Felix Knecht wrote:
Stefan Seelmann schrieb:
Hi,
in Studio we currently use all kind of naming schema
- sometimes the "I" prefix for interfaces, I choosed it because it is
used in the Eclispe API
- sometimes the Default prefix for implementations
- sometimes the Impl suffix for classed
- ...
I think we should also use a common naming schema and I would suggest to
use the server's naming schema:
> > (interface) ServerEntry
> > (abstract class) AbstractServerEntry
> > (class implementation) DefaultServerEntry
We don't need to rename all interfaces and classes immediately, but if
we refactor one or create a new one we should follow this convention.
WDYT?
Look @ http://cwiki.apache.org/DIRxDEV/coding-standards.html. The last changes
are older than one year, but nevertheless
it's still valid and above fits quite good. Only DefaultServerEntry should be
named DefaultServerEntryImpl (I hope the
lowercase i of impl is a typo).
The 'i' is a typo.
Basically, the 'spirit' was :
ServerEntry : interface
AbstractServerEntry : abstract class
ServerEntryImpl (or DefaultServerEntry) : we have both... Around 80
classes each in the server !
So at some point, we didn't decided what we should use, and we still
have to update the coding-standards document ...
I personnaly prefer ServerEntryImpl, but other dislike it very much.
Regarding the interfaces and abstract classes, there is a kind of
majority for what we current have.
What is missing on the wiki page from my POV are some generic formatting rules
about xml.
Yes. The rules we are following is pretty much what we see in the XML
field : 2 spaces indentation, the rest is up to you... But this may be
the perfect opportunity to add some more rules to the doco !
Thanks guys !
Felix
--
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org
