directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bruce Rosenthal <brose...@comcast.net>
Subject Re: Interface/Class naming inconsistencies
Date Mon, 17 Oct 2005 19:21:00 GMT
I was in a SW engr enterprise that had the classname used as the 
Interface and classnameImpl as the implemented class. Everyone knew what 
to expect, and so the code evolution had no problems really.

4WTIW

Jérôme Baumgarten wrote:

> IBM folks do the same, they put an uppercase i in front of interface 
> names.
>
> Jerome
>
> On 10/13/05, *Emmanuel Lecharny* < elecharny@gmail.com 
> <mailto:elecharny@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     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