Check out this part of the linked docs: http://java.sun.com/docs/codeconv/html/CodeConventions.doc8.html#367
Quote: Classes Class names should be nouns, in mixed case with the first letter of each internal word capitalized. Try to keep your class names simple and descriptive. Use whole words-avoid acronyms and abbreviations (unless the abbreviation is much more widely used than the long form, such as URL or HTML). Examples: class Raster; class ImageSprite; Interfaces Interface names should be capitalized like class names. Examples: interface RasterDelegate; interface Storing; > -----Original Message----- > From: Simeon H.K. Fitch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 3:26 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Wait and Available > > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 04:46:04PM -0800, Steve Loughran wrote: > > > > > Thomas, I do not like the "I" convention, myself. In general, I do not > > like > > > embedding type information into names as types can be changed > and get out > > of > > > sync with the name. Indeed, interfaces often start life as abstract > > classes. > > > > type is bad -it is brittle and the compiler usually handles type safety > > anyway. functionality is a different case. Does the 'I' specify type or > > behaviour? > > <flame-fodder description="Go ahead, make my day!"> > Regardless of where you stand on this issue, I think the discussion is > getting a little crazy. If it isn't specified or disallowed in > > http://java.sun.com/docs/codeconv/html/CodeConvTOC.doc.html > > then, as they say, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do.". That is, > follow the conventions of the existing code base. If the interfaces in > the existing code base already have the 'I' prefix or the 'Intf' > postfix, then great. Otherwise (as is our case) don't use it, unless > you can convince the whole group to rename all the interfaces. > </flame-fodder> > > sim >
