Programming against interfaces is a common and well known pattern, in this way I find it more natural to work with I-less interfaces.
In every day Tapestry business there are only a couple of intefaces to handle with. If someone is in doubt, it takes a few seconds to have a look in the API docs. It would be interesting how many other projects prefer I-identified versions. Maik Mind Bridge wrote: > Hi, > > Do you have to 'implement' or 'extend' a particular type? Can you have > multiple inheritance with that type or not? Can you instantiate it? > > The answers of those questions are clear with 'IPage'. If 'Page' can be > both a class or an interface, you have to look through the code to find > that out. > > Interfaces and classes are two rather different concepts. It seems to me > that they need to be distinguished clearly. Removing the 'I' in front of > the name and the characters that saves are a much smaller win compared > to the loss of clarity and the time wasted in figuring out what can be > done with that type. > > Just my opinion.... > -mb > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
