directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ersin Er <ersin...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Interface/Class naming inconsistencies
Date Thu, 13 Oct 2005 08:47:59 GMT
Thanks for response Trustin. I wrote a tiny inside the quote.

On 10/13/05, Trustin Lee <trustin@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2005/10/13, Ersin Er <ersin.er@gmail.com>:
> > 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)?
>
> There are a few names I like:  AbstractFoo, BaseFoo, or ConcreteNameFoo
>
> * AbstractFoo - it is an abstract class which provides some common
> implementation.
> * BaseFoo - it is similar to AbstractFoo but it is not abstract at all, but
> expecting somebody to extend it.
> * ConcreteNamefoo (e.g. ArrayList implements List) - it is always a good
> idea to give it the most concrete name.
>
> I don't like DefaultFoo much because 'Default' sounds a little bit weird.  I
> use Default when I cannot find any good concrete name.

Maybe, we do not need an interface if we cannot find a good concrete name?

> I prefer DefaultFoo
> to FooImpl on the other hand because 'Impl' makes me feel that I'm dealing
> with low-level stuff.  (This is just a personal feeling! ;)
>
> Cheers,
> Trustin
> --
> what we call human nature is actually human habit
> --
> http://gleamynode.net/


--
Ersin
Mime
View raw message