Hi, > Maybe It whould be better to call the Implementation > org.apache.james.management.VirtualUserTableManagementImpl
Just my 2c here ... but ... I'm not a big fan of naming implementations with "impl". Why? Well the purpose of an interface is to describe an abstract class if thing or a generalised service, a purpose if you like, and an implementation is a specific realisation of the abstract notion. Therfore I take the view that implementations should be differentiated by their nature, not their purpose. So if you have, for example, a MailBox (interface) and a FileMailBox (impl), or you could differentiate in the package naming e.g. file.MailBox (impl) and service.MailBox (interface). If you can't differentiate between purpose and implementation then I would question whether you really need the interface at all. That will only help this discussion if there are specific characteristics of the implementation. d. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
