directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Felix Knecht <fel...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [New Entry API] Name for classes
Date Sat, 15 Dec 2007 16:16:47 GMT
Alex Karasulu schrieb:
> Yeap sounds good and like what we discussed. 
> 
> On side note though what about the using the 'I' prefix for interfaces? 
> Like IFoo and IBar etc.  I personally don't like it but many projects
> seem to use it. 

I don't like it either
- It could also mean Internal, Integration, I... (so you'll need to document it and read documentation
anyway)
- So it's just one more character (interpretable)
- Imaging what happens e.b. when you type I and hit CTRL-Space in Eclipse :-(

I'm absolutely fine without 'I'

I haven't had a look a the code so maybe it's just a useless note, but IMO it makes (if ever)
more sense having
interface and implementation split into different modules for api (interfaces) and implementation.

Just my 2 cents


Regards
Felix

> 
> Not trying to rehash this but I just want your input again ...
> 
> Cheers,
> Alex
> 
> On Dec 15, 2007 9:31 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com
> <mailto:elecharny@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi guys,
> 
>     sorry to rehash the question...
> 
>     A while back, we took a decision regarding names for interface
>     implementation. We had several different names all over the code, like
>     XXXImpl, BasicXXX, DefaultXXX, ConcreteXXX, BaseXXX where XXX is the
>     interface name. I think we agreed on the "Default" prefix, as far as I
>     can remember and find on gmail.
> 
>     For ServerEntry, this will give :
> 
>     (interface) ServerEntry
>     (abstract class) AbstractServerEntry
>     (class implementation) DefaultServerEntry
> 
>     Is that ok for everybody ?
> 
>     Thanks !
> 
>     --
>     --
>     cordialement, regards,
>     Emmanuel L├ęcharny
>     www.iktek.com <http://www.iktek.com>
>     directory.apache.org <http://directory.apache.org>
> 
> 
> 


Mime
View raw message