directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lecharny <elecha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Interface/Class naming inconsistencies
Date Thu, 13 Oct 2005 09:15:42 GMT
On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 11:02 +0300, Ersin Er wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> It seems that we do not have a consistent naming convention for
> interfaces and their implementor classes. For example, when the
> interface is named Foo, we may have implementor classes named like
> FooImpl, BaseFoo, DefaultFoo, etc.
> 
> Which one do you think is correct (or makes sense the most)?

well, that's a good question... Personnaly, I like to add a I to
interface names (IFoo), but this is a kind of M$ hungarylish footprint.

So FooImpl seems to be the best solution to me, but that's just my own
personnal opinion.

> 
> Cheers.
> --
> Ersin


Mime
View raw message