Re: Naming intefaces and abstract classes

[Eli Doran]

I believe the difference between using the prefix with ISomeName and 
AbstractSomeName is that you commonly use the interface to refer to an 
instance but you do not refer to an instance using the Abstract* name. 
So the "I" prefix is undesirable because of frequent use. The "Abstract" 
prefix denotes an important distinction and even dissuades people from 
using its name.

For example, we frequenly use Map to refer to map instances. How often 
do we refer to them as AbstractMap ? Sometimes you do need to access the 
concrete class and in this case, HashMap, it is a good name. It would 
not be as *nice* to type IMap often or use MapImpl. Also, Naming 
AbstractMap BaseMap or DefaultMap hides that it's a partial 
implementation. Base* and Default* are good uses to define the commonly 
used implementation of the interface its name implies exists. It also 
shows that it was written to be extended or swapped out for a completely 
different implementation of the interface.

I like it this way :)
enjoy,
eli
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]