ok...
so what is Model called then? SerializableModel or something?
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
I know there is some personal preference concerning the IFoo method for naming interfaces. So I'd like to have some vote for keeping this naming convention, or dropping it.
I personally think that this stinks like a Hungarian notation and would like to get rid of it throughout the framework. It doesn't communicate intent: what is an IModel -> Model. If we have a class implementing the interface, and it provides a default and is not abstract, it could be named DefaultFoo or StandardFoo, or perhaps FooImpl. If it is abstract, it should be AbstractFoo, BaseFoo or FooBase.
Even Tapestry is renaming all interfaces to go without the I-prefix for the 4.0 release. I think we should not make the mistake Tapestry did: going live with the I-notation.
Martijn
------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ Wicket-develop mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ Wicket-develop mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
