On Sat, Aug 06, 2011 at 10:38:46AM +0200, Sébastien Brisard wrote:
> Hi,
> what's your policy regarding prefixing the name of abstract classes
> with "Abstract"? I got the feeling that if there is an underlying
> interface, then you add the "abstract"
> public interface Foo{...}
> public abstract class AbstractFoo{} implements Foo
>
> How about abstract classes which do not implement an interface? Should
> we call them Foo or AbstractFoo. Example: should RealLinearOperator
> really be called AbstractRealLinearOperator?
No; we assumed that there won't be an interface if it can be avoided.
Gilles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
