On 2 April 2013 06:18, P. Ottlinger <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Am 01.04.2013 10:02, schrieb Robert Burrell Donkin: > > For application code, I think that it more obvious to model an interface > > with an interface. When in this mode, I lean towards prefixing with 'I' > > (rather than suffixing or prefixing implementations with Impl or > Default). > > I'd definitely prefer the interface way instead of abstract classes. > > Instead of I-prefixing I'd have different names like: > interface LicenceCheckable > implementing class LicenceChecker > if you don't like DefaultLicenceChecker. > > > > I see tentacles as an application, so I lean towards conventional > > application coding style and am less concerned about being able to > > maintain binary compatibility going forward. > > To my mind it seems not relevant to remain binary compatible. > Rat/Tentacles is a utility whose API is set by the version a customer is > using. >
If the API is not intended for public (external) use, then the Javadoc / other docs should say so, and then there is no reason to maintain compatibility. However, if there is a public API, then compatibility of that API should be maintained if at all possible. > Cheers > Phil >
