commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David Graham" <>
Subject Re: [Clazz] names of classes
Date Tue, 17 Jun 2003 23:47:06 GMT
> > >I do not like the names of ~Support classes. ~Support or ~Helper 
> > >(for me)
> > >that these are Helper classes with (often static) utility functions. In
> > the
> > >Java API I think
> > >I have found the usage of Abstract~ or Base~ much more often for 
> >
> > You've missed an important difference between Helper classes and
> > Base/Abstract classes.  Helper classes allow composition/reuse outside 
> > a
> > class hierarchy.  Abstract class' methods can only be used by 
> >
>Thanks for expressing that much better than I could. So the ~Suppport
>_are_ Base/Abstract classes, since they are abstract and only used by
>subclassing in Clazz, aren't they?

I don't work on, nor use the Clazz package so I don't know the details.  I 
was making a statement about OOP design in general.  If the Clazz classes 
you're referring to are, in fact, abstract classes used in a class 
hierarchy, they should be named Abstract* or Base* to follow widely used 
Java naming conventions.


>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>For additional commands, e-mail:

STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message