+1 for option 1) On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> 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://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0 > Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >
