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 21:15:21 GMT
Really more a matter of consistency, so everyone can play.

Afterall, "What's in a *name*? That which we call a *rose* By *any* 
*other* word would smell as
sweet." --From Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2) *...*

jlopes@br.ibm.com wrote:

>
> >Up to me, <InterfaceName>Impl naming pattern for concrete classes
> >seems very ugly. This may only apply when you have a factory like
> >Factory.create<InterfaceName> (when we have only one default
> >implementor of an interface) so that you do not create instances using
> >that naming scheme all around your code. Otherwise, I favor Trustin's
> >approach.
>
> Agree, <InterfaceName>Impl should only be used inside a singleton factory.
>
> >On 10/17/05, Bruce Rosenthal <brosenth@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> 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
>
> >--
> >Ersin
>

Mime
View raw message