db-ojb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Clute, Andrew" <Andrew.Cl...@osn.state.oh.us>
Subject RE: [rfc] Do we need a naming standard ?
Date Thu, 14 Apr 2005 02:53:39 GMT

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian McCallister [mailto:brianm@apache.org]
Sent: Wed 4/13/2005 10:17 PM
To: OJB Developers List
Subject: Re: [rfc] Do we need a naming standard ?
 

>Please do not use the IFoo convention. Please please please don't.

>-Brian


Just out of curiosity, why?

My main complaint with the IFoo convention is that it usually puts spacing in your IDE's between
the interface classes, and the implementation classes, i.e

IFoo
..
..
FooDefaultImpl
FooSpecialImpl

Nit picky, I know. However, out of the code that I have seen, I have always prefered the pattern
thay parts of OJB already use:

Foo (interface)
FooAbstractImpl
FooDefaultImpl

And to Martin's point, I tend to agree that the scope of changes inside HEAD merits a '2.0'
moniker. That would free up the possibility of introducing releases from the current 1.0.X
line that contain more then just bug-fixes, and the release number could more accuretly reflect
that.

-Andrew









Mime
View raw message