Also we already has discussion regarding class renaming.... Are we still planning to do it? Shall I handle it?
BTW do I need to take a look at your import/export issue or you going to fix it yourself? On Oct 14, 2012 10:05 PM, "Maxim Solodovnik" <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree regarding interface and dao. But I would vote for not creating > IPagableEntity. My idea was to create something like absttact Identifiable, > add id field to it and getter and setter. (All our entities has id) > On Oct 14, 2012 7:14 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I would like to propose the following naming conventions: >> >> Interfaces start with an "I" >> >> public interface IOmDao { >> } >> >> Implementations like the DaoImpl (Data Access Object Implementation) >> will be renamed to Dao (without the Impl, there is no need to write "Impl" >> if the Dao interface has the "I" in its name). >> >> So the UserDaoImpl will be simply: >> UserDao implements IOmDao >> >> And I would like to find a more meaningful name for "OmDao" and >> "OmEntity".. >> It might be better to name those interfaces by its usage, cause the name >> "OpenMeetings" might change and it does not say so much about the usage of >> the interface. >> >> Maybe something like "IPagingDao" or "IPaginationDao" >> and the corresponding "OmEntity" to "IPagingEntity". >> >> Sebastian >> >> -- >> Sebastian Wagner >> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock >> http://www.webbase-design.de >> http://www.wagner-sebastian.com >> [email protected] >> >
