directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
Subject Re: Interface/Class naming inconsistencies
Date Mon, 17 Oct 2005 20:19:18 GMT
>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

Agree, <InterfaceName>Impl should only be used inside a singleton factory.

>On 10/17/05, Bruce Rosenthal <> wrote:
>> I was in a SW engr enterprise that had the classname used as the
>> Interface and classnameImpl as the implemented class. Everyone knew 
>> to expect, and so the code evolution had no problems really.
>> 4WTIW


View raw message