Re: [OT] Struts Approach

[Leon Rosenberg <st...@anotheria.net>]

Hmm,

> "Abstract" describes the behavior (the class is an abstract 
> or partial implementation), where "I" is just a name 
> mangler...I suppose you
> *could* argue that it describes the *lack of* behavior, but 
> that still seems like nonsense. ;-)

I just googled a bit :-) 

Interface. When necessary to distinguish from similarly named classes: 
InterfaceNameEndsWithIfc. 
Class. When necessary to distinguish from similarly named interfaces: 
ClassNameEndsWithImpl OR 
ClassNameEndsWithObject 

>From 
http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/dl/html/javaCodingStd.html
By Doug Lea


I actually remember starting with CustomerServiceIFC-like named classes
about 1999, as we wrote our first middleware implementation (a CORBA clone),
and someone told me, that I- is the better way to do it. My team adopted
that and
I used it since then, with maybe about 50-100 develops, who actually
participated in
different teams and projects, and noone ever told me, it wouldn't be right
:-)

You are the first person, who ever questioned it. Still, I explicitely
welcome
anything, that makes the code more readable, and I- in front of an Interface
does the job.

If I'm making Code Review for a component, I first look for the I-Files,
where the 
components are described, then for "Base-" or "Abstract-" classes, and last,
for the
Detailclasses. 


Regards
Leon




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org