I typically use the suffix "Support" for non-required, non-abstract convenience base classes. The word comes from the JDK. See for example java.beans.PropertyChangeSupport.
I don't have any problem with renaming them to Base* classes. - Dmitri --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >I do not like the names of ~Support classes. ~Support or ~Helper > indicate > > >(for me) > > >that these are Helper classes with (often static) utility > functions. In > > the > > >Java API I think > > >I have found the usage of Abstract~ or Base~ much more often for > classes > > > > You've missed an important difference between Helper classes and > > Base/Abstract classes. Helper classes allow composition/reuse > outside of > > a > > class hierarchy. Abstract class' methods can only be used by > subclasses. > > > > Thanks for expressing that much better than I could. So the ~Suppport > classes > _are_ Base/Abstract classes, since they are abstract and only used by > > subclassing in Clazz, aren't they? > > Victor > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
