The name (and javadocs) imply that MouseAdapter
is an adapter (the design pattern). But I don't see it as such - it doesn't adapt anything to anything, at first sight at least
The only adaptation that happens is that you can pass an instance of MouseAdapter
to any method that expects either of the interfaces. So, you make it possible to use a MouseListener
instance where only MouseMotionListener
is expected. But there is no "translation" happening. And it does not conform to the UML of GoF - in the "class adapter" version it is expected that a call to one method invokes a method from the adaptee.
So, is that an adapter (design pattern), or is it just a random name that causes confusion?
I know there is already an accepted answer for this question, but this same question was asked here:
MouseAdapter: which pattern does it use?
See there for more deatils, but the MouseAdapter adapts the very awkaward MouseListener interface into a more usable form.
Yes, it is not an adapter in the sense of GoF pattern because it does not adapt anything. It can be considered an instance of Abstract Class pattern [woolf97]:
MouseAdapter
first appeared in Java 1.1 released in Feb 1997. This means that it was developed sometime in 1996 (or 1995?)UML (in its draft) was completed by 1997.
The first GoF book on design patterns was published in 1995.
So, I don't think that Adapter in
MouseAdapter
had anything to do with the corresponding design pattern. Or, even if it did, developers just had no unified language to express design patterns which would make it very hard to comprehend the real meaning.As other answers have said, it's not a GoF Adapter pattern. The main purpose of it is to enable one to implement
MouseListener
(orMouseMotionListener
) by over-riding just the desired methods inMouseAdapter
(often justmouseClicked()
) rather than having to create pointless empty implementations of all the other methods. It therefore saves a lot of unnecessary code, especially when using anonymous event listeners. For example (taken from here)