Re: Interface/Class naming inconsistencies

[jlopes]

>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.

Agree, <InterfaceName>Impl should only be used inside a singleton factory.

>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