Matthias, Could we give the interfaces the "clean" name (i.e. the actual facade name), since that is the one people are going to be working with. And name the generated facade decorators: <some facade name>Decoractor and then the impl of the facade decorator <some facade name>DecoratorImpl? I think that would be easier to understand (since the names are more descriptive of what they are) and really the generated decorator shouldn't be even seen..its the interfaces that should be documented/used. What do you say?
Chad ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wouter Zoons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Matthias Bohlen'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Chad Brandon'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 1:48 PM Subject: RE: [Andromda-devel] MMFs: The final battle continues! > It seems to work this time (locally I took all cartridges except meta > and bpm4struts from the build process and still need to fix the > bpm4struts code) > > Some comment though: > > 1. do we really want to prefix our interfaces with 'I', Visual > Age/Eclipse style ? I think we should stick to the widely accepted > standard of placing a suffix on the implementation classes with 'Impl' > > You expose an object through an interface, why change the name of that > object when it is passed as an interface ? Shouldn't the interface have > the cleanest name of them all ? > > 2. I need to put the 'facades', 'facade-impls' and 'facade-interfaces' > outlets in the build.xml where I use the andromda task... I was > wondering what the first one is needed for > > thanks > > Wouter > > > ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click _______________________________________________ Andromda-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/andromda-devel
