I dislike the I in the interfaces, because if you follow the good
practice of programming against interfaces, you always have to deal with
this extra I. It's just more natural to code
Page nextPage = cycle.getPage("Login");
instead of
IPage nextPage = ...;
Just my 2 cents.
Andy
T.Mikov schrieb:
> Out of curiosity, why is prefixing interfaces with "I" considered bad ?
> It seems like a good thing to me, since an interface is different from a
> class, after all.
>
> regards,
> Tzvetan
>
> Erik Hatcher wrote:
>
>> For reference, here's what we're doing with Lucene.... there has been
>> a slew of API changes since the last stable release (version 1.4.3).
>> We've deprecated many API methods, but not broken any backwards
>> compatibility. We've even copied the entire test suite (which is
>> fairly robust) and kept one set of tests that deal with the now
>> deprecated API and updated the official test suite to use the new
>> API. This keeps us honest and prevents us from removing something
>> just yet. The next release of Lucene will be version 1.9 that is
>> backwards compatible with the old API deprecated. Once that is
>> released, we will remove all the deprecated stuff and release a 2.0
>> version. If you can compile with no deprecation warnings with 1.9 you
>> will be fine to upgrade to 2.0.
>>
>> Erik
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 21, 2005, at 10:00 PM, Ben Eng wrote:
>>
>>> I like that idea. At least it gets us started down the path towards
>>> the desired destination.
>>>
>>> Ben
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 09:33:52PM -0400, Erik Hatcher wrote:
>>>
>>>> Let's be pragmatic, though. It would be rude to simply remove things
>>>> just to clean up naming and break things for no strong technical
>>>> reason. I hate the I* names myself, as does Howard these days. An
>>>> intermediate step would be to put extend those interfaces with names we
>>>> like, deprecate the I* interfaces, and remove them in the subsequent
>>>> release (or something like that).
>>>>
>>>> Erik
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 21, 2005, at 5:03 PM, Hensley, Richard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Actually, last time I checked in with the committers, all of the
>>>>> I's in
>>>>> the interfaces were being removed. In my opinion a good thing, reminds
>>>>> me to much of my COM days and makes me twitch.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _____
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Tapestry Forum User [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 1:51 PM
>>>>> To: tapestry-user@jakarta.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: If we call it Tapestry 4.0, not 3.x, Maybe we would do much
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like "I" prefix to go in the interface name. As a user of
>>>>> Tapestry, why should I care if RequestCycle is an interface or class
>>>>> (implementation).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent using Mail2Forum (http://www.mail2forum.com) Read this topic
>>>>> online
>>>>> here: http://www.tapestryforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=1549#1549
>>>>> <http://www.tapestryforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=1549#1549>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
