|
Home > Archive > Apache Directory Project > December 2007 > [New Entry API] Name for classes
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
[New Entry API] Name for classes
|
|
| Emmanuel Lecharny 2007-12-15, 1:11 pm |
| Hi guys,
sorry to rehash the question...
A while back, we took a decision regarding names for interface
implementation. We had several different names all over the code, like
XXXImpl, BasicXXX, DefaultXXX, ConcreteXXX, BaseXXX where XXX is the
interface name. I think we agreed on the "Default" prefix, as far as I
can remember and find on gmail.
For ServerEntry, this will give :
(interface) ServerEntry
(abstract class) AbstractServerEntry
(class implementation) DefaultServerEntry
Is that ok for everybody ?
Thanks !
--
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org
| |
| Felix Knecht 2007-12-15, 1:11 pm |
| Emmanuel Lecharny schrieb:
> Hi guys,
>
> sorry to rehash the question...
>
> A while back, we took a decision regarding names for interface
> implementation. We had several different names all over the code, like
> XXXImpl, BasicXXX, DefaultXXX, ConcreteXXX, BaseXXX where XXX is the
> interface name. I think we agreed on the "Default" prefix, as far as I
> can remember and find on gmail.
>
> For ServerEntry, this will give :
>
> (interface) ServerEntry
> (abstract class) AbstractServerEntry
> (class implementation) DefaultServerEntry
>
> Is that ok for everybody ?
>
+1
Felix
> Thanks !
>
| |
| Alex Karasulu 2007-12-15, 1:11 pm |
| Yeap sounds good and like what we discussed.
On side note though what about the using the 'I' prefix for interfaces?
Like IFoo and IBar etc. I personally don't like it but many projects seem
to use it.
Not trying to rehash this but I just want your input again ...
Cheers,
Alex
On Dec 15, 2007 9:31 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> sorry to rehash the question...
>
> A while back, we took a decision regarding names for interface
> implementation. We had several different names all over the code, like
> XXXImpl, BasicXXX, DefaultXXX, ConcreteXXX, BaseXXX where XXX is the
> interface name. I think we agreed on the "Default" prefix, as far as I
> can remember and find on gmail.
>
> For ServerEntry, this will give :
>
> (interface) ServerEntry
> (abstract class) AbstractServerEntry
> (class implementation) DefaultServerEntry
>
> Is that ok for everybody ?
>
> Thanks !
>
> --
> --
> cordialement, regards,
> Emmanuel Lécharny
> www.iktek.com
> directory.apache.org
>
>
>
| |
| Felix Knecht 2007-12-15, 1:11 pm |
| Alex Karasulu schrieb:
> Yeap sounds good and like what we discussed.
>
> On side note though what about the using the 'I' prefix for interfaces?
> Like IFoo and IBar etc. I personally don't like it but many projects
> seem to use it.
I don't like it either
- It could also mean Internal, Integration, I... (so you'll need to document it and read documentation anyway)
- So it's just one more character (interpretable)
- Imaging what happens e.b. when you type I and hit CTRL-Space in Eclipse :-(
I'm absolutely fine without 'I'
I haven't had a look a the code so maybe it's just a useless note, but IMO it makes (if ever) more sense having
interface and implementation split into different modules for api (interfaces) and implementation.
Just my 2 cents
Regards
Felix
>
> Not trying to rehash this but I just want your input again ...
>
> Cheers,
> Alex
>
> On Dec 15, 2007 9:31 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org
> <mailto:elecharny-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> sorry to rehash the question...
>
> A while back, we took a decision regarding names for interface
> implementation. We had several different names all over the code, like
> XXXImpl, BasicXXX, DefaultXXX, ConcreteXXX, BaseXXX where XXX is the
> interface name. I think we agreed on the "Default" prefix, as far as I
> can remember and find on gmail.
>
> For ServerEntry, this will give :
>
> (interface) ServerEntry
> (abstract class) AbstractServerEntry
> (class implementation) DefaultServerEntry
>
> Is that ok for everybody ?
>
> Thanks !
>
> --
> --
> cordialement, regards,
> Emmanuel Lécharny
> www.iktek.com <http://www.iktek.com>
> directory.apache.org <http://directory.apache.org>
>
>
>
| |
| Alex Karasulu 2007-12-15, 1:11 pm |
| Felix,
These are all good points which for some reason this morning I could not
think about myself. Thanks for showing me again why I don't like this I
stuff.
Really though I don't like the "I" prefix because it reminds me of Mac and
the Mac Store which I hate because of all those moronic metro-sexual sales
snobs that think they know something ... 
Thanks,
Alex
On Dec 15, 2007 11:16 AM, Felix Knecht <felixk-1oDqGaOF3Lkdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Alex Karasulu schrieb:
>
> I don't like it either
> - It could also mean Internal, Integration, I... (so you'll need to
> document it and read documentation anyway)
> - So it's just one more character (interpretable)
> - Imaging what happens e.b. when you type I and hit CTRL-Space in Eclipse
> :-(
>
> I'm absolutely fine without 'I'
>
> I haven't had a look a the code so maybe it's just a useless note, but IMO
> it makes (if ever) more sense having
> interface and implementation split into different modules for api
> (interfaces) and implementation.
>
> Just my 2 cents
>
>
> Regards
> Felix
>
> like
> I
>
>
| |
| Emmanuel Lecharny 2007-12-15, 1:11 pm |
| I think we decided that 'I' stands for Idiot in code ...
PS : I don't maen I'm an Idiot ;)
Alex Karasulu wrote:
> Felix,
>
> These are all good points which for some reason this morning I could
> not think about myself. Thanks for showing me again why I don't like
> this I stuff.
>
> Really though I don't like the "I" prefix because it reminds me of Mac
> and the Mac Store which I hate because of all those moronic
> metro-sexual sales snobs that think they know something ...
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>
> On Dec 15, 2007 11:16 AM, Felix Knecht <felixk-1oDqGaOF3Lkdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org
> <mailto:felixk-1oDqGaOF3Lkdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>> wrote:
>
> Alex Karasulu schrieb:
> interfaces?
> projects
>
> I don't like it either
> - It could also mean Internal, Integration, I... (so you'll need
> to document it and read documentation anyway)
> - So it's just one more character (interpretable)
> - Imaging what happens e.b. when you type I and hit CTRL-Space in
> Eclipse :-(
>
> I'm absolutely fine without 'I'
>
> I haven't had a look a the code so maybe it's just a useless note,
> but IMO it makes (if ever) more sense having
> interface and implementation split into different modules for api
> (interfaces) and implementation.
>
> Just my 2 cents
>
>
> Regards
> Felix
>
> <mailto:elecharny-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> code, like
> XXX is the
> as far as I
> <http://directory.apache.org>
>
>
--
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org
| |
| Chris Custine 2007-12-15, 1:11 pm |
| Just in case you wanted another opinion to reinforce this, I don't like IFoo
for interface naming either. Hopefully we will never get a suggestion to
prefix class member variables with m_ xxx either (m_foo). These are both
pet peeves of mine. :-D
Chris
On Dec 15, 2007 9:53 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> I think we decided that 'I' stands for Idiot in code ...
>
> PS : I don't maen I'm an Idiot ;)
>
> Alex Karasulu wrote:
>
>
> --
> --
> cordialement, regards,
> Emmanuel Lécharny
> www.iktek.com
> directory.apache.org
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
|