FW: Re: [dali-dev] class name changes

[Brian Vosburgh <BRIAN.VOSBURGH@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Markus Kuppe wrote:

Brian Vosburgh wrote:
  

   * Can we get rid of the "I" prefix on all our non-EMF interfaces? I
     don't see the benefit; but maybe someone can explain it to me.

Thanks.
Brian
    

using the I as a prefix for interfaces is an eclipse convention. see
http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Naming_Conventions#Classes_and_Interfaces
I think we should go along with it.
  

Hmmmm. I tend to like conventions, but this one is widely ignored (esp. when using EMF) and its rationale, "This convention aids code readability by making interface names more readily recognizable.", is mystifying. I've never encountered a piece of code or a bug or a design discussion that was confused because the parties involved could not quickly whether a type was an interface or a class. Never mind that the main benefit of this type of convention is that it be more widely followed than it currently is. Currently, even if the "I-" were helpful, you still need to figure out whether any non-"I"-prefixed type is an interface or class....

I guess I was asking for more insight as to the reasons we need to know whether a particular type is an interface or class. My experience is that I use interfaces more than the implementations (i.e. interfaces are used for field declarations, return types, method arguments, temporary variable declarations; while implementations are used only at object construction, which should be as localized as possible, and for performance tunings). So I want the interfaces to be the more readable of the two. I also dislike the EMF "-Impl" convention - it usually hints at a poor design - but I dislike it less than the "I-" convention because I don't have to read it or type it as often. :-)

So, that's my reasoning behind thinking the "I-" convention is not so helpful. Now I would love to hear the reasoning behind its being helpful, i.e. why is it important that interfaces be "more readily recognizable". Even if we don't change our hodgepodge of naming conventions, I still want to know; because, if it's convincing enough, I think I'm open to conversion. :-)

Brian