These are all good points which for some reason this morning I could not think about myself. Thanks for showing me again why I don't like this I stuff.
Really though I don't like the "I" prefix because it reminds me of Mac and the Mac Store which I hate because of all those moronic metro-sexual sales snobs that think they know something ... :)
Alex Karasulu schrieb:> Yeap sounds good and like what we discussed.I don't like it either
> 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.
- 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
> Not trying to rehash this but I just want your input again ...
> On Dec 15, 2007 9:31 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <email@example.com> <mailto: firstname.lastname@example.org>> wrote:> www.iktek.com < http://www.iktek.com>
> 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 Lécharny
> directory.apache.org <http://directory.apache.org>