Sounds good. The 'I' preffix make the name more clear. You can do IDroid droid = new DefaultDroid();
Then the interface is identified without the needed of see in what package is. El jue, 02-10-2008 a las 09:11 +0200, Thorsten Scherler escribió: > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
