+1 on I prefixed to interface names... Eclipse API's do this a lot, therefore it's cool. That's the crux of my whole argument.
OH - Got one more! I is shorter than, Impl, hence I wins. OK OK OK - I'll Shatt up. --- Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: > > Hi band, > > > > a question that has already been discussed many > times by all the > > developpers on earth, but again, I need a shared > vision. > > > > So : which convention should we use for interface > names? > > > > Here is the problem : > > > > I have a BindRequest class which will be extended > using the decorator > > pattern to add toDSML, toPDU, fromDSML and fromPDU > methods. I will have > > two concrete decorators : > > - BindRequestDsmlDecorator > > - BindRequestAsn1Decorator > > These sound fine to me. > > > and of course an abstract class called > BindRequestDecorator > > The abstract class is easy: > AbstractBindRequestDecorator ? > > > This abstract class will contains a reference to a > BindRequest object, > > and will implements all the BindRequest objects > methods. > > > > At this point, the question arise : why don't we > have a BindRequest > > interface and a BindRequestImpl class? The > BindRequest interface will be > > implemented by the BindRequestImpl and > BindRequestDecorator classes. > > > > Good idea. But then I'm a little bit annoyed by > the name > > BindRequestImpl. So am I with the > BindRequestDecorator which could have > > been AbstractBindRequestDecorator, as we have > AbstractMessage, > > AbstractRequest, etc. > > heh ok I'm not helping :) > > > To be short : > > Q1 : Should we add an 'I' in front on interface > that are not obviously > > seen as interfaces (like BindRequest : renamed to > IBindRequest) (I mean > > to avoid a collision between an interface name and > a class name) ? > > Hmmm I've never like this style. -1. > > > Q2 : Should we add an 'I' in front of *all* > interfaces, breaking the JLS > > rules ? (so Message will be renamed to IMessage, > even if it's obvious > > that Message cannot be a concrete class) > > Yeah -1 on that. > > > Q3 : Should we add 'Abstract' in front of abstract > class ? > > +1 > > > Q4 : if Q1 and Q2 is *NO !!!*, then which name > should we use for class > > which implements interface : ConcreteBindRequest, > BindRequestImpl ? > > Either is fine w/ me as long as we're consistent. > Concrete prefix is > not bad. I kind of like the fact that it's what the > GoF did in their > examples. > > Alex > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
