Really more a matter of consistency, so everyone can play.
Afterall, "What's in a *name*? That which we call a *rose* By *any*
*other* word would smell as
sweet." --From Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2) *...*
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>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
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
