Despite writing most of the code, I didn't start from scratch. I would guess that most of the classes named *Base were pulled in from log4j 1.x and modified. I don't mind moving in the direction of 1). Note though, that although ConfigurationFactory is a base class it also has the static methods that create all the ConfigurationFactory instances.
Ralph On Oct 9, 2012, at 4:13 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: > Hi All: > > I see that some of our abstract class names are called one of: > > 1) AbstractFoo (e.g. AbstractLogger) > 2) Foo (e.g. ConfigurationFactory) > 3) FooBase (e.g. AppenderBase) > > This is all pretty inconsistent. I like (1) the best and find (3) rather bad. > > I can talk about "an abstract foo doing something", "a foo doing something", > but never would (an English speaker at least) talk about "a foo base doing > something", that is just not a proper sentence fragment. Unless you are > talking about chemistry I suppose, but not in our domain. > > I propose to start by changing (3)s into (1)s. We can decide about (2)s now, > later or on a case by case basis. But for me, consistency is better. When I > see an AbstractFoo in the code, I know what I am dealing an abstract type. > > Thoughts? > > Gary > > -- > E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] > JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: http://bit.ly/ECvg0 > Spring Batch in Action: http://bit.ly/bqpbCK > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
