[Geotools-devel] Re: Geotools-devel digest, Vol 1 #1595 - 8 msgs

[Jeff Y. <je...@io...>]

Well, I do think we should change the name just because I know what a 
pain it is to have two classes with the same name in the same Source 
file.  My understanding is that the suffix Impl is a defacto standard 
for the default implementation of a specific interface.  If there are 
multiple implementations, then the class name should indicate what a 
specific implementation is used for.  My understanding is that the 
prefix Default is a defacto standard for the default extension of a 
specific (often abstract) base class.  As with interfaces, if there are 
multiple extensions, class names are supposed to indicate purpose.  To 
me, a GT prefix/suffix is redundant and confusing.  The package name 
should indicate that we are talking about a geotools class.

I have no idea how to record this as a vote.

geo...@li... wrote:

>Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 10:29:12 +1100
>From: Martin Desruisseaux <mar...@no...>
>To: geo...@li...
>CC: geo...@li...
>Subject: [Geotools-devel] Re: [Geotools-gt2-users] Call for opinions: naming convention
>
>For now the vote count is:
>
>  - Impl suffix:      4 votes
>  - Default prefix:   2 votes
>  - GT suffix:        1 vote (me...)
>  - No change:        1 vote
>
>
>I missed today IRC meeting, so no decision was taken on this issue. It 
>left us one more week for peoples to express their wish.
>
>	Martin.
>  
>