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: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4763FDEF.1040609@apache.org>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 17:16:47 +0100
From: Felix Knecht <felixk@apache.org>
Organization: apache.org
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071116)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Apache Directory Developers List <dev@directory.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [New Entry API] Name for classes
References: <4763E52B.6070406@gmail.com>
 <a32f6b020712150803j26c510c4k93e1d358e2379970@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <a32f6b020712150803j26c510c4k93e1d358e2379970@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

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�charny
>     www.iktek.com <http://www.iktek.com>
>     directory.apache.org <http://directory.apache.org>
> 
> 
>