Re: [Rails-devel] Updated rails 2.0 branch

[Erik V. <eri...@xs...>]

Stefan,

Strange things sometimes happen: your response ended up in my junk mail, and
I just found it.

I sent my question off-list because I was just curious about the reason why
you renamed Round to AbstractRound.  I had intended to reserve expressing my
dislike of that change for a follow-up, if still relevant at all.  But you
guessed it.  I don't see why the fact that a superclass is abstract should
be expressed in its name.  If a developer working on a subclass forgets
that, he'll find out soon enough.  But it's probably just a matter of taste
- as always.

On interfaces: I don't like the 'I' postfix either.
When we started Rails, some people gave their well-meant advices, and I did
not have much background in Java design, so I went ahead as they told me.
But here I am on your side.  All or most 'I' interfaces we have are useless
(in fact: annoying), and if you want to get rid of these, you have my full
support.

Erik.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...]
> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 5:14 PM
> To: Erik Vos
> Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] Updated rails 2.0 branch
> 
> Follow-up:
> I do not mind to make such discussions on-list, as this can help to
generate a
> list of coding standards for Rails.
> But that is up to you to decide (I did not even imagined to be this
off-list, but
> I wondered why it did not came back from the list ...) Stefan
> 
> 
> Erik:
> Rails2.0 should not be "my" project, even if I am the driving force
> behind the refactoring.
> 
> Good to see your comments:
> 
> Naming is convention, and mostly a matter of taste. First of all I do
> not like the postfix -I convention.
> 
> My preference for Interface names are to either use adjectives, for
> example Ownable, Observable etc.
> 
> If I realize that most classes that are derived from an Interface uses
> the same base implementation I use an abstract Class and prefer a short
> noun like State, Model etc.
> 
> If I do not come up with a good adjective for the Interface I use a
> short noun there (like Item instead of "Itemizeable" or "Roundable") and
> if I now add a baseline abstract class I prefix with Abstract (e.g.
> AbstractItem and AbstractRound).
> 
> However if every class that implements the Interface is derived from the
> abstract class there is no need to keep the Interface and I drop it, as
> it is easy to factor it out again later on - if needed.
> 
> I could have removed the Round interface altogether and rename
> AbstractRound to Round again, but I did not focus on that so far, as I
> intend to change the Round mechanism anyway.
> 
> But if you prefer to keep at least RoundI as historical artifact, this
> is possible.
> 
> Stefan