db-ojb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian McCallister <bri...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [rfc] Do we need a naming standard ?
Date Thu, 14 Apr 2005 12:28:06 GMT

On Apr 13, 2005, at 10:53 PM, Clute, Andrew wrote:

>> Please do not use the IFoo convention. Please please please don't.
> Just out of curiosity, why?

1) Because an interface is a type, a class is a type which can also 
have some implementation, and being able to change these around without 
being left with bizarro naming artifacts is a big plus.

2) Because it is really ugly without adding anything of significant 
value. Knowing if it is an interface or not is pretty much useless when 
you are using it -- it is only possibly useful when you are 
extending/implementing it (or doing proxy voudoun, but you can do that 
for classes very easily as well) and then you have to look at it 


I also dislike the Foo / FooImpl convention. If you only ever have one 
impl, don't bother with an interface. If you expect multiple 
implementations then there should be something different about the 
implementations --- in which case a more descriptive name is a Good 

These are nits, and we can obviously work with whatever form is used 
(heck we have lots of code of the form m_thingie for instance vars) and 
having an expected standard is a Good Thing. I just don't like those 
particular idioms.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org

View raw message