On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 11:02 +0300, Ersin Er wrote: > Hi, > > It seems that we do not have a consistent naming convention for > interfaces and their implementor classes. For example, when the > interface is named Foo, we may have implementor classes named like > FooImpl, BaseFoo, DefaultFoo, etc. > > Which one do you think is correct (or makes sense the most)?
well, that's a good question... Personnaly, I like to add a I to interface names (IFoo), but this is a kind of M$ hungarylish footprint. So FooImpl seems to be the best solution to me, but that's just my own personnal opinion. > > Cheers. > -- > Ersin
