-----Original Message----- From: Brian McCallister [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 4/13/2005 10:17 PM To: OJB Developers List Subject: Re: [rfc] Do we need a naming standard ?
>Please do not use the IFoo convention. Please please please don't. >-Brian Just out of curiosity, why? My main complaint with the IFoo convention is that it usually puts spacing in your IDE's between the interface classes, and the implementation classes, i.e IFoo .. .. FooDefaultImpl FooSpecialImpl Nit picky, I know. However, out of the code that I have seen, I have always prefered the pattern thay parts of OJB already use: Foo (interface) FooAbstractImpl FooDefaultImpl And to Martin's point, I tend to agree that the scope of changes inside HEAD merits a '2.0' moniker. That would free up the possibility of introducing releases from the current 1.0.X line that contain more then just bug-fixes, and the release number could more accuretly reflect that. -Andrew
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
