>> Hi, I like using an "I" as a prefix for interfaces, such as
>> CutomerBean, ICustomer, ICustomerHome.
>>
>I don't see the logic behind this (this is also the convention among COM
>developers from what I know).
>An interface should not be known as an interface. A Person is a Person, not
an
>Interface Person (IPerson). It is the same rule of abstraction that made
you
>chose to use an interface in the first place. You put up a facade to hide
the
>implementation detail. Why then expose the fact that its an interface? It
does
>not bring any useful knowledge, in my opinion, it only makes the code
harder to
>read.
When I go through pages of code/javacode I like any help I can get.
Knowing some type is an interface and not a class helps me a lot.
+ I know I cannot do a "new" on that type
+ I know the classes I develop may implement that interface,
perhaps to use them as method parameters in libraries that
use the interface as a formal parameter
+ I know I can use the type as a contract with external components
+ ...
I know those facts just form the type name, without having do any more
investigation. IMHO that's helpful information.
Regards
Javier
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
