directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Trustin Lee" <>
Subject Re: [ADS 2.0] Naming convention ... again !
Date Tue, 05 Sep 2006 02:24:35 GMT
Hi Emmanuel,

On 9/4/06, Emmanuel Lecharny <> wrote:
> Hi band,
> Here is the problem :
> I have a BindRequest class which will be extended using the decorator
> pattern to add toDSML, toPDU, fromDSML and fromPDU methods. I will have two
> concrete decorators :
> - BindRequestDsmlDecorator
> - BindRequestAsn1Decorator
> and of course an abstract class called BindRequestDecorator
> This abstract class will contains a reference to a BindRequest object, and
> will implements all the BindRequest objects methods.
> At this point, the question arise : why don't we have a BindRequest
> interface and a BindRequestImpl class? The BindRequest interface will be
> implemented by the BindRequestImpl and BindRequestDecorator classes.

I agree.  Providing BindRequest as an interface is a better approach.

Good idea. But then I'm a little bit annoyed by the name BindRequestImpl. So
> am I with the BindRequestDecorator which could have been
> AbstractBindRequestDecorator, as we have AbstractMessage, AbstractRequest,
> etc.

I hate adding 'Impl' in the end of a class name.  It makes me feel bad

1) I am abbreviating 'implementation'
2) It gives me an impression that it's the only implementation.

So I'd rather suggest DefaultBindRequest or SimpleBindRequest.  I prefer
Default because Simple is a little bit vague.

To be short :
> Q1 : Should we add an 'I' in front on interface that are not obviously
> seen as interfaces (like BindRequest : renamed to IBindRequest) (I mean to
> avoid a collision between an interface name and a class name) ?


Q2 : Should we add an 'I' in front of *all* interfaces, breaking the JLS
> rules ? (so Message will be renamed to IMessage, even if it's obvious that
> Message cannot be a concrete class)


Q3 : Should we add 'Abstract' in front of abstract class ?

It's not mandatory when the abstract class contains some meaningful
implementation, and then it can have a different prefix.  So... it depends
on context, but adding Abstract is a safe option in most cases.

Q4 : if Q1 and Q2 is *NO !!!*, then which name should we use for class which
> implements interface : ConcreteBindRequest, BindRequestImpl ?

My suggestion is DefaultBindRequest.

Note that I do not want to start a flamwar, I just need your opinion in
> order to have a consistant naming across the project.

I fully understand your point and I agree that a people should be careful
when naming a class as much as naming his or her daughter.

what we call human nature is actually human habit
PGP key fingerprints:
* E167 E6AF E73A CBCE EE41  4A29 544D DE48 FE95 4E7E
* B693 628E 6047 4F8F CFA4  455E 1C62 A7DC 0255 ECA6

View raw message