Hmm, > "Abstract" describes the behavior (the class is an abstract > or partial implementation), where "I" is just a name > mangler...I suppose you > *could* argue that it describes the *lack of* behavior, but > that still seems like nonsense. ;-)
I just googled a bit :-) Interface. When necessary to distinguish from similarly named classes: InterfaceNameEndsWithIfc. Class. When necessary to distinguish from similarly named interfaces: ClassNameEndsWithImpl OR ClassNameEndsWithObject >From http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/dl/html/javaCodingStd.html By Doug Lea I actually remember starting with CustomerServiceIFC-like named classes about 1999, as we wrote our first middleware implementation (a CORBA clone), and someone told me, that I- is the better way to do it. My team adopted that and I used it since then, with maybe about 50-100 develops, who actually participated in different teams and projects, and noone ever told me, it wouldn't be right :-) You are the first person, who ever questioned it. Still, I explicitely welcome anything, that makes the code more readable, and I- in front of an Interface does the job. If I'm making Code Review for a component, I first look for the I-Files, where the components are described, then for "Base-" or "Abstract-" classes, and last, for the Detailclasses. Regards Leon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]