How about "LoggerRepositoryAware" for the name of the interface? This follows the pattern the Spring framework uses to name interfaces that define allowed setter methods (ie ApplicationContextAware interface defines a method setApplicationContext(ApplicationContext ac)).
ComponentBase could still be there. In the future it could implement other needed/required interfaces. -Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 1:07 PM > To: Log4J Developers List > Subject: Re: [POLL] Component and ComponentBase > > > > The requirement to have both Component as an interface and > > ComponentBase as a class, stems from the fact that we make the > > distinction between Appender the interface and AppenderSkeleton the > > class. Implementations of Appender derive from AppenderSkeleton but > > all the other code in log4j refers to Appender and is oblivious to the > > existence of AppenderSkeleton. > > > One of the standards I've seen (and yes there are many) is to have the > abstract base class providing implemented methods to assist sub-classes > is to name it Abstract<InterfaceName>. This appears to be a common > approach and I would put forward to the group. *Base is fine, just > thought I'd mention that. > > I would be -0.25 on the choice of "Component*" however. If this is > truely only designed to be used by log4j internals then I think we > should appropriately name it. As others have mentioned Component by > itself is far too generic (do an Open Type search in Eclipse for > Component and you'll see what I mean). How about LoggingComponent and > LoggingComponentBase or derivations thereof? > > cheers, > > Paul Smith > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
