coupled services", "when_to_use": ["Enterprise integration", "Legacy system integration", "Service reusability"], "benefits": ["Reusability", "Interoperability", "Flexibility", "Service governance"], "drawbacks": ["Performance overhead", "Complexity", "Service management"], "use_cases": ["Enterprise systems", "B2B integration", "Legacy modernization"], "complexity": "High", "tags": ["services", "enterprise", "integration"] }, { "id": "serverless-architecture", "name": "Serverless Architecture", "category": "Architectural", "description": "Executes code in stateless compute containers managed by cloud providers", "when_to_use": ["Event-driven applications", "Variable workloads", "Rapid scaling"], "benefits": ["No server management", "Auto-scaling", "Pay-per-use", "Fast deployment"], "drawbacks": ["Vendor lock-in", "Cold start latency", "Limited control"], "use_cases": ["API backends", "Data processing", "Web applications"], "complexity": "Medium", "tags": ["serverless", "cloud", "functions"] }, { "id": "modular-monolith", "name": "Modular Monolith", "category": "Architectural", "description": "Single deployable unit with well-defined internal module boundaries", "when_to_use": ["Medium-sized applications", "Team coordination", "Gradual evolution"], "benefits": ["Simplicity", "Performance", "Easy debugging", "Consistent transactions"], "drawbacks": ["Scaling limitations", "Technology constraints", "Deployment coupling"], "use_cases": ["Growing applications", "Team-sized projects", "Microservices preparation"], "complexity": "Medium", "tags": ["monolith", "modular", "boundaries"] } ] }