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 Mon, 17 Oct 2005 19:26:32 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
approach.

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