Ahhhh. Well, I can see where that can be a good solution for when you can have a default implementation of something that really does the most trivial case. Consider something like a Translator (translates Strings into objects). The "default" would be to do nothing (the StringTranslator). Having that as a static, inner class wouldn't be too bad, IMHO. I'm not saying I use it, but I can see where some folks would. I would agree that I don't think it should be on the default search path, as it would seem that we endorse its use as a best practice. But, allowing configuration of the search path is essential, IMHO.
-----Original Message----- From: Achim Hügen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 11:50 AM To: dev@hivemind.apache.org Subject: Re: New convention? Sorry that I didn't make myself clear enough. I meant the static implementation class name 'Default' inside the interface. Achim James Carman schrieb: > Which convention are you saying isn't a best practice? Having the impl > subpackage stuff? That is a common approach that many folks take. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Achim Hügen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 10:14 AM > To: dev@hivemind.apache.org > Subject: Re: New convention? > > Sorry, but I prefer the strict separation of interface and implementation. > I don't see an advantage over a separate implementation class that follows > a naming convention. > This syntax is not a best practise I would encourage so IMHO it shouldn't > be standard. > > Achim > > Pablo Lalloni schrieb: > >> El Lunes, 31 de Julio de 2006 07:49, James Carman escribió: >> >> >>> Yes, *Impl in the same package might even be the first place it looks. >>> Then look for an *Impl in the impl subpackage. I normally use the latter >>> setup, but many folks do just put the implementation classes in the same >>> package as their interface. I'd like to make HiveMind very simple to >>> configure with minimal effort. That's why we offer the option to use >>> "convention over configuration." >>> >>> >> In cases when there will be just a single impl or a "default" one for a >> > given > >> service we just make it a static inner class of the service interface. >> >> public interface SomeService { >> ... >> public static class Default implements SomeService { >> ... >> } >> } >> >> So if the impl "search path" includes this idiom, it would be great for us >> > as > >> this is definitely the most frequent case here. >> >> >> > > > >
