Up to me, <InterfaceName>Impl naming pattern for concrete classes seems very ugly. This may only apply when you have a factory like Factory.create<InterfaceName> (when we have only one default implementor of an interface) so that you do not create instances using that naming scheme all around your code. Otherwise, I favor Trustin's approach.
On 10/17/05, Bruce Rosenthal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 -- Ersin
