Mailing-List: contact dev-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Apache Directory Developers List" <dev@directory.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of elecharny@gmail.com designates
 64.233.162.204 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:mime-version:content-type;
        b=rkcmoK41Jqqson+Gc3Et/klvR+IRDXNXzmAf/bnBPOPCVVHUXGTlrtIeF2Gm+eKaJKc4NosFKVNPuKji0Yly3IoTawqnoYaCf1y9Oa95lMcsdzKC50ChKZc+CrJZzj0MURx9xeHr9DE1XkiwdyTLuXscP8D83+uen/0gTb1NLTo=
Message-ID: <d45b08f00609040341g748b8692u9e8a8819f275506c@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 12:41:36 +0200
From: "Emmanuel Lecharny" <elecharny@gmail.com>
Reply-To: elecharny@apache.org
To: "Apache Directory Developers List" <dev@directory.apache.org>
Subject: [ADS 2.0] Naming convention ... again !
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_78828_4541832.1157366496413"

------=_Part_78828_4541832.1157366496413
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Hi band,

a question that has already been discussed many times by all the developper=
s
on earth, but again, I need a shared vision.

So : which convention should we use for interface names?

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.

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

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

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.

Any opinion is welcomed.

Emmanuel

--=20
Cordialement,
Emmanuel L=E9charny

------=_Part_78828_4541832.1157366496413
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Hi band,<br><br>a question that has already been discussed many times by al=
l the developpers on earth, but again, I need a shared vision.<br><br>So : =
which convention should we use for interface names?<br><br>Here is the prob=
lem :
<br><br>I have a BindRequest class which will be extended using the decorat=
or pattern to add toDSML, toPDU, fromDSML and fromPDU methods. I will have =
two concrete decorators :&nbsp; <br>- BindRequestDsmlDecorator<br>- BindReq=
uestAsn1Decorator
<br>and of course an abstract class called BindRequestDecorator<br><br>This=
 abstract class will contains a reference to a BindRequest object, and will=
 implements all the BindRequest objects methods.<br><br>At this point, the =
question arise : why don't we have a BindRequest interface and a BindReques=
tImpl class? The BindRequest interface will be implemented by the BindReque=
stImpl and BindRequestDecorator classes.
<br><br>Good idea. But then I'm a little bit annoyed by the name BindReques=
tImpl. So am I with the BindRequestDecorator which could have been Abstract=
BindRequestDecorator, as we have AbstractMessage, AbstractRequest, etc.
<br><br>To be short :<br>Q1 : Should we add an 'I' in front on interface th=
at are not obviously seen as interfaces (like BindRequest : renamed to IBin=
dRequest) (I mean to avoid a collision between an interface name and a clas=
s name) ?
<br>Q2 : Should we add an 'I' in front of *all* interfaces, breaking the JL=
S rules ? (so Message will be renamed to IMessage, even if it's obvious tha=
t Message cannot be a concrete class)<br>Q3 : Should we add 'Abstract' in f=
ront of abstract class ?
<br>Q4 : if Q1 and Q2 is *NO !!!*, then which name should we use for class =
which implements interface : ConcreteBindRequest, BindRequestImpl ?<br><br>=
Note that I do not want to start a flamwar, I just need your opinion in ord=
er to have a consistant naming across the project.
<br><br>Any opinion is welcomed.<br><br>Emmanuel<br clear=3D"all"><br>-- <b=
r>Cordialement,<br>Emmanuel L=E9charny

------=_Part_78828_4541832.1157366496413--