ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Conor MacNeill" <co...@ebinteractive.com.au>
Subject RE: [PATCH] Wait and Available
Date Mon, 27 Nov 2000 22:03:24 GMT
> From: Thomas Christen [mailto:chr@active.ch]
> Sent: Tuesday, 28 November 2000 4:45
> To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: AW: [PATCH] Wait and Available
>
>
> > The use of the prefix "I" for interfaces is not idiomatic to Java
> > (according to JLS) (rather one should use the suffix Impl for
> > implementation if needed to separate them both).
> I or not I seams to be the question? Before reading the book "java 2
> performance and idiom guide" writen by Craig Larman and Rhett Guthrie, I
> thoght the same way as you do. They say : "Many developers are
> moving to the
> I-convention because it instantly communicates the fact that the code
> construct is an interface. This is important because interfaces are the
> prefered way of specifying APIs and abstractions. Because of this, we
> recommend beginning intrafce names with I.". I don't argue about
> this idiom
> but since we began using it, even in large Java-projects, the conceptual
> model becam clearer and readable.
>

Thomas, I do not like the "I" convention, myself. In general, I do not like
embedding type information into names as types can be changed and get out of
sync with the name. Indeed, interfaces often start life as abstract classes.
A classic example of this problem from Windows is the wParam member of the
Windows message which is not a word but a long in Win32 :-)

Conor



Mime
View raw message