I was in a SW engr enterprise that had the classname used as the
Interface and classnameImpl as the implemented class. Everyone knew what
to expect, and so the code evolution had no problems really.
4WTIW
Jérôme Baumgarten wrote:
IBM folks do the same, they put an uppercase i in front of interface
names.
Jerome
On 10/13/05, *Emmanuel Lecharny* < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
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
begin:vcard
fn:Bruce Rosenthal
n:Rosenthal;Bruce
org:Transtrophe Solutions
adr:;;19210 Meadowood Rd;Castro Valley;CA;94546;USA
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Technical Director
tel;work:510 690 0877
tel;cell:510 432 7912
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.transtrophe.com
version:2.1
end:vcard
