+1 (non-binding) The 'I' is inconsistent with standard Java libraries (example: there is no IList, IMap, IIterable etc. in java.util) and I suspect many other Java projects.
A more minor consideration is that for the small but growing number of people that use Wicket through Scala, where you have 'traits' instead of interfaces and abstract classes. The distinction between interfaces and classes in Scala is even more blurred in the Java language. It probably not a concern of Wicket, but I'll put it out there anyway, for interest's sake if nothing else. -- Sam. On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 15:28:50 -0700, Igor Vaynberg wrote: > is it perhaps time to take the I out of our interface names? wicket has > been the only project i have ever worked on/used that follows this > convention, is it time for a change? > > this is not meant as a flamewar about which convention is teh aw3s0m3st, > simply a discussion of whether or not we should switch. > > -igor
