Alex Karasulu schrieb: > Yeap sounds good and like what we discussed. > > On side note though what about the using the 'I' prefix for interfaces? > Like IFoo and IBar etc. I personally don't like it but many projects > seem to use it.
I don't like it either - It could also mean Internal, Integration, I... (so you'll need to document it and read documentation anyway) - So it's just one more character (interpretable) - Imaging what happens e.b. when you type I and hit CTRL-Space in Eclipse :-( I'm absolutely fine without 'I' I haven't had a look a the code so maybe it's just a useless note, but IMO it makes (if ever) more sense having interface and implementation split into different modules for api (interfaces) and implementation. Just my 2 cents Regards Felix > > Not trying to rehash this but I just want your input again ... > > Cheers, > Alex > > On Dec 15, 2007 9:31 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > Hi guys, > > sorry to rehash the question... > > A while back, we took a decision regarding names for interface > implementation. We had several different names all over the code, like > XXXImpl, BasicXXX, DefaultXXX, ConcreteXXX, BaseXXX where XXX is the > interface name. I think we agreed on the "Default" prefix, as far as I > can remember and find on gmail. > > For ServerEntry, this will give : > > (interface) ServerEntry > (abstract class) AbstractServerEntry > (class implementation) DefaultServerEntry > > Is that ok for everybody ? > > Thanks ! > > -- > -- > cordialement, regards, > Emmanuel Lécharny > www.iktek.com <http://www.iktek.com> > directory.apache.org <http://directory.apache.org> > > >
