The "I" naming convention is applied to only Java interfaces like:
public interface IFoo {...}
It's not meant to be used on abstract base classes -- which aren't
interfaces -- just an API.
It's really meant to make very obvious in code what is and is not an
interface without having to consult the Javadoc.
It's a convention both Daryl and I used a bunch, but I'm not wedded
to it and would be fine if we agreed to move away from it. Doesn't
seem that common in Java land anyway...
Eddie
On 6/8/05, Jeremiah Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [9] We name interfaces with a 'I' at the beginning of them...
>
> Is this point about Java interfaces or conceptual interfaces?
>
> For example, PageFlowConstants is a Java interface, but not really an
> 'interface' in my opinion. While constants inside of PageFlowConstants
> may be part of the API between two entities, the PageFlowConstants file
> itself does not define any methods so it isn't really an API between two
> entities.
>
> On the other hand, SQLSupportConfig does fit my definition of interface
> but it isn't a 'Java interface'. It is defined as 'public abstract
> class SQLSupportConfig'.
>
> Or does something need to be a Java interface and be externally visible
> to be a big-I interface?
>
> Something else?
>
> - jeremiah
>
>
