Skip to main content

Abstract Server

The Abstract Server Pattern falls under the category of "Structural Design Patterns", it is a design pattern primarily used in the context of object-oriented programming. It is useful for situations where a system needs to support multiple server implementations, but the client code should remain unchanged regardless of the server implementation being used. This pattern is particularly relevant in distributed systems, service-oriented architectures, and when dealing with different database servers or network services.

Here's a high-level overview of the pattern:

  1. Abstract Server (Interface or Abstract Class): This is a declaration of a common interface that all concrete server classes will implement. It defines the methods that must be implemented by any concrete server. This allows the client code to interact with the server through this interface, enabling the use of different server implementations without modifying the client code.

  2. Concrete Server Classes: These are the implementations of the Abstract Server. Each concrete server class implements the interface or abstract class, providing the actual functionality. Different server classes might have different ways of performing the same task, but they will all present the same interface to the client.

  3. Client Code: The client code interacts with the server through the abstract interface. This decouples the client code from the specific implementations of the server, allowing for flexibility and scalability. The client doesn't need to know which specific implementation of the server it is using, as long as it adheres to the interface.

  4. Factory Method or Dependency Injection: Often, a factory method pattern or dependency injection is used to instantiate the concrete server class. This further decouples the client code from the concrete server implementations, as the client code does not directly instantiate the concrete servers.

This pattern is particularly useful in scenarios where you expect to switch between different server implementations, or when you want to provide a plug-in architecture where other developers can provide new server implementations.

In the context of TypeScript and full-stack development, this pattern can be utilized in scenarios where your application might interact with different APIs or databases but wants to keep the interaction logic consistent irrespective of the specific API or database being used.

Example in TypeScript:

Here's a simple TypeScript example to demonstrate this pattern:

// Abstract Server - Interface
interface Server {
connect(): void;
disconnect(): void;
sendData(data: string): void;

// Concrete Server 1
class APIServer implements Server {
connect() {
console.log('Connected to API Server');

disconnect() {
console.log('Disconnected from API Server');

sendData(data: string) {
console.log(`Sending data to API Server: ${data}`);

// Concrete Server 2
class DatabaseServer implements Server {
connect() {
console.log('Connected to Database Server');

disconnect() {
console.log('Disconnected from Database Server');

sendData(data: string) {
console.log(`Sending data to Database Server: ${data}`);

// Client Code
function clientCode(server: Server) {
server.sendData('Hello Server!');

// Using the servers
const apiServer = new APIServer();
const databaseServer = new DatabaseServer();


In this example, the Server interface is the abstract server, and APIServer and DatabaseServer are concrete implementations. The clientCode function works with the abstract server type, allowing it to use either of the concrete implementations interchangeably.

Bridge vs Abstract Server

The difference between the Bridge Pattern and the Abstract Server Pattern is largely conceptual, focusing on their intent and use case. In practical implementation, especially in the context of object-oriented programming languages like TypeScript, they can appear quite similar since both involve using interfaces or abstract classes to enable flexibility and decoupling.

Conceptual Difference

  • Bridge Pattern is about separating an interface (abstraction) from its implementation so that they can be developed, extended, and varied independently. It's typically used when you want to avoid a permanent binding between the high-level logic and its underlying platform-specific implementation.
  • Abstract Server Pattern focuses on providing a common interface for multiple implementations of a similar functionality or service. It's more about interchangeability and uniform interaction with different implementations of a service.

Implementation Similarity

  • Both patterns use interfaces or abstract classes to define a contract.
  • Concrete classes implement these interfaces or abstract classes.
  • The client interacts with the interface, allowing the use of different implementations without depending on their concrete classes.

Example in TypeScript

For both patterns, you might define an interface and have multiple classes implementing this interface. The client code interacts with the interface, not the concrete implementations, allowing for flexibility and interchangeability.

// Interface used by both patterns
interface Service {
performAction(): void;

// Concrete Implementations
class ServiceA implements Service {
performAction() { /* Implementation A */ }

class ServiceB implements Service {
performAction() { /* Implementation B */ }

// Client code
function clientCode(service: Service) {

// Usage
const serviceA = new ServiceA();
const serviceB = new ServiceB();


In this TypeScript example, the distinction between the Bridge and the Abstract Server Patterns is not evident in the code structure but in the reasoning behind choosing one pattern over the other.

Choosing the Right Pattern

  • When you need to vary both the high-level logic and its implementation independently, the Bridge Pattern is more appropriate.
  • When your focus is on providing a unified interface to a set of similar services or functionalities, the Abstract Server Pattern is more suitable.

Tips for Fullstack Development

  1. Understand the Why: When choosing a design pattern, understand why you are choosing it. The pattern should solve a specific design issue or fulfill a particular requirement in your application.
  2. Don't Force Patterns: If a pattern doesn't fit naturally into your design, it might not be the right choice. Patterns should simplify, not complicate your design.
  3. Document Your Decisions: When you use a design pattern, document your choice and the reasons behind it. This helps others understand your design decisions.
  4. Refactoring and Patterns: Be open to refactoring your code as it evolves. Sometimes, the need for a particular pattern only becomes clear later in the development process.
  5. Keep Learning: The field of software design patterns is rich and evolving. Keep exploring new patterns and techniques to enhance your skills as a developer.