I don't think your proposed interface-naming-scheme is any better to read. Take the "Visualizer" for example. Well the name says everything needed: It IS A Visualizer and I really would hate to read every time I need a visualizer that I would need a "IVisualizer". And the objects I instantiate are "GraphVisualizer"-objects and so on. I like it that way. I consider that to be much more readable than any other thing. I also do not like attributes to be named bIsOptionChecked (boolean values), iItemCount (int-values) and so forth (older projects here at work used to use this naming-scheme - uagh!).
I also do not think a interface should always be an adjective. Adjectives are useful for, well, flags like cloneable and the like, but for real-life-objects (at least objects which represent objects in the real world)? Well these are objects and therefore should be substantives - "Visualizable" would sound strange, wouldn't it? Though this are just my personal preferences. I am indeed a bit harsh on this issue, I'm sorry. It's just that I'm so glad this has vanished here at work that I'd be quite unhappy seeing this naming-scheme return at JMeter. Greetings, Wolfram --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
