On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 17:59 -0400, Ryan McKinley wrote: > my email does not appear to be working these days.... i'll try again.... > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: Ryan McKinley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: September 30, 2008 12:55:41 PM EDT > > To: labs@labs.apache.org > > Subject: [droids] interface naming convention? IDroid? > > > > I've been using wicket and C# recently... I like their convention > > to prefix all interfaces with "I" > > > > This makes it clear when you are holding onto an interface vs a > > concrete implementation -- this is particularly important when you > > are dealing with lots of automatic dependency injection. > > > > Also, it eliminates the need for the silly "impl" suffix > > > > So we would have: > > IDroid > > IHandler > > IOutlink > > ITask > > ILink > > ITaskmaster > > ... > > > > thoughts? I figure I should throw it out there while the API is in > > flux ;)
I personally do not really like that too much. I am more the option b type from http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/default.asp?design.4.331276.11 Droid droid = new DefaultDroid(); vs IDroid droid = new Droid(); I go for the first one since it is more descriptive. We have all interfaces in the api package so we know that which are interface classes. IMO the second version is too confusion unimmunized. WDOT? salu2 -- Thorsten Scherler thorsten.at.apache.org Open Source Java consulting, training and solutions --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
